On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Antony Blakey <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 23/01/2009, at 6:12 AM, Noah Slater wrote: > >> If you want to use CouchDB to build your porn empire, all power to you -- >> but >> I think that expecting a link from our wiki is a little too much to ask. > > Why? It's a page about apps using CouchDB, not a moral statement by a group > of developers. I'm particularly concerned with comments that say that > pornography is obviously unacceptable in the same sense that hate-sites are > unacceptable. What about sites promoting FPS games that tout the realistic > nature of their ultra-violent gruesomeness? Is sex really worse than the > increasingly realistic depiction of such violence? > >> * Gambling > > Gambling is legal in many jurisdictions. The issue of the illegality of > certain online gambling sites has more to do with issues of government > control of revenue and taxation than any moral concern. > >> * Pornography > > It's highly likely that a porn site linked from the couch site is actually > legal in many jurisdictions. And while I'm personally concerned about the > explicit misogyny of much porn, what about a gay porn site? >
I object to links to gay porn because of the rampant misandry. I am tired of being objectified just because I'm a man. >> * Untrusted sites for professional services, legal advice, online >> pharmacies, &c > > What is untrusted? In any case, an online pharmacy may be the only/best > source of pharmaceutical product in some places. > >> * Political or religious extremism, racial hatred, &c > > What qualifies as 'extreme' in a political sense is difficult to objectively > determine. IMO you can't use the 'promotes hate' line because much of the > mainstream political discourse I saw in the recent US election implicitly > (and sometimes explicitly) promoted hatred. Racial vilification is a clearer > issue, but what about homosexual vilification? And what is religious > extremism? Is your definition of 'extreme' determined by a western christian > viewpoint? > >> * Sites related to illegal activities, drug taking, copyright >> infringement, &c > > Some drug taking that is illegal in the US isn't illegal in some > jurisdictions (and in any case it's hypocritical considering the revenue > raised from tobacco and alcohol, both of which are more dangerous than many > illegal drugs). Still, IMO illegality is the only benchmark you can use for > any of these issues. > > Personally I feel sites whose primary purpose is copyright infringement > should be banned, but I'm in a minority in the connected community wrt > copyright. > > ------------------------------------------ > > I vote to allow anything that is legal in your hosting environment that > meets the uses-couch requirement. Don't make ANY moral judgement, because > you cannot objectively support such decisions, and it's only by making no > judgement that you are insulated from the effects of making or not making a > particular judgement. > > Alternatively, if you avoid anything that could offend anyone, then you > can't link to anything political, or religious. Or any sites that promotes > reproductive freedom or argues for abortion rights, or that has anything to > do with alcohol, or has pictures of people drinking alcohol (those last two > are offensive to muslims) etc etc. I've worked tangentially in > internationalization and come across some of these issues. It's a nightmare. > Don't go there. > > Antony Blakey > -------------------------- > CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd > Ph: 0438 840 787 > > Reflecting on W.H. Auden's contemplation of 'necessary murders' in the > Spanish Civil War, George Orwell wrote that such amorality was only really > possible, 'if you are the kind of person who is always somewhere else when > the trigger is pulled'. > -- John Birmingham, "Appeasing Jakarta" > > >
