betawolf33

Oh yes, we must protect people from being exposed to certain ideas. Else they might be convinced those ideas are true. This is for everyone's protection.

Interesting idea.

One thing that this would be good for is almost by default members get experience working with the technologies the site is running -- they learn to use Github, deploy node.js, etc. It gives them a working technology base for their own projects.

One problem I foresee is that without a clear discussion about where the site is going, it could quickly become rife with lots of poorly-interacting features. Another is that delays in merging might well turn away valuable members.

Still, interesting project.

Talk about a daring public outreach initiative.

"one of our agents will be coming around to swipe you" <- I honestly don't know what this means.

Non-violent resistance doesn't always mean simply protesting occupations. If a population is motivated enough, a non-violent resistance movement could look very much like a country which anybody could invade, but nobody could control.

To apply an example: If this resistance was trained into the British public, and the Germans marched into London and declared themselves conquerers, the population would ignore them. When they are ordered to build factories here, to report to detention centres there, they would simply refuse to. Threats and demonstrations of force aimed at extracting compliance by brutalising certain segments of the population would be disregarded by the rest of the population[1].

Supplies for the conquerors would go missing or never be produced. They would have to rely on their own manpower to oversee all operations at gunpoint. As soon as the men with guns are called away somewhere else, work stops, workers disappear.

Any population which could respond in this manner would be unconquerable not in terms of territory, but in terms of spirit, which I believe is the sort of thing Ghandi was after.

The degree to which you could ever implement this system is dubious. I'm not sure you could get large groups of people to act that way. But if you could, it would be very effective.

[1] This is the bit I find hardest to see in practise.

1) I've browsed the internet happily for many a year without having pornography 'shoved in my face'. If they find it, they were almost certainly looking for it.

2) If they're looking for it (see above) then an imperfect filter just means they don't find the known, safe sites.

3) Yes, it does. It is your right as a parent to decide what's appropriate for your child. It's not your right as a parent to force other people in households without children to report to a government-friendly list about their sexuality.

4) Well, such restrictions can still exist online. Paid porn sites can prevent the underage getting access. But really, why do we do this? Why is a young teenage girl or boy to be prohibited -- by law rather than parental consent -- from seeing sexual content? You say the internet should fall in line with these restrictions, but maybe those restrictions should be done away with.

I don't understand. Who upvotes content without reading it?

As mohawk says, the content of the summary article fairly clearly reflects the gist of the publication. It was exploratory work, they think that that's the key factor but aren't sure.