[Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 16.09.2011 20:19, schrieb Andre Engels:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Tobias Oelgarte<
> tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com>  wrote:
>
>
>> You would have to proof that your facts are indeed true. But if you
>> accept it as a huge difference between cultures, how can you impose a
>> filter for a culture that doesn't need it or wants it?
>>
> Just like a normal addition to Mediawiki: Those who don't want to use it,
> don't have to.
>
I would not have any problems if we would not play in the hands of 
censors (local ISPs, a simple proxy, regimes, institutions, ...) by 
actually labeling content as objectionable. Which gives away the control 
over the content by the user itself, while no one would invest the money 
if he would need to label the content itself.
>> How would you expect to find a good compromise in decisions on what to
>> filter and what not? Do you intend to put an extremist conservative Arab
>> and and the most liberal German inside the same room, close the door, go
>> away, come back after two weeks and look if they could find a compromise
>> about Yes or No? How should this work?
>>
> Quite simple: add one filter for each, and describe for each what they
> filter, then let every user for themself decide whether to filter the one,
> the other, neither or both.
You should know that there are hundreds of phobias, cultural conflicts 
and other categories of possibly objectionable content. Do you expect us 
to manage all this categories of filtering, or would you say that it 
will be narrowed down to be user friendly and manageable, while leaving 
out some categories and ignore the complies of some minorities?
>
>> The referendum showed that cultural neutrality is important for the
>> voters. But how do you think to find a compromise between hell and
>> heaven, without having hell and heaven inside the discussions at commons
>> at earth?
>>
> See above - if your filters are not almost the same, don't use the same
> filter, but create two different ones.
>

See above at my comment. Maybe we should put this questioning together 
as one fact.