On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 11:40:24PM +0100, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 26 August 2011 12:35, Kim Bruning
implies that the proposed image hiding feature is a less repressive
form of censorship. I do not see the proposed feature as censorship - all
the images remain on the site. Nothing is removed. Nothing is suppressed.
The image hiding feature itself is not a form of censorship, as far as
I'm aware of.
I'm not aware of any other projects currently using a similar
one, but it doesn't seem to have caused the end of the world there :-)
Right, because the image hiding feature itself is not a problem. No one
has a problem with it AFAIK. No issues have been raised with the concept
of hiding images in this thread IIRC.
The only thing ar could improve is to have the feature for all images,
not just those with templates. (This would fix a potential minor exploit).
The novel proposal is to have an image filter that would *hide images by
category*. And the problem there is the categories themselves, because
categories used in an image filter are per definition non-neutral.
(They're saying "you might want to filter this", and that's non
neutral). ALA has -for something like half a century- said that this
kind of categorization is "a tool for censorship".
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72