Re: web architecture and safe content

Thanks, for your remarks.

Though, I agree to some of your points. I withdraw this discussion,
and leave up to W3C to decide what is right for the web.

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 3:56 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
> What criteria are you using for "good"? I myself use the web to investigate
> trends in contemporary art, for example. Financial sites are about as bad as
> it gets, for me. How will you define "good" so that it works for 14 million
> people?
>
>
> It is not, because there is no agreement about what constitutes 'non adult
> content'. And in any case, being an adult, I rather want to see adult
> content. I presume you mean pornographic: if so, you should say so
> explicitly. There is also no universally accepted criterion for what is
> pornographic, however. The legal boundaries defining such things are local,
> culturally dependent, and change with time. There is almost nothing that is
> not found annoying or offensive by some people. I myself am regularly
> offended by public displays of irrational superstition, but I do not seek to
> control all so-called "religious" content on the Web. LIke the pornography,
> I simply ignore it. It is not hard to ignore.
>

>
> It is obviously not possible to have such a 'regulator' (an Ayatollah of
> human communication for the whole planet?), and it is also obvious that no
> such regulator is needed, in any case.
>
>
> It is complete nonsense. People will go on publishing stuff that other
> people consider offensive. There is no way to prevent or regulate this, nor
> should there be. Get used to it. If something offends you, stop looking at
> it.



-- 
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi

Received on Thursday, 15 October 2009 05:03:16 UTC