[Foundation-l] We need more information (was: Blog from Sue about ...)

[Bishakha Datta]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk at effeietsanders.org>wrote:

> (not responding to anyone in particular) I'm one of the people who tried to
> participate in the discussion without taking a strong standpoint
> (intentionally - because I'm quite nuanced on the issue, and open for good
> arguments of either side) and I have to fully agree with Ryan. I have yet
> been unable to participate in this discussion without either being ignored
> fully (nothing new to that, I agree) or being put in "the opposite camp". I
> basically gave up.
>

My personal reaction to the discussion: I followed it, found some
implementation ideas useful, and also found the barrier to entry too high.
Both the noise and the black and white-ness of the discussion.

So I agree that one of the unfortunate consequences of the 'either you are
for or against' the filter discussion is that other points of view and
voices are being, not 'censored', but silenced, perhaps unintentionally.

And that is where I think Sue's blog post is useful: in bringing in another
dimension - the issue of editorial judgment, which is a more 'grey' or
somewhat 'subjective' area. Whether one agrees with it or not, this is a
dimension worth considering. While neutrality is no doubt a key project
principle, editorial judgment or selectivity is exercised in the projects on
a daily basis. (Even selecting an image to accompany a wikipedia is a
selection or an editorial judgement of some sort, right?)

Given that this is the case, is it any different to exercise editorial
judgment on this issue than it is to exercise editorial judgment on anything
else? It may be productive to discuss this issue in the overall context of
editorial discussions and selections on the project, rather than in a ghetto
by itself.

I totally understand and get the anger emanating from the community. And,
numbers apart, this does say something. But because of the anger, is this
issue being 'exceptionalized' too much and being placed on a different
pedestal, where no discussion beyond the black and white, on greys such as
editorial judgement is possible?

In that broader sense, I agree with Sue that there is a need to go back to
and discuss the underlying issue: "how to responsibly handle objectionable
imagery." At the same time, as someone who works with images, I don't like
the term 'objectionable imagery'. It's not necessarily an image, per se,
that is objectionable, but a gaze that renders it such. (Two people can look
at the same image, one finds it objectionable, the other does not).

**I am also dismayed at the use of the word 'censorship' in the context of a
software feature that does not ban or block any images. But somehow there
doesn't seem to be any other paradigm or language to turn to, and this is
what is used as default, even though it is not accurate. It's been mentioned
1127 times in the comments, as per Sue's report to the board, and each time
it is mentioned, it further perpetuates the belief that this is censorship.

Anyhow, about the filter issue. I think at this stage it is very hard to
> determine any opinion about "the filter" because everybody seems to have
> their own idea what it will look like, what the consequences will be and
> how
> it will affect their and other people's lives. I myself find it hard to
> take
> a stance based on the little information available and I applaud the
> visionaries that can. Information I am even more missing however (and I
> think it would have been good to have that information *before* we took any
> poll within our own community) is what our average 'reader on the street'
> thinks about this. Do they feel they need it? What parts of society are
> they
> from (i.e. is that a group we are representative of? Or one we barely have
> any interaction with?) What kind of filter do they want (including the
> option: none at all). Obviously this should not be held in the US, but
> rather world wide - as widely as possible.
>
> I agree. I don't think we really have sufficient data on what readers want
(or atleast I have not seen it) and this is another missing dimension. We
are assuming we know, but we don't.

We are also not hearing back on how much of a problem this is from many of
the projects.

Best
Bishakha