Re: web architecture and safe content

Hello Karl,
   I am sorry, I am copying this message to the list. I don't intend
to offend you :(
I want to have this discussion on the list.

On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net> wrote:
> I think I failed to make me clear. :)

I actually appreciate your view point.

>
> explicit images are not universal.

I agree. Certain societies (I would say, certain section of people
anywhere in the world) like seeing explicit images. But to satisfy
these group of people, the web is denying options for users, who do
not want to see these images. A kid just wants to study on web. He/she
should not be distracted by explicit images, existing side by side on
the web.
The web as it exists today, looks like a giant newspaper (of course
with, lot of interactivity) to me. The morning newspaper that I read,
does not have explicit images printed in it. I want distribution of
content on web to be something like a newspaper or a television. Like
newspaper, I do not subscribe adult movies on television, if there are
small kids in my house. The web currently, does not provide such
subscription mechanism.
Now that almost everywhere in the world, we are relying on web for
carrying out important activities and transactions, IMHO users must
have option to subscribe to multiple types of content (something like,
three content categories I mentioned earlier). To enable this, there
should be appropriate technologies available, and ISPs need to provide
such subscription mechanism.

> A nipple is not adult content depending on where you are.
> Even better example just a leg could be considered explicit content at some
> places.

I agree. These images are not adult, as per my view too.

>
> explicit content of Google is the Google view of explicit content.

I agree.


-- 
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi

Received on Sunday, 11 October 2009 12:50:04 UTC