On 4/18/01 1:24 PM, "Michael Carmack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 10:55:19AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote:
>> Neither is censorship! Censorship is when you prevent people from
>> obtaining information that they might want to obtain, not when you help
>> them filter out stuff they are not interested in. Do you consider your
>> spam filter to be censorship?
> On 4/18/01 1:24 PM, "Michael Carmack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course I don't consider my personal spam filter censorship,
> at least not in any negative sense. On the other hand, if the
> filter was applied by my ISP without my knowledge, I'm not
> sure I would feel the same, even if they did have a "switch"
> that allowed me to turn it off.
It's also well within any developer's individual rights of free expression
to create a porn-free search interface/portal for freenet keys if he so
chooses. A hypothetical porn-only and a hypothetical porn-free search
engine are equally exclusionary of certain content. But neither have an
exclusionary effect on the presence of media in freenet as a whole, only a
positive effect on the media individuals were actually looking for.
Now, if the "Freenet Project" had an official web-based search engine it
claimed as definitive there might be some validity to this argument, but as
it stands any search interface developed is every bit the expressive work of
that individual developer and they can say and do whatever they want.
I have every right to express myself and my beliefs, and my boredom with
porn by developing a www portal to Freenet content that transparently,
explicitly, even condescendingly excludes pornography if I so choose.
You have every right to disagree with the way i have expressed myself in
code and offer concrete alternatives which can be put at play as well in the
public marketplace.
-Rick
> Perhaps I simply read too much into what was written. But why
> did you choose to single out pornography, and make it seem
> like the default should have it be turned off? As someone else
> suggested, a less controversial proposal would be to implement
> boolean searching.
>
> Something just rubs me wrong about have a pornography-specific
> filter applied by default. Why not a racist-specific filter
> with a pro-racism switch? Or a "Lord of the Flies" filter with
> a pro-"Lord of the Flies" switch?
>
> Actually these are bad examples. There probably aren't a
> lot of people on Freenet hunting down racist material, and
> "Lord of the Flies" is better read sitting on the couch.
> Those filters could probably be turned on by default without
> anyone even noticing. In contrast, having to click that
> "give-me-porn" switch all the time would probably annoy
> just about everyone :-)
>
> m.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devl mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
