On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 01:25:32PM +0530, Bishakha Datta wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 6:45 AM, David Goodman <dgge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I want to ask you something else. It's been suggested several times at
> > various places that the present resolution is justified as a
> > compromise to prevent a considerably more repressive form of
> > censorship.
>
>
> This implies that the proposed image hiding feature is a less repressive
> form of censorship. I do not see the proposed feature as censorship - all
> the images remain on the site. Nothing is removed. Nothing is suppressed.
> Everything remains.
The image hiding feature itself is not a form of censorship, as far as
I'm aware of.
The data used to feed the image hiding feature can be classified as a
"censorship tool" (Source: ALA... Read The Fine Thread for details).
Even if we *never* build the image hider itself, but just prepare special
categories for it, we would be participating in (stages of) censorship.
sincerely,
Kim Bruning
--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
