On 11 March 2012 00:23, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10 March 2012 22:15, Andrew Gray <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The image filter may not be a good solution, but too much of the >> response involves saying "we're fine, we're neutral, we don't need to >> do anything" and leaving it there; this isn't the case, and we do need >> to think seriously about these issues without yelling "censorship!" >> any time someone tries to discuss the problem. > > There are theoretical objections, and then there are the actual objectors: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Gay_pornography > > The objector here earnestly and repeatedly compares the words "gay > pornographic" in *text* on the page to images of child pornography.
Well, yes, and everyone else involved in that discussion is (at some length) telling them they're wrong. There are *other* actual objections, and ones with some sense behind them; the unexpected Commons search results discussed ad nauseam, for example. I don't think one quixotic and mistaken complaint somehow nullifies any other objection people can make about entirely different material... -- - Andrew Gray [email protected] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
