Keeping Away "Deathly Hallows" Endings

There's been much concern about filtering out 411 about the content of the final Harry Potter book.

The idea is to shut down potential 'channels' that could bring in the harmful information. It's been recommended to avoid news web sites, where eyes might chance upon a headline or blurb that gives the ending away.

If you use a news aggregator to gather your news, and only a news aggregator to gather your news, and if that aggregator allows for Filtering of articles based on keywords, then you could set it to keep out any "Harry Potter" stories.

In that way, a news reader, by virture of what it can keep out, would have a persuasive reason for adoption to those not yet hip to its ability to fetch. I know of no other News Source that would allow such customization of experience. In traditional media, there are 'self constraints.' We take it on good faith that Brian Williams will not suddenly blow the whistle.

Years from now, we might remark it as odd the dependence on voluntary restraint of a broadcaster. But that is how it is now. It means that we have a personal relationship with Mr. Williams. That is to be treasured because down the road, with comupter interfaces, you will have control but you'll be dealing only with systems, not persons with feelings, integrity, and values.

Ah, people. The opposite of the self-restrained advocate is the malevolent bellower intent on "runing it" for you.
In New York City, there are millions of human 'channels' and among them must be at least a few thousand MBs.If you travel with the Potter book you are a target.So, what can you do?

You can disguise your Potter interest by swapping book jackets. For example, replace Deathly Hallows with Great Expectations. If you cross paths with an MB, he could still try to ruin it for you, but unless you don't know Miss Havisham is the benefactor, you'll be unharmed?

But the jacket throw-off could backfire among benevolent restrainers. After all, the BR, wishing not to ruin someone's experience, will restrain when he detects the presence of fellows with potential for harm, but if he does not detect such danger, he may feel free to talk. Imagine being alone in a subway car, with your disguised book. The BR enters with a pal, eager to chat about Deathly Hallows. The BR scans the car, sees only you with the classic Dickens tale, and begins to talk about the "Hallows" subject matter. Your life is ruined.

Ah, then you would argue that the BR should have checked with you first or made a pre-statement (warning). Indeed, the BR in the above case, in practice is no different than a MB. It is not intent, but actions, that connect us in the big communication system. A failed MB is then more advantageous for your needs than a mistaken BR.