Gregory Maxwell wrote: > How awful would it be to create a community managed list of 'safe > destinations' distributed by the directory servers as a single object > which exit operators could include in in their exit policies and > further refine with local rules?
I would not like _one_ list as it could be single point of failure. E.g. someone could be threatened or required by a court to remove a site from the white-list. Also it could lead to discussions attacked by censorship being concentrated on a few white-listed servers. When there is a new development in e.g., Iran and new free-speech blogs appearing every day, these blogs should be accessible though TOR from day one. > Some exit operators would likely switch to safe-mode, reducing the > total amount of universal-exit capacity but if the safe list included > enough high traffic sites it would probably more than offset the loss > and arguably anyone who switched was likely to quit in any case.
