On Nov 15, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 16/11/2014 07:34, Yoav Nir wrote:
Hi, Lloyd
That is one possible outcome: all decent people have “safe” set.
Please define "decent" in a culture-independent way.
That’s easy. Lloyd said “if you don’t set it, you will be investigated for
terrorist thoughts”. Decent people are those who don’t get investigated for
terrorist thoughts. This isn’t a circular definition. Investigator behavior can
be observed, and those investigated can be assumed indecent.
Another, IMO more likely possible outcome is that servers serve content that
is so bland with “safe” set, that nobody sets it, but some people feel like
they’ve done something good by setting it for their children.
Imagine Wikipedia with nothing controversial: nothing about abortions,
religions, genetics, evolution…
And that will not happen, so Wikipedia will simply ignore "safe", so browsers
set to request "safe" will just get raw Wikipedia, so "safe" will be useless
for parents wishing to censor their children's access to Wikipedia.
Thanks; this is a good illustration of why this whole thing is a pointless
fig leaf.
Glad to help.
BTW: Matthew is correct that Wikipedia currently does not provide a safe
option, while Google’s search does. Both Bing and Yahoo also offer a ‘safe’
option, but both of them want a ternary value (off/moderate/strict).
Some content providers go way beyond, providing categories of unsafeness
(nudity / sexual themes / violence/gore / strong language / ideologically
sensitive — those are the categories from deviantart.com)
Yoav