Migrants to IJ, 2007

Hmmm. I don't know about all that.

According to the reply and quote, above, it would surely look as if it falls on the "less mandatory" side of things - I rarely, if ever, see a "mandate" conditioned on "asks."

Maybe, at some point, IJ, itself, will replace the word "ask" with "demand," I don't know. If they do, they'll also have to at least qualify what constitutes "frequently," and perhaps even, "adult nature."

As to the rest, I disagree. The Internet is not a local daycare, nor should it ever become one, and flocking is self-censorship. Don't get me wrong, I fully agree that LJ, IJ, GJ, any business, can do as it likes with its TOS and its servers. However, adults are responsible for their own clickery, and can stop reading - at any time - ideas with which they disagree. Furthermore, they are responsible as well for the clickery of their children, who do not own the Internet anymore than anyone else. There are more than enough tools (including the authoritarian and simple, "no," available to allow parents to block any content they don't think their children ought see - and fewer tools, if any, available to the 18+ crowd to allow them to view flocked ideas.

Last, there is a fallacy in your statement that voluntary self-censorship amounts to less (and best) government: if everyone is being "responsible" and self-censoring, and controversial ideas are thereby kept from the broader populace, that only amounts to stronger government, albeit it with less personnel, which is at odds with the idea that less (weaker) is best.

At least, I think so, anyway.