André Engels wrote:
I don't see a difference. I want to show images showing so-and-so, or I do not want to see them. It's all about saying whether images show so-and-so.
In our normal categorization scheme, "so-and-so" might equal "a beach" or "a woman wearing a swimsuit." Such classifications are straightforward, uncontroversial and not mutually exclusive.
Under the proposed setup, "so-and-so" might equal "nudity." We'd need to decide whether the aforementioned photograph of a swimsuit-clad woman on a beach qualified, even if she merely appeared in the background (and therefore wouldn't be a factor in our normal categorization).
If people want to do it, it is their choice how to use their volunteering time. If they don't, then bad luck to those using the feature.
It's reasonable to oppose the change on the basis that it would divert time better spent on other tasks, particularly given the likelihood that many non-supporters would participate in the process to prevent misuse.
Additionally, if and when the WMF proudly announces the filters' introduction, the news media and general public won't accept "bad luck to those using the feature" as an excuse for its failure.
David Levy