On Feb 5, 2008 11:28 AM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
WilyD wrote:
On Feb 5, 2008 9:14 AM, Steve Summit scs@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