Well, good thing then that magic probably isn&#x27;t real - and that we actually do have a lot of knowledge about the real effects of words and ideas on people.<p>But anyway, the usual counter-arguments to censorship &quot;for your own safety&quot; apply, whether you name it censorship or &quot;sterilization&quot; or anything else.<p>For example, what would be the &quot;obvious bugs&quot; in that case? As I agree that certain communities can be harmful to certain groups of people and I would agree to blocking - because there is an established body of psychological literature that can tell you why and how those things are doing harm. And even in those cases it&#x27;s not always clear-cut.<p>(Such sites are already being blocked in a number of countries btw, for example germany.)<p>But the parent poster was talking about Tumblr and 4chan. They think those sites are &quot;contagious&quot;, I think they are not. So who would decide? And what about other cultures? If you ask an iranian or chinese official, they would tell you that the western media are highly contagious and harmful. Shouldn&#x27;t we block those as well then? Or whatabout showing Saw in our cinemas? Is that good for the mental health?<p>So far the western strategy in those matters was to give freedom priority and instead strengthen the immune system of the individuals (to keep using that metaphor). And I don&#x27;t see a good reason to change that.