I should smile

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…. (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment OpenDNS has a very good free service called FamilyShield which uses the DNS addresses and 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.
And death.

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.


3 thoughts on “I should smile

  1. You can't ask a child to obey you and expect them to do so without both of you entering on a learning curve. Telling them to do something and then just torturing them for disobedience just harbours grudges in them.One day their ship will leave that harbour and go on a roller coaster ride in unsafe waters and come as near to sinking as drowning is to drinking.What you have to do with children is to treat them as ignorant. And train them to be knowledgeable. And you cxan't do that by smacking them.Once you realise they are not doing what they are told you need to think where you are going wrong. Are you giving them too much freedom in other areas that you could have provided more guidance in?Sadly children in modern society learn much more from other children than they ever learn from their fathers. That is because in most societies these days so few children have fathers.And in a lot of cases those who have fathers have fat heads for them.Whatever that case might be you can't warn anyone of the dangers of pornography without introducing them to pornography.So how would you do that?

  2. Piracy.How do you protect yourself from pirates?You don't. Because you can't.The only way to deal with pirates is to not go where there are pirates.Once attacked you must decide how far you are going to let thme go. If you let them board you you will be in their hands and suffer their ideas of mercy.Or you can make sure that anyone getting too close to you is a potential pirate and fight them to the death. I would now, I think, like to do that rather than cave in.So what about someone stealing your coat?Would you kill them?Or go and get another coat?If I were an accomplished musician, would I mind if someone was singing my songs?Or would I write another one and make it even better than the last?How many millions would someone stealing my copyright deny me of?And who would I hire to fight my case?Would I trust the giant corporations that tend to rob the would be artist?

  3. And finally…I have been trawling through the Wikipedia to get more insight onto what I don't consider to be a problem, child pornography.If you hear of a child being abused you intervene. It's as simple as that. If you allow any bullying anywhere you are guilty of bullying.You take it upon yourself to be tried at law or by the bully in a fight or whatever, for the sake of the parties that can not defend themselves.But here is what the USA defines as pornography:Originally posted by Wikipedia:

    The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[2] It has three parts:Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.

    I can't imagine what "serious literary or artistic" means.A better class of porn?Something produced by a popular or famous creator?I suppose porn has to have scientific and even political value if only to establish when the line has been crossed.Personally you are on the dark side with only one of the above clauses. But that's just my opinion.I am not sure we have a law about freedom of speech in Britain. I believe it is a matter left to individual courts and legal precedence rather than governmental categories.The USA has laws about laws that the USAnians consider written in stone. None of them were written in any of the copies Moses brought down the mountain.For the first Israelite commonwealth it was a matter of taste and common sense. I imagine it would be what you would not be prepared to let your child do or have someone else do to your child.But then they had property rights that included slaves that excluded the fathers of slave children in such processes.Inscribed in stone!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s