On Tuesday 03 August 2010 15:34:32 xor wrote: > On Tuesday 03 August 2010 12:54:52 pm Matthew Toseland wrote: > > On Tuesday 03 August 2010 09:02:33 xor wrote: > > > On Tuesday 03 August 2010 09:50:05 am xor wrote: > > > > On Friday 30 July 2010 01:05:30 am Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > Any suggestions for what we should link to? It looks like both TUFI > > > > > and the Activelink Index sites have not been updated recently? > > > > > Criteria: A site must be useful for finding stuff on Freenet. It must > > > > > be easy to use and ideally have descriptions. It must not be likely > > > > > to lead newbies to places where they don't want to go without warning > > > > > them i.e. it must must clearly label evil content. > > > > > > > > > > We are #2 on Sourceforge's "What's Hot" for security on Linux. And > > > > > we're consistently rising at the moment. Have I missed a significant > > > > > press article? > > > > > > > > Quoting from a Freetalk thread called: > > > > "Who do I have to kill to get on the front page?" > > > > At the moment I don't filter the links, just the ActiveLinks, so you > > > > don't > > > > accidentally download any kiddie porn via an AL, but I can do a > > > > filtered version of the site if required, removing all the porn. I > > > > could perhaps > > > > > > The non-activelink version looks better. I will tell him via Freetalk > > > that he should provide a version of the non-activelink site which does > > > not provide child porn so we can add it to the default bookmarks. > > > > We cannot require the exclusion of child porn, or we will be forced to > > exclude ALL illegal content. We must only choose indexes on the basis of > > how useful they are for a new user trying to find stuff. That is our > > policy. However, usefulness includes accurate labelling (and maybe > > categorisation) and not accidentally running into something horrible. > > > > I will forward that and notify you when he has replied. For now you might > want > to add only one of his indexes, they seem good and daily updates are VERY > nice... > AFKindex is categorised and seems to have descriptions of everything, although some are overly concise. I do like its visual feel and its categories.
Linkageddon has no categories, and many sites have no descriptions. It is therefore not very useful and unless you know the language, there is a good chance of accidentally running into something unpleasant. Both indexes link to at least one (simulated) child porn site, without giving it a proper description. Interestingly, AFKindex claims not to link to porn, but actually does link at least to the one site mentioned. Personally I dislike activelinks even to simulated child porn, this is one thing I have against AFKindex ... Another issue with Linkageddon is that the activelink version would take a looooong time to load. IMHO it is best left as a gem that the user has to discover and take personal responsibility for (i.e. not blame us), ideally after figuring out what e.g. the L word means, at least for now. I have not added either index at present. I am leaning much more strongly towards AFKindex than Linkageddon but I don't believe it would be appropriate to link to either: - A site which activelinks "fantasy art" featuring underage nude children - A site which links to said page without any description And I am not sure we want to link to the activelink version of Linkageddon either. It takes ages to load and has very little useful information about each site.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
