[Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12 March 2012 20:24, Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm tired to reply to this kind of comments since I said anything
> important
> >  multiple times already. So I will keep it as that and only write the
> > following:
> > Sorry, but your comments are total bullshit¹ and you know it.
> >  ¹ includes strong language, overly repeated selective examples, bending
> of
> > words, bending of facts and accusations that aren't true.
>
>
> Indeed. Andreas' posts bring this to mind:
>
>
> http://www.salon.com/2012/03/10/the_right_wings_pornography_of_resentment/singleton/
>
> There's concern, and then there's lasciviating morbid fascination.



It's not me who's uploading hundreds of pornographic media onto Wikimedia
sites. There are places for porn online, just like there are places for
online poker, and amateur digital art. I have no problem with any of them.
But listen to yourself – you are accusing me of prudery because I say that
as a tax-exempt educational website we should be handling porn and other
explicit content as responsibly – no more, no less – as Google, YouTube or
Flickr.

Are the adult media sharing groups in Flickr populated by prudes? I don't
think so. But are they in favour of abandoning the Flickr rating system?
No. Are Google right-wingers? No, and they happen to be among our biggest
donors and benefactors.

Your "porn must be freeeee ...." stance puts you into a fringe corner from
the perspective of which the entirety of mainstream society looks like a
bunch of dastardly right-wing prudes.

Andreas