On Dec 11, 2010, at 7:42 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote:
..."net nanny" software block and report any
search for any string containing the word "breast"
...that may prevent a woman from learning how to
examine herself for cancer or her options if she
is diagnosed...
...policy of removing pictures of breastfeeding. I
know of a few images that disappeared even though
they were privacy-restricted in such a way that the
only possible audience was clothing-optional-aware
and I doubt there were any complaints to speak of,
so I may very well be wrong. The rules seem to be
somewhat variable, and the only consistent cases
seem to be ones with one or both nipples visible.
one friend who pushed that about as close to the
limit as they seem to tolerate -- the one of her
in *only* a skirt and pasties is still up...
Charlie
thanks for the link, charlie all is explained:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/breastfeeding-facebook-
photos/
i found this on facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39521488436
evidently there are a lot of riled up women about
this. evidently, some few were using breastfeeding
as a way around the facebook restriction on frontal
nudity. i still think this is a tempest in a teapot.
personally, i think free speech is being abused on
the internet. i do not want my eight year old to
accidentally access porn when clicking on some spam
site, or by googling white house.
i don't want to censor the internet, but perhaps
there should be a separate internet isolating any
porn related material?
jon
This would be an excellent idea if the porn industry could be
persuaded to go along with it.
As perverse and counterproductive as this sounds, said industry, as a
whole, seems bent on the exact opposite, and in fact, in many cases
the less scrupulous players in the industry go to great lengths to
invade inboxes and hijack web searches specifically to avoid being
confined to the target market that would be happy to go find them
wherever they are.
This was made abundantly clear by the somewhat paradoxical maneuvering
surrounding the proposed .xxx TLD for porn domains. The idea of a
porn-specific TLD made perfect sense, as it would have provided a
place where interested adults could easily have gone looking for
whatever they wanted, and would have made the process of blocking porn
from underage computer users (or any others whom society feels the
need to protect from porn) relatively trivial and straightforward.
The problem, and this seems to be endemic to the industry as far as I
can tell, is that the industry would very much rather do business the
way it does now and take every possible tactical and/or strategic
action available to make sure they're not only net-ubiquitous, but
that they actually crowd out legitimate web search results for
completely unrelated subjects, and appear in your inbox even if your
junk mail filtering is strong enough that you end up filtering out
your friends before you filter out the porn ads. Rather than target a
perfectly willing and sex-positive demographic that would be happy to
pay for their premium content, they would rather make the maximum
possible nuisance of themselves trying to convert maybe one in a
thousand or so of the largely sex-negative remainder of the population
that doesn't want to see anything they have to offer. As well as make
themselves maximally available to your kids.
I've observed this in relation to just about everything there is to do
with the industry, and seen it time and time again. And it's always
completely puzzled me, because to me it's always seemed to be a bad
business policy as well as ensuring they remain marginalized. But I
don't run that industry.
As for free speech, deciding what's abuse of it and what's legitimate
use of it is a formitable philsophical problem indeed. Likewise,
which restrictions on it are legitimate and which are overbroad and
possibly draconian. There's room for considerable debate along that
boundary. I believe that there is, in many cases, abuse of freedom of
speech in the industry, given their aggresively confrontational
marketing strategies, but I would not dare point out specific examples
as unambigiuously abusive or not, because I doubt I could debate
either side to the extent that someone else could not come up with an
equally or even more compelling opposing view.
And I repeat my assertion that our society (particularly that of the
USA, and even more particularly that of some regions of the USA and/or
specific segments of the population) is not exactly objective or even
rational on this subject, and is influenced by social and cultural
standards that I consider dysfunctional and destructive at the very
least. Not the least of which is the perception that nudity == sex,
or the related perception that sex == bad/dirty/evil. Or a whole list
of others. So there are likely to be many strong op
