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

Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikipedian at gmail.com
Wed Oct 12 01:27:25 UTC 2011

Zooming out may work for individuals like you, but for folks like me, 
it's actually a distraction, and I try to see what the tiny picture is, 
staring at it until it makes sense. Yay for ADHD....:-\


On 10/11/2011 8:17 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * David Gerard wrote:
>> Not sure the blurring system would do the job for a workplace. At a
>> distance, the blurred penis still looks exactly like a penis ...
> There are many alternatives to a blur effect. A much simpler effect
> would be a Small Images option that shrinks all images to icon size.
> The information you get is about the same as with a blur effect, but
> the images would be even easier to ignore and couldn't be recognized
> at a distance. There would be problems with maps as the point over-
> lay depends on the size, but that should not be that hard to fix.
> It would also match what I do when I am unsure whether I am about to
> load some web page which I am not sure I want to see the images on,
> I tell my browser to zoom out, load the page, and then decide whether
> it's okay to zoom in, or if I should go View ->  Images ->  No Images,
> or close the page or whatever.
> It's interesting to note that advocates of discriminatory schemes do
> not discuss, as far as I am aware, how to communicate the tagging of
> some images as somehow controversial to users who do not filter. I'd
> wonder how they feel about adding some notice like "Seeing this image
> makes some people feel bad" to the image caption for all images that
> would be filtered by one of the discriminatory filter options.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list