We are not talking about filtering standard sex education images as you might find in a school book. We are talking about images or videos of women drinking their urine, masturbating with a toothbrush, or having sex with a dog.
Andreas On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Michelle Gallaway <mgalla...@gmail.com>wrote: > You know, while I'd rather my son learns about human sexuality in a way > that I'm comfortable with and can control, the reality is that he's not > going to come to his mum for that information! I'd really much rather he > reads that information on Wikipedia, (even if that information is not > perfect), than gets his education on the topic from *actual* internet > pornography. In this sense putting in a "family friendly" content filter > like Larry Sanger advocates would probably be a massive own goal. > > If there are any other mothers on the list, I'd be interested in hearing > their thoughts too... > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Tom Morris <t...@tommorris.org> wrote: > >> >> The problem with all enforced filtering systems is that they aren't >> going to stop kids getting to porn (15-year-old boys have both a lot of >> time, technical expertise and will find creative ways to get their hands on >> porn), but they often will over-censor. Back in the 90s, GLAAD put out a >> report called "Access Denied" that described how filtering technology was >> restricting access to LGBT information sites. My university used to prevent >> students (adults!) from accessing the Wikipedia article on "Same-sex >> marriage" because, well, the URL contains the word "sex". Breast cancer >> awareness/information sites get hammered for the word "breast". >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
