[LeoSolaris]

The trouble will be the fuzzy definition of "extremism" which can be used by racists and religious fanatics to paint those seeking tolerance and equality if you crowd source. Doublespeak is exceptionally dangerous because it is so very hard to filter out from actual stories of repression and hatred.

Governments also make use of force to keep articles from being published before others can spot them or you can scrape them. Take China for example: They employ similar technology to censor and stifle speech that is deemed "disturbing".

I am not saying "do nothing" instead, I am making sure you're aware that you may get few results or counter-productive results depending on how you structure your site.

Be Careful!

[wongwf82]

I think similar to HN, the wisdom of the crowd will be able to downvote an article that doesn't apply but perhaps in the early days having a moderator to approve posts would help.

The plan is actually to fight from outside. The politicians want Internet to be filtered/censored but they haven't won that battle against the people yet. News sources like BBC and generally Western media covers the injustices quite well and safe to say people do not disagree with it. For example, wanting to stone or chop one's head can easily be deemed extreme by most people these days. It hasn't happened but there are trends showing that eventually it can happen so the goal is to prevent it from happening by identifying and highlighting it before it is too late.

Yes, I understand there are risks (of seditions) involved and so I want to structure the site to only show trends based on articles and not have user (or even my own) comments there.