On Dec 26, 2010, at 5:03 PM, Julia wrote:
On Dec 11, 2010, at 7:42 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote:
..."net nanny" software block and report any search for any string
containing the word "breast"
...that may prevent a woman from learning how to examine herself for
cancer or her options if she is diagnosed...
...policy of removing pictures of breastfeeding. I know of a few
images that disappeared even though they were privacy-restricted in
such a way that the only possible audience was
clothing-optional-aware and I doubt there were any complaints to
speak of, so I may very well be wrong. The rules seem to be somewhat
variable, and the only consistent cases seem to be ones with one or
both nipples visible.
one friend who pushed that about as close to the limit as they seem
to tolerate -- the one of her in *only* a skirt and pasties is still
up...
Charlie
thanks for the link, charlie all is explained:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/breastfeeding-facebook-
photos/
i found this on facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39521488436
evidently there are a lot of riled up women about this. evidently,
some few were using breastfeeding as a way around the facebook
restriction on frontal nudity. i still think this is a tempest in a
teapot.
personally, i think free speech is being abused on the internet. i
do
not want my eight year old to accidentally access porn when clicking
on some spam site, or by googling white house.
i don't want to censor the internet, but perhaps there should be a
separate internet isolating any porn related material?
jon
This would be an excellent idea if the porn industry could be
persuaded to
go along with it.
As perverse and counterproductive as this sounds, said industry, as
a whole,
seems bent on the exact opposite, and in fact, in many cases the less
scrupulous players in the industry go to great lengths to invade
inboxes and
hijack web searches specifically to avoid being confined to the target
market that would be happy to go find them wherever they are.
This was made abundantly clear by the somewhat paradoxical maneuvering
surrounding the proposed .xxx TLD for porn domains. The idea of a
porn-specific TLD made perfect sense, as it would have provided a
place
where interested adults could easily have gone looking for whatever
they
wanted, and would have made the process of blocking porn from underage
computer users (or any others whom society feels the need to protect
from
porn) relatively trivial and straightforward.
* * * * * * * * * *
Really?
When I was first aware of an attempt to create the top-level
domain .xxx,
the porn industry was on board at the time, it was a bunch of
religious
leaders that were so vocal that it was blocked it then. At least,
this was
what I heard from someone who was in close communication with folks
members
of the ICANN board.... Said individual expressed disbelief and
couldn't
figure out why the *hell* any religious folks would get involved in
trying
to *block* something like that.
Julia
The porn industry was originally in favor of it, I believe, until
there was discussion of the fact that porn sites would not be
statutorily required to be in the .xxx TLD (and in fact might start a
land-rush to register both in and out of .xxx and possibly crowd out
more cooperative actors in the market who were trying to register new
sites/domains in .xxx) , and then discussion of the possibility of
*creating* such a statutory requirement (which was the gist of my
devil's-advocate followup) was what spooked the industry, as I
understand it.
The religious groups seemed to object on the grounds that creating a
TLD would somehow legitimize and/or admit the existence of pornography
itself, which (disturbingly) was also the position of the US Commerce
Dept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.xxx (this also jibes somewhat with my
own memory of all this)
Somewhere along the line (again, both from the article and my own
recollection), ICANN made a statement to the effect that they don't
regulate content of sites they provide registrations for, so
discussion became somewhat moot at that point.
I think I'm going to back away from my earlier statement that it would
be an excellent idea. In retrospect, it would be an excellent idea on
paper and implemented entirely by cooperative actors (like the ones
who could be trusted not to use open SMTP relays to send mass
quantities of unsolicited commercial email). In the real world, with
a significant minority of cynical and pragmatic, if not outright
dishonest, actors, within a dysfunctionally skewed framework of social
perceptions and rules, I'm thinking it's not a good idea at all, just
because there's no way to get to a fair implementation of it from
here. The problem is a lot deeper than domain registration.
_______________________________________________
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
