On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <m...@uberbox.org> wrote: > On 01/12/2011 7:58 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: >> "[...] yes, we may be building up a list of categories that could be >> reused by censorware sellers, but that’s not our primary intention." > > I'm sorry, but who the fsck cares about intentions? The road to hell is > paved with the best ones. The net effect is the only thing that counts. > > A personal filter that allows individual editors to hide things they > don't want to see is okay-ish, and the concept is something I can get > behind. I still think we're over-engineering this - a simple "hide all > images everywhere/on this page" button with a trivial "show/hide that > specific image" toggle is more than adequate; but I'm not fundamentally > opposed to a more elaborate system *iff* it can be demonstrated to not > be usable by third parties to find out -- let alone use or impose -- > what those settings may be. > > Building a system that can (and /will/) be used for censorship is a > fork-level nonstarter, and "but we didn't intend it for that" is not a > justification. Prejudicial labeling is already *known* to be usable > (and used) for censorship; why do you think librarians oppose any form > of it as a matter of principle? > > Surely nobody here has the hubris to believe that we, amazingly, know > better than what over half a century of experience has taught our > predecessors? >
Uhm, that was not actually what I wrote, but what I was rebutting.... -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l