Jen Hamilton said:
> My point is that censorship already exists in schools and libraries, and
> with the proper technology, filtering will not make that any different.
But does that make it right?
> A person searching for gay and lesbian resources is a great
> example. However, if the library of a small town (or any size for that
> matter) has stocked the shelves with gay and lesbian resources, why would
> they block any sites that provide those as well?
Because they contain "naughty" content as determined by their web filtering
software.
> If they do choose to block those sites, then chances are they do not have
> anything in
> print related to that topic anyway, and then it's not the filtering that
> is the problem, but the person choosing to deny those resources.
It could be that they don't have any books because no one has asked for them.
A smaller library is also most likely to be the one that will install the
cheapest software they can find that requires the least amount of maintenance.
They didn't necessarily want to do this, they are being told to. And when people
are told to do something, they don't necessarily put their whole heart
into it.
> Try to take a different view and look at filtering as a tool that 'allows'
> sites instead of 'blocks'.
Everything that is not allowed is by definition blocked. You can't have one
without the other. How are you assuming that web pages are initially assumed
to be allowed or not? By existence of "naughty" words? By human moderation?
My whole point is that there are a multitude of valid reasons that someone
may need anonymous access to information.
> A search on google for 'lesbian movies' lists
> 8 out of 10 porn sites. How does this help the lesbian who is looking for
> resources about her sexuality? Now apply a 'filter' where only
> resource-driven non-porn sites are listed, and the user sees 10 out
> of 10, or 100 out of 100 sites with relevant non-pornographic lesbian
> movies.
A search engine is completely different from serving up pages that have been
requested by the user.
> Apply that also to a student who is searching for
> information for a report about the pornography industry. There's no
> way viable information can be found on the web about this subject without
> filtering at some level. Proper 'Filtering' can find the best possible
> sites, as well as the worst possible sites, and in that way can also be
> used as a tool to improve the quality of what resources are available for
> students.
If a student is mature enough to do research on on the pornography industry
then I would presume that she is a better filter of what she needs than
any piece of software.
> That's simply not true. I would like to think that any teacher or
> librarian would do everything they can to provide the best possible
> resources for all of their students.
You're forgetting about their most valuable resource - their time. I still
contend that a lack of time and other resources will put the human moderation
into the "later" pile and they will effectively depend on the capabilities
of software.
--
Kathryn Hogg
_______________________________________________
issues mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
