The problem is that the list of blocked sites seems to have been poorly thought out in general, a lot of websites became collateral damage. Among the blocked si

The problem is that the list of blocked sites seems to have been poorly thought out in general, a lot of websites became collateral damage. Among the blocked sites were a small video hosting site that was complying with removing copies of the video that surfaced, and a website for creating web citations/historical snapshots of static webpages (which seems ridiculous because it is technically impossible for the site to have anything but static content). Of course the largest sources of this video were not targeted by these blocks, which the cynic in me attributes to their market share. Beyond the double standards and collateral damage a question should be raised; is blocking these sites actually stopping the spread of the video, or is it creating a taboo and playing into the exact kind of conspiratorial disinformation the shooter believed? Obviously the video is vile, but by taking such extreme reactions don't we just give ammunition to the people who believe like the shooter and reenforce their misheld belief of being victims?