On 20 Oct 2007 at 04:16:18 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:

We do it for shock sites, and antisocialmedia.net is odious enough to deserve not being linked.

I could see doing it for "shock sites" in the sense of things that would likely shock the sensibilities of anybody who stumbles on it unawares, like hard-core porn, shock-jock-style humor, ethnic hatred, and so on, to make people pause and think about just what they're going to and be aware of what they're getting themselves into -- though some might still argue that this was inherently a POV judgment, and insulting to the reader's intelligence; those same arguments were made with regard to the use of spoiler warnings earlier. But I can still see the point of doing it. However, ASM isn't such a "shock site" which would be inherently offensive to those not deeply involved in the struggles and controversies that site pertains to. It's not full of nudity, foul language, crude sexual references, and the like. It just has discussion of people and their alleged character flaws and bad actions. The New York Times found it suitable to link to when they did an article on the controversy. Parents are unlikely to find it grossly unsuitable for their children to read, though the kids would likely be totally bored by it.