I want to censor2.0

At first glance, the desire to censor is idiocy, what can we say at the second - too. But as always, the devil is in the details. And then I will even try to make you want to censor.

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

Censorship recommendation

if a website is recognized as extremist by the court, when trying to read it, a warning should first appear about the reasons for getting the site under censorship, but the user must be able to get to the site of interest. As for questionable sites such as sects, porn sites, hackers sites - this is the same thing, first the most detailed explanation of why it is better not to go there, and then choose to leave / watch. By explaining the reasons for censoring it would be nice to add tags.

Accessibility of censorship

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

Censorship customization

just as soon as I myself can decide what is useful for me and what is bad for 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 assessed. And the resulting assessment of the purity of the site to deduce from the weight of the censor, my assessment of the censor, evaluation of the assessment by other censors and other users. And if the Ministry of Culture receives a rating of 0 from me, then its recommendations obviously should not apply to me. In addition, I can indicate that the mat is not an obstacle for me, but for example, purchased articles is 50%. And so on.

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

Added by:
')
11:54 All those who use subscriptions for AdBlock to some extent use part of such a model.
12:11 How to solve a problem with fanatics and the herd.
The lonely fanatic is eliminated due to the fact that other users did not react to an imaginary threat, and if I didn’t rate this fanatic as trustworthy, then his weight is not enough to praise a good article.
With the herd a little harder. Take for example (goodbye Karma) a recent pseudo-scandal with Yota: first there is 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 is unverified, I do not appreciate the truth or falsehood, I am talking about verification. How can this state assess its own kremlin.ru on the part of the state? Why didn’t all subscribers see this censorship? Total - a simple tantrum.
However, the answer to all the criticisms of "technical error" drowned in the general paroxysm of the expulsion of demons. And here is the result for the fight against hysteria rises response wave of hysteria.
What would have happened in the case of censorship 2.0 - and almost nothing, it would be enough to mark the topic as unproved at the inception of the first wave of hysteria as unproven and for sane people and most neutrals everything would end.
12:32 I did not indicate this immediately, because I do not know how to implement it correctly, but the system should be able to forgive over time and by the results of correction (in the sense of becoming good), this also applies to site evaluation (well, it does not happen to anyone) and to the evaluation of the censors (well, that was a bad mood).