[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Content filtering for Konqueror
From:       Uwe Thiem <uwe () uwix ! alt ! na>
Date:       2001-09-03 22:37:31
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, Ben Burton wrote:

> 
> (Preface: Apologies for getting political on a development thread, but the 
> fact is that content filtering has political implications.)
> 
> > This seem strang, to say the least. If a kid is you enogh to need content
> > blocking, they should certainly not be concerned about issues like safe sex
> > or that "come" stuff.
> 
> Not true at all.  Firstly, it's generally not the kid who decides if they're 
> young enough to need content blocking.  It's the parents, the school, the 
> library, etc.  Whether or not you like it, the fact remains that there will 
> be sexually active people at high schools (certainly if we are to believe 
> mainstream american television *grin*) and so to block access to safe sex 
> sites is causing problems.  I'm not talking porn here; I'm not even talking 
> pictures - I'm just talking basic safety information that teens don't get 
> because either the teachers won't teach it or the parents won't let them.

Since I wrote that mail "Go ahead" I feel like I need to be a bit more 
comprehensive about it. I more or less said "Go ahead" because I didn't
care. Filtering of any kind is mostly pointless on the client side.

On the issues discussed so far, I am driven by these points of view:

1.
Let everyone view/read/hear whatever they want.

2.
Don't use limited bandwidth not owned (and paid for) by you to view things
that have nothing to do with the reason you have been granted access to
that bandwidth.

3.
If filtering, don't do it automatically. Use common sense.

As for 1.:
Why is everyone so concerned about younsters being exposed to sex? It's
an integral part of being humans. They have to learn about it anyway.
And I mean *learn*! How about violence? It may be a part of our life but 
it isn't an integral one. Strikes me much more intimidating. Even with 
violence, I'm not sure. I love Tom & Jerry.

As for 2.:
Living in an AIDS/HIV striken country, I am not opposed to cybersex at
all. Safest sex possible. Nothing happens. ;-)

Still, I'm a consultant for the Polytechnic of Namiba, looking after 
their network. I maintain a blacklist for them. Porn is a real strain
on bandwidth which is limited and very expensive around here (about
80!!! times as expensive as in the US). I feel people should pay for
it themselves.

As for 3.:
All automatical filtering approaches are crap. Remember AOL blocking out
the discussion group of women suffering from breast cancer because, of
course, the postings did content the word "breast"? One could resort ot
trigger on expressions like "cunt", "tits", "dicks", "butts" and the
like. But what about people discussing slang? The only way to deal with
it is common sense of a human being.

The only reasonable approach to client-side filtering is what that
younster wanted: To configure the browser in a way that prvents him/her
not to see what they don't want to see. The default, of course, shoudl
be "off".

Uwe

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uwe Thiem                                        Tel:  +264 - 61 - 249249
P.O.Box 30955                                    Email:   uwe@uwix.alt.na
Windhoek                                                      uwe@kde.org
Republic of Namibia                                    http://www.kde.org
                  **********************************
   In the desert there is no sign that says, Thou shalt not eat stones.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]