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

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 16.09.2011 22:52, schrieb Stephen Bain:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 6:21 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
> <tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com>  wrote:
>> Depending on the settings of the user some kind of Javascript will hide
>> the images. This "passed along" labels could simply be used to exclude
>> the image as the whole, making the "show image" button disappear.
> That would depend on the implementation, but even if the 'show image'
> button were not present, the caption (which includes a link to the
> image description page) would still be there, indicating that an image
> had been blocked.
Do you believe that it would help you if the image page itself will also 
be blocked upon the same labeling or that it wouldn't be easy to remove 
this traces as well? Speaking as a censor, this would have high priority 
for me. Showing others that i try to hide something? I would be stupid 
if i didn't do it that way. Leaving traces of what i have done would 
cause me possible problems.

Thats why a censor would not be so stupid to leave you a link to click 
on to view the image. He will remove the image together with it's 
surrounding HTML-Elements.
>> The provider itself isn't able to filter the image or the
>> content, since this is a lot of working time and time costs money. But
>> if we choose to label the content for no fee, we open a new field for
>> partial censorship.
> Blocking of HTTP requests to images subject to any filters by an ISP
> or some other intermediary would be fairly trivially avoided by
> requesting the image from a mirror, or via a proxy etc. The community
> has plenty of talented javascript coders who could implement such a
> workaround.
Therefor you will have to make the request from a mirror. But where does 
your browser get the information where to get the image? It lies within 
the filtered HTML-document. Ooops sorry. It isn't there anymore because 
it was filtered.
> Moreover as above, the caption will still be present (and, depending
> on the implementation, the 'show image' button will be present but
> ineffective) and so the user will know that an image has been blocked.
> To avoid this, the ISP or intermediary would have to alter the HTML in
> transit to remove the caption to conceal the censorship. But if they
> have the capability and the desire to do that, then there are many
> more potent avenues for censorship they could already engage in,
> particularly avenues involving modification of the article text. The
> marginal risk presented here does not seem to be high.
I already stated that it is trivial to remove the caption (the whole 
image and it's container elements. Your Javascript experts could write a 
working code for that in half a day or less. That would not be an great 
effort. Altering text is much more difficult, because it isn't labeled. 
It changes over time. An image is included in a repeating pattern.

But now i must wonder about your argumentation. You said that the "risk 
is marginal" and it isn't a "high" priority task. Looking at the boards 
decision it is seen as an task of high importance. I'm wondering why it 
is that way.
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
> <tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com>  wrote:
>> What would someone living inside such a group think if the content is
>> already labeled that way, that he should not look at it. Isn't it social
>> pressure put on the free mind, especially if other members of the group
>> are around?
> I find this 'social pressure to activate filters' line of argument
> quite flimsy. If a person would be under such social pressure, how are
> they not at present under enough pressure to avoid using Wikimedia
> projects (or at least articles where such pictures would be expected
> to be present) entirely?
>
For the exactly same reasoning as why providers tend not to block 
Wikipedia entirely. Blocking such projects partially, only representing 
the suitable information is a much better choice. If you look at 
something at Wikipedia and have no such feature, then you won't need an 
excuse. But if there is an filter, then you need an excuse why you 
didn't use it.