On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 03:05:39PM -0700, Tom Kaitchuck wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > >It is quite disturbing for the average human to load up Freenet, have a > >look at TFE, and figure "hmmm, so some of that's in my datastore? Fuck > >you all...". But as far as constantly picking offensive content, that is > >not true.. if the mechanism works, complaints should be extremely rare, > >because of an effective deterrent, and we don't need to be quite _that_ > >blunt with them. We'd certainly have a list of current complaints, and > >people would often follow others, and there would likely be means to > >discuss them, but anyone who wanted to could verify that the process was > >not being abused. > > > > > If people look at TFE and says, "Hey that looks bad" and click a few > links, how many more people have to look at (or get a link to) what the > first person was offended by? Your assumption in saying that it will be > infrequent is that there will be a standard for acceptable content, over > which general agreement can be reached by a few people viewing the > offending content without the benefit of real context. This is not the > case, and I don't expect that freenet's users will simply accept that > their site is considered bad. They will try to keep it available and > because there will be some people that agree that it is good, they will > likely succeed. I can't see how this could result in FEWER people seeing
No, they won't. Because they will be excluded from the network. We are not just talking about finding stuff and blocking it. In order to have an effective deterrent we need to have effective sanctions - isolating a node, or a block of nodes, being the key sanction. And it wouldn't necessarily be "in isolation" - best to do it at the whole-site level, it gives you the most information, the best chance of tracing the source etc. > things they don't like. If we made sure the pages freenet links to by > default are sufficiently well categorized that users will not click > links to pages that connect to material that they find offensive, then That implies we have index -> porn index -> child porn index. People will still see it. The only way to have people not see it is for the default indexes not to link to child porn at all. Which will not happen because of their political views. > the only way would see offensive material is if some web page was > deliberately misleading people into clicking an offensive link. (Why > would other sites link to such a page?) That's not the issue. The issue is that a majority of the population and a significant minority of the people who are most in need of freenet will not be able to use it because it distributes child porn, and makes no attempt to impede its distribution, and actively thwarts attempts to locate the source of such material. > > So if we are causing people see more offencive content, I don't think > this will improve the user's experence even if they know they are > helping to censor it. We certainly would not cause people to see more offensive content, unless the system is a total failure. Which is possible but by no means certain on the evidence and arguments I have seen so far. The threat of exclusion from the network and being known to your friends to have posted this filth should be sufficient. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
