On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If you want to make a valid counterargument, say that you are worried that > some censorious > ISPs and countries might use our category definitions as a starting point > for a bolt-on > censorship system that restricts access to these images. However, be clear > that then it > would be *them* who would be hiding our content, not us. The worst you can > accuse us of > is that we made it easier for them. That does worry me though. > We'd still be in good company, as all other major > websites, including Google, YouTube and Flickr, use equivalent systems, > systems that are > widely accepted. I thought youtube had community guidelines where users could report images they found offensive and those were removed from the site - although from these guidelines it is not clear how many users need to complain before something is taken down. 1? 10? 100? 1000? I can't link the guidelines, they're coming in Korean at Seoul airport, where I am. So I thought we were actually proposing something quite different from youtube, for instance. Cheers Bishakha _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
