Misery wrote:
It's the internet. Bastion of insanity and jackassery. Yes, there are sites that SHOULD be banned. I could probably come up with a list of at LEAST 50 that have literally nothing but negatives about them (really *bad* negatives, in most cases). There are many, many places that literally exist ONLY to do some sort of damage or cause some sort of havoc. Those sorts, frankly, should be destroyed.
Now, I personally have not seen ED, but everything I hear about it... here and otherwise... seems to suggest that it's pretty nasty. So there might be some merit in what he says.
Chans are worse. There are many things on the darknet worse than ED. It's extremely difficult to kill the spirit of a website. Take Silk Road for example. Drug trade galore. Drugs are horrible, but seizing the silk road domain and servers only prompted the spawning of five more Silk Road clones. You cannot 'ban' the concept behind a website. You can kill a website, sure... but anyone can create more of them. You can literally download not only the source code, but all of the content behind a website and put it up again on a different domain and server. Double points for sticking it on the Tor network (10x harder to take down). 'Banning' or 'removing' websites is as useless as the war on drugs, banning guns, and peace rallies. There is no utopia and there never will be. Trying to create a utopia creates more problems than it solves. Maybe these sites should be 'banned', but it doesn't matter at all because the only way to censor the internet is to restrict freedom of speech. The only thing on the internet that should be 'banned' is CP.
_________________
Do I have HFA? Nope, I've never seen a psychiatrist in my life. I'm just here to talk to you crazies. ; - )