> What's funny is that you actually think you are arguing against > attempts at censorship; what this demonstrates more than anything else > is that you have deeply misunderstood censorship and what it means. > Unfortunately, you are obviously not nearly open minded enough to > learn from any explanation. >
I disagree with the view that limiting what goes on the main page due to cultural sensitivities is not a form of censorship. It may very well be justifiable censorship, but its still censorship. We're preventing people from seeing something they would normally see due to our concern the material is inappropriate. Well people could certainly go looking for the material, someone cannot look for something they don't know exists. Anyways, the point I'm trying to make is just that the term censorship still applies. With that said the world is not black and white: some limited censorship might be a good thing (or might not), but lets please call a spade a spade. Just my two cents (and heck I have almost no contribs to commons, so take what I say however you want) -bawolff p.s. (Not responding to any email specifically). Everyone's arguments would be a lot more convincing if they were less ad hominem/other various fallacies. So far it seems like people are more interested in personal attacks, then actually giving logical responses to various arguments. This of course just makes your opponent look more right. _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
