If this should succeed I shall work as I do now, in other areas. I want to add content and keep out spam, not to dispute whether , for example, the "images that show a human penis" should include ones where the anatomical details are blurred, or only the outline visible. There is no point in discussing the details of censorship with censors; there is point is discussing the concept of censorship with the people who are inclined to support it.
Labeling designed to accomodate censorship is censorship, as Kim says. This labeling is proposed to be done on the basis not of the regular commons categories, but of special ones designed for the purpose; not on the regular WP editors, but a special committee. (There is a valid argument that the present manner of categorizing images needs some major improvements) As Lodewiijk says, anyone who wants to make use of these categories -for any purpose, is free to do so outside WP. f they want to design a filter imposed on access to WP using them, they are free to do so. If they want to use their own categories for this, they are free to do so. If they want to use computer image analysis for this, they are free to do so;, I personally consider these at best unproductive things to do, but anyone else is free to think & act otherwise.
The key question remains. ''Why on wikipedia'' when it even gives the appearance of being opposed to our principles.
As fr the slippery slope, Kim gives one way it can happen.There are others, which I think are pretty obvious to those who would support them. It would take very little to change the wording or appearance on the button to make it more obtrusive, or to initially hide the image. It would be easily possible to have the hide preference panel set to hide particular classes of images unless changed, instead of being blank. It would take the flip of a single bit to change the default to "hide," whether for anon users, or everyone. It wouldn't be that hard to make changing the default for some classes of images a two-step process, with the second being "are you sure?" , or even "are you of legal age in your jurisdiction?". All of these steps are under the control of the people who imposed the system in the first place.
This is why I asked the question, what more drastic proposals are being supported. at the board? The very fact that they were suggested at the board level implies there are some there who would do these things, and proves the slippery slope argument to be real. . Eventually we may not have someone as sensible as phoebe to stop them (and the others who feel this way. (but as they are not commenting it is not appropriate to not name them--I give them my apologies.) . Now, if I am wrong, and there were not any more drastic alternatives considered, I will need to retract this--but it was described as a compromise.