[Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

Risker risker.wp at gmail.com
Mon Oct 10 20:52:48 UTC 2011

On 10 October 2011 16:47, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:35 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> >
> >> Given comments like this, it seems the contingent in support of filters
> >> is utterly and completely delusional. That proposal mitigates none of
> >> the valid objections to enabling other forces from just taking what we
> >> would be foolish enough to supply, and abusing the system to all its
> >> delight. Please come up with something more realistic.
> >
> > Please elaborate (ideally without hurling insults).
> >
> >
> Gladly. If you sense a little frustration on my part, it is purely
> because most of us have been round this track more than a
> few times... Any (and I stress *any*) tagging system is very
> nicely vulnerable to being hijacked by downstream users. So
> from a perspective of not helping censorship by own actions,
> it is a strict no-go. I am being succint and to the point here.
> The fact that some people have been offered this quite clear
> explanation, and still keep acting as if they had not even
> heard it... without hurling any insults, their behaviour does
> make some of us frustrated.

So does the current categorization system lend itself to being hijacked by
downstream users?

Given the number of people who insist that any categorization system seems
to be vulnerable, I'd like to hear the reasons why the current system, which
is obviously necessary in order for people to find types of images, does not
have the same effect.  I'm not trying to be provocative here, but I am
rather concerned that this does not seem to have been discussed.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list