On Feb 5, 2008 11:28 AM, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:
WilyD wrote:
On Feb 5, 2008 9:14 AM, Steve Summit
<scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:
"Censorship" is of course a heavily
loaded word, but I've never
viewed content-tagging mechanisms, or "hide" mechanisms that are
positively *un*hidden by default, as censorship.
Err, I'm sure we could ram any "opt-in" image hiding solution into
place. "Opt-out" solutions are a different matter.
By "opt-in", I assume you mean that someone can opt in to the
hiding mechanism, meaning that they have to explicitly opt *out*
of seeing the potentially-offending content. And vice versa.
(But although this sort of thing seems like an obvious and
reasonable compromise to me, I'm not so sure we could just
"ram one through", because plenty of people do seem to equate
such things with unacceptable censorship. See e.g. Chris Howie's
comments elsethread: "We do not censor ourselves. This includes
opt-in/out mechanisms that are censorship bearing the form of a
reasonable compromise.")
Err, yes. A little button that said "Hide images that represent
Muhammad" would be a solution I'd endorse, anyhow. A little button
that said "Unhide images that represent Muhammad" I wouldn't.
We already offer a monobook.js solution in the FAQ on how to do this,
but something easier to use wouldn't be the end of the world.
Cheers
WilyD