I think you are on the right track here.
Energy, energy efficiency, Distribution in a system.
The more centralised, the more uneven the distribution. Decentralised localism might be solution.
My relationship with Adobe went from love to hate when they bought up Macromedia and stopped developing FreeHand in 2003. I'm still using it and won't ever pay for any of their other products. Venezuelans will just have to give up cloud and Adobe can't do much about anything else.
You can't ban language because some use it to lie. The censorship idea has eerie cumulative logic built in. Today we ban a site, tomorrow a race. I'd also like to point out that in the context of declining economies the structures that have ensured democratic processes are inevitably declining with it.
Everyone gets a seat because the whole population is around million and the capital 400K. It's less complex to manage than, say, London. Less dense.
The whole idea was a mayor's election campaign. Rest of the parties were all against it.
Referendum: ask any population if they'd prefer free transport. There: 75.5%.
The money comes from somewhere. Although Estonia had average less national debt, their infrastructure (health service, education etc) is post2008 screwed like everywhere else.