Want Censorship2.0

    At first glance, the desire for censorship is idiocy, to say nothing of the second, too. But as always, the devil is in the details. And then I will try even to provoke a desire for censorship from you.

    Censorship simply has to be, firstly, not final, but recommendatory , and secondly, not the lot of the elite (the state and “persons close to the emperor”) generally available . And to make life easier for consumers, it needs to be customizable . Now I will give examples for the Internet - here it is easiest to implement everything from the technical side.

    Recommendatory censorship

    if a site is deemed extremist in court, when trying to read it, a warning should first appear about the reasons for the site being censored, but the user must still be able to get to the site that interests him. As for dubious sites such as sects, porn, cracker sites - the same thing, first the most detailed explanation of why it is better not to go there, and then the choice is to go / watch. To explain the reasons for censorship, it would be nice to add tags.

    Public Censorship

    not only the state should have the right to decide what is good and what is bad. Surely everyone has friends whom he trusts, why is the opinion of a government far from the people more important than the opinion of close friends? Naturally, a single, global catalog of censors is already required here.

    Customizable Censorship

    as soon as I myself can decide what is useful to me and what is harmful to me, therefore, I should be able to edit the list of bad sites: add and remove sites from the list. Censors also need to be evaluated. And the resulting assessment of the cleanliness of the site to deduce from the weight of the censor, my assessment of the censor, evaluation estimates by other censors and other users. And if the Ministry of Culture receives a rating of 0 from me, then its recommendations should clearly not apply to me. Additionally, I can indicate that the mat is not an obstacle for me, but for example, purchased articles - is 50%. Etc.

    It looks like a kind of mega-Habr, but this similarity only shows the possibility of such self-censorship.

    Added:

    11:54all those who use subscriptions for AdBlock to some extent use part of this model.
    12:11 How to solve the problem with fanatics and herds.
    The lone fanatic is eliminated thanks to the fact that other users did not react to the imaginary threat, and if I did not evaluate this fanatic as trustworthy, then his weight is not enough to censor a good article in fact.
    With herda little harder. Take for example (goodbye karma) the recent Yota pseudoscandal: first hysteria about censorship, then hysteria about the fact that there is no censorship. From the very beginning it was clear that the position of the truth-seekers was untested, I did not evaluate the truth or falsity, I was talking about verification. How is it possible for the state to censor its own kremlin.ru? Why did not all subscribers have this censorship? Total - a simple tantrum.
    However, the answer to all the criticisms of the “technical error” was drowned in the general paroxysm of exorcism. And the result for the fight against hysteria is the response wave of hysteria.
    What would happen in the case of censorship 2.0 - and almost nothing, it would be enough to mark the topic at the beginning of the first wave of hysteria as unproven for sanepeople and most neutrals it would all end.
    12:32 I did not indicate this immediately, because I don’t know how to implement it correctly, but the system should be able to forgive with time and by the results of the correction (in the sense of becoming good), this also applies to the evaluation of sites (well, who doesn’t happen to anyone) and to the evaluations of censors (well, there was a bad mood or something).

    Also popular now: