Tim Starling wrote: > Solution 1: Exercise editorial control to remove particularly > offensive images from the site. > > Standard answer 1: Some people may wish to see that content, it would > be wrong for us to stop them. > > Solution 2: Tag images with an audience-specific rating system, like > movie classifications. Then enable client-side filtering. > > Standard answer 2: This could potentially enable censorship which is > wrong as per answer 1. Also, we cannot determine what set of content > is right for a given audience. By encouraging people to filter, say, > R-rated content, we risk inadvertently witholding information that > they would have consented to see, had they been fully informed about > its nature. > > Solution 3: Tag images with objective descriptors, chosen to be useful > for the purposes of determining offensive character by the reader. The > reader may then choose a policy for what kinds of images they wish to > filter. > > Standard answer 3: This also enables censorship, which is wrong as per > answer 1. Also, tagging images with morally-relevant descriptors > involves a value judgement by us, when we determine which descriptors > to use. It is wrong for us to impose our moral values on readers in > this way. > > The fundamental principle of libertarianism is that the individual > should have freedom of thought and action, and that it is wrong for > some other party to infringe that freedom. I've attempted to structure > the standard answers above in a way that shows how they are connected > to this principle. > > Those who rely on "standard answers" don't really exercise freedom of thought, only an absence of thought.
Ec _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l