Censorship and the internet.
Safe Search. …
Originally posted by Jim Wales:
Comment From the Fox News article: "Right now, Wikimedia Foundation projects like Wikipedia should be on the 'blocked for children' list in every household and school."
Has it not occurred to anyone that the goal of Fox News is to discourage people from reading Wikipedia totally, and encourage them to rely on Fox News instead for their "facts" and viewpoints? This is simply a means to their end. If it's not pictures, it will be articles. If it's not articles, it will be references. If it's not…. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment OpenDNS has a very good free service called FamilyShield which uses the DNS addresses 188.8.131.52 and 184.108.40.206. This blocks access to obvious porn sites, such as playboy.com, giving this blocked message. However, FamilyShield blocks nothing on Commons, and the search results for "Fellatio" are predictably NSFW.
It would not be the proverbial rocket science to have a system on Commons similar to Google Image safe search, which is enabled by default. The NOTCENSORED argument is unconvincing, as some types of material are easily identified as 18+.–♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a reason that SafeSearch has "moderate" and "strict" levels of filtering.
It's not magic – it's a machine learning algorithm with both false positives and false negatives.
It blocks essentially any image it thinks might contain nudity, even if it actually just happens to contain large flesh-coloured regions. People who want to ensure they get complete and informative results turn SafeSearch off, and being complete and informative is part of our mission. Dcoetzee 22:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Using the internet safely does not include introducing surreal editing. It has more to do with knowing right from wrong and acting sensibly on that knowledge.
Nothing deadens the psyche more than assenting to what is wrong. A culture that is widely regarded as Dirty by most other cultures has a reason besides peer pressure for regarding it as "dirty". OK certain factions in any culture will see the measure as black and whit:
The "It is dirty because …" school of thought. And they may be right.
Just as unprotected sex with Dirty people tends to give you mortal illnesses in dirty places, watching dirty things makes you dead in your mental faculties.
Unfortunately there are periods in everyone's lives when we fall victims to our own desires and taint ourselves. Such is life.
Getting "Other People" to make us safe smacks of Vigilance Committeeism. We don't need to have suffered from the KKK or the SS to know what is worse than watching pornography. Getting other people to control our safety makes us doubly unsafe.
Nobody in their right minds believes alcohol prohibition laws can work. And in the 80 or 90 years since it was attempted in the USA, the prohibition of other drugs has worked much worse.
I am not for or against restriction or derestrictions. Just pointing out that the people who pass laws on such things are weak and gullible, ignorant and deluded.
Just like the rest of us.