On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
<tobias.oelgarte(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
I neither agree. We decide what belongs to which
preset (or who will do
it?), and it is meant to filter out controversial content. Therefore we
define what controversial content is, - or at least we tell the people,
what we think, that might be controversial, while we also tell them
(exclusion method) that other things aren't controversial.
No, we don't
tell that other things aren't controversial. I consider
that a ridiculous conclusion to draw. It's just that we have not yet
found that it is under one of the categories we specified as
blockable. There are other categories that might be specified, but
alas, we don't have them yet.
Do you remember your last mail in which you said
that my viewpoints are
extreme? I was writing that considering anything controversial or not
are the only neutral positions to take. You opposed it strongly. Now you
start your claim with the preposition that we will eventually find
categories in a way that anything could be seen as controversial? Thats
a 180° turn from one mail to the other. Just to find new arguments?
I will read the rest of your answers later on. For now i have some work
to do. Maybe you want to enlighten me how that is possible.
nya~