[Foundation-l] We need more information (was: Blog from Sue about ...)

Sat Oct 1 01:15:22 UTC 2011

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 08:36:43PM +0530, Bishakha Datta wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk at effeietsanders.org>wrote:
> **I am also dismayed at the use of the word 'censorship' in the context of a
> software feature that does not ban or block any images. But somehow there
> doesn't seem to be any other paradigm or language to turn to, and this is
> what is used as default, even though it is not accurate. It's been mentioned
> 1127 times in the comments, as per Sue's report to the board, and each time
> it is mentioned, it further perpetuates the belief that this is censorship.

The term "censorship _tool_" -however- is correctly used in the context of any of
the proposed prejudicial labelling systems.

In fact (in part due to the properties of prejudicial labelling) it is too easy
to violate other aspects of the board resolution when implementing a form of
labelling.

Fortunately, labelling is *not* actually required by the board resolution. 

So, the solution going forward -imo- is to implement a software solution that
doesn't depend on labelling. 

At that point, your arguments hold water; and I agree with them
wholeheartedly. :-)

sincerely,
	Kim Bruning
-- 