> > So my question to you David, is do we actually need the ability to
> > _anonymously_ distribute images to achieve any of the things you are
> > talking about? Or would _anonymous_ distribution of text do just as
> > well?
If you're against the ability to distribute pictures and other multimedia on
*this* point-2-point networking platform, then you're perfectly welcome to
go off and build your own text-only point2point network.
With such total freedom and control, you can build in logic to detect and
suppress uu-encoded media.
You can even censor out naughty keywords like 'fuck' and 'cunt' and 'felch'
and cum.
You can even ban the word 'sex', unless a grammatical analysis shows the
word being used in a strictly gender sense.
We wish you luck with your new, clean, anonymous text-only p2p network.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
> On 19 Apr 2001 12:09:20 +0900, Sam Joseph wrote:
>
> > So my question to you David, is do we actually need the ability to
> > _anonymously_ distribute images to achieve any of the things you are
> > talking about? Or would _anonymous_ distribution of text do just as
> > well?
> >
>
> I reiterate:
>
> 1) UU-encode means there will always be binary data. See usenet
> 2) If there is enough legitimate, useful data, people won't think
> kiddie porn is a problem
>
> owen
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chat mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
>
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
