Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Recent thread on Frost. Probably there are significant bits that have > been missed, I got this second hand. People might like to comment. > Personally I have always been of the view that it is entirely > permissible for an index site to be selective, and we would probably > link to such a site. Project policy, last time I discussed it with ian, > is that index sites are selected solely on their utility for finding > content. We cannot select whether or not to link to an index site on the > basis of whether or not it links to undesirable content without having > to deal with the ugly reality that a lot more than child porn is > illegal. For example if we select index sites on the basis of them not > linking to child porn, then we may be compelled not to link to index > sites which link to Scientology stuff, or patent infringements, or > pirated documentaries that are plainly in the public interest, or... > --snip "we should have selective indicies" debate--
Firstly I am strongly for a selective index or several. It's about time people stopped complaining about the lack of them and made one themselves. It could be relatively low maintenance, e.g. an edition-based site that endeavoured to update once a week and operated on a whitelist principle of only including what the author had seen (in practice probably reserving the right to take sites that claimed to be e.g. CP at their word and assume they were without review) and knew to be suitable under their published policy such as everything but cp. You wouldn't even need to run a spider, with a bit of scripting you could use a snapshot of an unfiltered index like DFI to generate it. Secondly, if/when such an index or indicies exist I don't see that it presents huge problems to the project. Just link to all the reliable general indexes without prejudice, or maybe a random subset of them if there are too many to make that sensible (but always including the "cleanest" ones? Hmm, I would vote yes but that's a bit difficult), and make it clear in the descriptions that index A links ALL content whereas B attempts to filter some content as per [link to their filtering policy]. You might still be attacked in an OMG CHILD PORN ONLY N CLICKS AWAY FROM THE WEB INTERFACE IAN IS HITLER style, but in this situation it's arguably the user's own fault for ignoring a clear warning that links to such content might be found where they then chose to go over a filtered alternative. This is not that much different from typing sick terms into any p2p app then being suprised when it, er, does what you told it to and finds links to sick material. Meanwhile the unfiltered, auto-spidering indicies should (all else being equal) always be the most up-to-date as no editoral review is needed, so an argument can be made on that basis for still linking them. Bob _______________________________________________ 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]
