On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Bishakha Datta <bishakhadatta(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Milos Rancic
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker
Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post
that Sue was talking
in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating,
and it is intimidating
others who may have useful and progressive ideas
but are repeatedly
> the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or
US/not from the US. The implication of your post
is "if you're a woman
> the US, your opinion is invalid". Your post here did not further the
> discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making
As mentioned by Nathan and Oliver, I want to hear what do women think
about the filter, how does it correlate with positions of men and how
does it correlate with cultures.
I am not convinced that all women feel the same way about the filter, nor
all men - similarly, cultures are not homogenous. It is hard to generalize
on any of these bases (plural of 'basis'), because there is no simple
Different individuals can have different responses, regardless of gender or
culture. It doesn't tie in so neatly.
Speaking for myself, no, I can't see myself using the filter. So what? That
doesn't mean I use myself as a proxy for the rest of the world to decide
that no one else should, or that anyone who does is somehow a lesser human.
And yes, I'm against censorship, but as I've said before, I don't see the
filter as proposed as censorship.
The world is made up of different folks, whether we like it or not. And
as we provide for the person who doesn't flinch when seeing a vulva, why is
it so wrong to even think about the person who does flinch when he or she
sees a vulva? That's what I don't get.
Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and
what not. It should not be our job to censor our own content. The strongest
argument I read against this has been - it is not something WMF and the
board should implement and develop, If there was a need to censor/cleanse
graphic content, there would a successful mirror or a fork of the project
already somewhere. Instead, we have small distributions/projects which use
1-2 year old offline dumps to cleanse and then consider safe.
Now, If you were to apply this argument to a government, or a regime and
they decide on removing things that make them flinch - how different would
we be from dictatorial regimes who limit/restrict access to Wikipedia for
all the people that do flinch? I can point to Indian I&B ministry issues or
Film censor board of India, but you probably know more about them than me.