My stance, on the other hand, is that we should not link to any site that knowingly, directly links to child pornography. In other words, there has to be an intent, but we measure it by not only stated policy but track record - we cannot prevent a site from suddenly changing its content, but if when we linked to the site, and for some time in the past, it was an index site with no direct links to child abuse images, and if we remove it from new releases if it becomes a problem, then we have made reasonable efforts not to enable people to easily find child porn. I consider this to be a moral issue as well as a legal and public relations issue. But please bear in mind that whatever influence I may have due to being the project $codemonkey, I cannot simply impose a policy any more than Ian can. In the long term, we should publish our own freesite on a DBR and inline it - but we need to deal with security issues first. Ian's comment on another thread "I think God hates us" - well, my work machine got fucked up while I was trying to improve speed of log file searching for my freenet work, and my DVD writer hadn't been working for a while mostly for software reasons, and the only backup I could find was a month old, and truncated. Lost various files including my freenet worklog, my well-integrated ~ 12GB used datastore node, my logfiles, my freenet TODO list (well, I recovered an ancient one - it has all sorts of details not in the CVS log - design discussions etc), my mailboxes (which I used as a bugtracking system), including my .procmailrc and .muttrc, etc. All my stupid fault. And then we lose the website, and the backups for the website. Probably all somebody else's stupid fault, whether we know them or not - these kinds of catastrophes are usually some human f*cking up. Draw your own conclusions - I would explain what the "ICTHUS" line at the end of my signature means, but I don't want to start another flamewar and I'm sure anyone on this list can figure it out quickly enough. Oh, my apologies for not signing this message, my gpg key was part of the lost data although I will check whether it is recoverable later.
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 10:03:08PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > > i was trying to back out > > graciously from this and not turn it into some stupid flamewar since i > > think both of our points have been adaquetly made, but you seem hell > > bent on turning it into one. > > There was nothing graceful about your original email in which you > dismissed my position as "silly" - so please don't bother playing the > holier than thou card after you have lost the argument. > > > sure, you've "done stuff" > > like start up an important conversation, congrats, pat yourself on the > > back... but wait, was that the goal? to start a conversation? of > > course not. what i'm talking about when i say "in *reality* you have > > done nothing" is this: have you *accomplished the goal* of this > > increasingly pointless discussion? > > What are you talking about? What *was* the goal of this? My goal was > to ensure that we are doing the right thing by provoking a discussion > on the subject. The goal was not to come up with some excuse for > removing freesites from the gateway page - yet it seems that you > dismiss anything less than that as "doing nothing". > > > there, that pretty much sums up my stance you keep cutting up and taking > > out of context, is this that hard? > > Your stance was that I was doing nothing. If I had done nothing we > wouldn't even be debating this, and it wouldn't be the topic of > discussion on yesterday's CofE. Unfortunately, you seem to define > anything other than threatening to remove Freesites from the gateway > page as "doing nothing". It IS. If we SAY that we don't condone such things and ask people on the gateway not to link to them, and they ignore us, and we do nothing about it, we are in no better a situation than if we don't say it in the first place - we are in fact in a weaker position. > > > have you? i've conceided points where i was wrong and tried to keep > > this civil, but it seems to me like you were to busy trying to flame me > > to actually hear me. > > Your original email set the tone for this thread when you described my > position as "silly", yet now you have been forced to admit that you > were wrong - and so I think I have every right to call you an ass. > > If you don't want to be called an ass, don't call people's position > "silly" and then lose the argument. > > Ian. > > -- > Ian Clarke ian at locut.us > Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ > Founder, Locutus http://locut.us/ > Personal Homepage http://locut.us/ian/ _______________________________________________ devl mailing list devl at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
