A core principle of Commons is that it is NOT generally Censored. However, given changes in the direction of online policy globally, this position is as I see that becoming increasingly "incompatible" with an environment where where mass collaboration websites, relying on community participation are as a result of an imposed external policy expected to not trust their participants. It is simply not feasible to try and be entirely open in access relying on community participation, whilst at the same time trying to maintain a position of not filtering content.

The "Community", as a whole needs to make a firm decision as to whether it wants Commons to be a site where genuinely 'anyone can edit' (and thus make a necessary but painful, compromise over the removal a small portion of 'sensitive' content, compared to the majority of non sensitive content) or a site where 'anyone that has the means to support and agrees to an imposed trust architecture can edit' The imposed requirements of 'responsibily' maintaining the 'sensitive' content in this latter model, would mean that certain participants, (long term users such as myself included) could effectivly be frozen out of full participation due to lacking access to specific technology required for such 'trust architecture' to be confident in allowing full participation.

Some recent deletion discussions have brought this to the boil. The continued 'deffered responsibility' and 'paradoxical pragmatism has to end.