On Wednesday 27 October 2010 10:17:41 xor wrote: > On Monday 25 October 2010 11:54:54 pm Matthew Toseland wrote: > > Should we link to Linkageddon? It has lots of links and is very often > > updated. However many of the links have no description and have names in > > jargon, making it very easy to accidentally run into bad things which were > > not what you were looking for. > > We should include it, yes. > Label it with something like: "ATTENTION: Automatically generated, might not > be safe for children" > > We don't have to label it as unsafe for adults because what is legal for > adults depends absolutely on the country you are in.
None of the indexes are safe for children. But even adults should not have to know what "lolita" or "pthc" means to avoid accidentally running into really horrible things. > > > Problem is, FAI seems offline, TUFI only > > updated once in ages ... We only really have AFK index at the moment ... > > Thoughts? Are there any other indexes we should consider? Should we get rid > > of the FAIs? > > Yes, replace them with the active link indexes of Linkageddon. > We don't want to look like a ghost city, do we? We could link to the activelink version, it is supposed to filter out most of the porn, it's likely it will miss some stuff from time to time. But there is a practical issue here which is that loading an activelink index takes a looooong time - we'd need to link to the non-activelink version as well. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20101028/783e404d/attachment.pgp>
