On Saturday 04 June 2005 7:23 am, R. Armiento wrote: > The thing is, I *perfectly* agree with these statements. The "bug" here > is just about that the current setup may make it a little too easy for > people who will be offended by WebCollage to still accidently install > and use it. It is sensible to both 1) keep things available for people > who want to use them 2) help people avoid running things they do not > wish to run. Don't you agree with this general principle?
This all seems a little foolish. If you want to insure that users do not accidentally stumble across porn the only reasonable solution is to block access to the Internet itself. WebCollage does precisely what it claims to do, which is load random images from the Internet. If you want the distribution to automatically protect users from unrated or pornographic material then that is a feature request, not a bug. (PICS rating recognition on webcollage might be one solution) Anyone who connects to the Internet will eventually (usually sooner rather than later) come into contact with every form of pornography that the mind can conceive. Our responsibility is to provide access to the world's information resources, not to filter and censor them to meet some unquantifiable moral ideal. Users should make those choices for themselves. -- Ean Schuessler, CTO [EMAIL PROTECTED] 214-720-0700 x 315 Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
