-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 08/05/2010 08:14 PM, leto at hush.com wrote:
>
> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 17:30:04 -0500 Matthew Toseland
> <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote:
>> On Tuesday 03 August 2010 15:34:32 xor wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 03 August 2010 12:54:52 pm Matthew Toseland wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday 03 August 2010 09:02:33 xor wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday 03 August 2010 09:50:05 am xor wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday 30 July 2010 01:05:30 am Matthew Toseland wrote:
>>>>>>> Any suggestions for what we should link to? It looks
>> like both TUFI
>>>>>>> and the Activelink Index sites have not been updated
>> recently?
>>>>>>> Criteria: A site must be useful for finding stuff on
>> Freenet. It must
>>>>>>> be easy to use and ideally have descriptions. It must
>> not be likely
>>>>>>> to lead newbies to places where they don't want to go
>> without warning
>>>>>>> them i.e. it must must clearly label evil content.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are #2 on Sourceforge's "What's Hot" for security on
>> Linux. And
>>>>>>> we're consistently rising at the moment. Have I missed a
>> significant
>>>>>>> press article?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quoting from a Freetalk thread called:
>>>>>> "Who do I have to kill to get on the front page?"
>>>>>> At the moment I don't filter the links, just the
>> ActiveLinks, so you
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> accidentally download any kiddie porn via an AL, but I can
>> do a
>>>>>> filtered version of the site if required, removing all the
>> porn. I
>>>>>> could perhaps
>>>>>
>>>>> The non-activelink version looks better. I will tell him via
>> Freetalk
>>>>> that he should provide a version of the non-activelink site
>> which does
>>>>> not provide child porn so we can add it to the default
>> bookmarks.
>>>>
>>>> We cannot require the exclusion of child porn, or we will be
>> forced to
>>>> exclude ALL illegal content. We must only choose indexes on
>> the basis of
>>>> how useful they are for a new user trying to find stuff. That
>> is our
>>>> policy. However, usefulness includes accurate labelling (and
>> maybe
>>>> categorisation) and not accidentally running into something
>> horrible.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I will forward that and notify you when he has replied. For now
>> you might want
>>> to add only one of his indexes, they seem good and daily updates
>> are VERY
>>> nice...
>>>
>> AFKindex is categorised and seems to have descriptions of
>> everything, although some are overly concise. I do like its visual
>> feel and its categories.
>>
>> Linkageddon has no categories, and many sites have no
>> descriptions. It is therefore not very useful and unless you know
>> the language, there is a good chance of accidentally running into
>> something unpleasant.
>>
>> Both indexes link to at least one (simulated) child porn site,
>> without giving it a proper description. Interestingly, AFKindex
>> claims not to link to porn, but actually does link at least to the
>> one site mentioned. Personally I dislike activelinks even to
>> simulated child porn, this is one thing I have against AFKindex
>> ...
>>
>> Another issue with Linkageddon is that the activelink version
>> would take a looooong time to load. IMHO it is best left as a gem
>> that the user has to discover and take personal responsibility for
>> (i.e. not blame us), ideally after figuring out what e.g. the L
>> word means, at least for now.
>>
>> I have not added either index at present. I am leaning much more
>> strongly towards AFKindex than Linkageddon but I don't believe it
>> would be appropriate to link to either:
>> - A site which activelinks "fantasy art" featuring underage nude
>> children
>> - A site which links to said page without any description
>>
>> And I am not sure we want to link to the activelink version of
>> Linkageddon either. It takes ages to load and has very little
>> useful information about each site.
>
> One small additional point, no where does the AFKIndex maintainer
> mention he monitors for announcements of new freesites. Unless an
> old site links to a new site how will they be found by their
> spider? Another indexer only looks for new sites on FMS, requiring
> the running of FMS. With Freetalk becoming part of Freenet
> shouldn't a Frontpage indexer be required to at least monitor that
> to be on the Frontpage?
Not really. As long as the spider also monitors other indexes, as soon as one
index site picks something up, all of them eventually will.
- Volodya
- --
http://freedom.libsyn.com/ Echo of Freedom, Radical Podcast
"None of us are free until all of us are free." ~ Mihail Bakunin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMWx8wAAoJENW9VI+wmYasEKEH/3SZYBNhRCkwQ3G+uAHDB4RV
+QfroKHlWWYjHDXO71feiN2lm2rX5EGmxqvZB0kfgil9X8OkY6wdu3u7HTa/2zP9
f2ZmCmHzezAW0YtKBMK7vGIjXfrAu7+77ffDsdKIG7WK7SxH65etrkvgPZJatwFe
4lA9h8HLywZDV6IVNbBc9b9vS3Aq2JyyW8ygOvywD7nSz0BJWQBp4+qONNz5BPhD
YyA1w2WaEg7egW/iQ/PvL9Fbz40yhZU97EYRskT52YyaWwfrpEntkaL49IFZn2it
x5OlbW+oo0lCzXPycO1Fmj6Dnxw1pUpDveuqJ7ltFsVhpPxvcl719r6uEP437sU=
=uoi5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
