Christiaan Briggs wrote:
Nicholas Knight wrote:
I understand it, what I don't understand is why you feel sufficiently strongly about it to feel offended.
Because I'm sick and tired of corporations and other people attempting to control how I see the world and attempting to replace it with some kind of Disney World. Much the same practice is taking place on our televisions screens with regard to war. People have no idea about the realities of war because unfathomable efforts are made to ensure they get a Disneyfied version of events.
I don't want to live in Disney World, I want to live on Earth with all the pain and diversity that entails. I don't see the human body as a vessel of sin and shame. I don't have issues with the human body and what it is capable of. Treating this image differently by in-lining by default is a statement in itself along these lines. Creating a solution that caters to individuals and institutions skirts around this issue by leaving it up to the user to decide.
The solution has been "created" already. It has not been implemented, which will require someone with PHP skills. You may have them. I do not.
What solution is that?
Christiaan
The majority of users don't want to have decide. It's one of the reasons why software like Firefox came about - to remove bloat and give users what they want. Interface bloat gives users extreme control over the software, but at the cost of confusing people and irritating them. You are still given a choice of clicking on the link (which should appropriately describe what you're in for and what the image is about) or not, and if my suggestion(s) in one of the other emails I sent to the list are implemented, you will have the choice of viewing the image inline as well.
I agree a technical solution is required, but until we have one, linking is better than offending a substantial number of our readers. It's the psychology of the thing - if people don't have full-blown images thrust in their face, they naturally assume it's safe. It doesn't make sense, but from my experience, the appearance of being clean is the best middle ground between having no potentially offensive images at all and shoving it in readers' faces.
Until we can have an option of viewing the same document with or without potentially offensive images, we *must* err on the side of caution and provide a link. It's the same as not directly linking to Goatse but giving users' an option to visit the site if they *really* want to. Why should this be any different? Is not directly linking to Goatse attempting to control how you see the world?
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])