On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc(a)uberbox.org> wrote:
On 01/12/2011 7:58 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
"[...] yes, we may be building up a list of
categories that could be
reused by censorware sellers, but that’s not our primary intention."
I'm sorry, but who the fsck cares about intentions? The road to hell is
paved with the best ones. The net effect is the only thing that counts.
A personal filter that allows individual editors to hide things they
don't want to see is okay-ish, and the concept is something I can get
behind. I still think we're over-engineering this - a simple "hide all
images everywhere/on this page" button with a trivial "show/hide that
specific image" toggle is more than adequate; but I'm not fundamentally
opposed to a more elaborate system *iff* it can be demonstrated to not
be usable by third parties to find out -- let alone use or impose --
what those settings may be.
Building a system that can (and /will/) be used for censorship is a
fork-level nonstarter, and "but we didn't intend it for that" is not a
justification. Prejudicial labeling is already *known* to be usable
(and used) for censorship; why do you think librarians oppose any form
of it as a matter of principle?
Surely nobody here has the hubris to believe that we, amazingly, know
better than what over half a century of experience has taught our
predecessors?
Uhm, that was not actually what I wrote, but what I was rebutting....
--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]