I am a member in good standing, and this is a member initative.

Members of Cyberspacce Commmunications, Inc., will be allowed to host images
in their webspace on Grex.

If a member of staff determines, at their discretion, that any image is using
too much of Grex's resources, they may take action to limit that use,
including deleting the image.  If staff determines that a member has
persistently or egregiously abused their privilege to host images, that
member's ability to host images may be restricted.

183 responses total.

According to Steve', this would be an inducement to potential members.

I endorse taking this proposal to vote.

   Gosh, I'm flattered that anything I say about how to help Grex
gets you to propose it.

   Hmmm--

   I think it would help Grex if you were quiet.

> I think it would help Grex if you were quiet.

I think you should check that attitude.

  I did.

  Same thought.

re 2 So GreX can be a quiet little system with its tiny userbase that's
segregated from the rest of the Internet? Oh yeah; that's a good attitude.
If that's what you want, get off the boat and make your own private system.

I am glad that scholar is making all these proposals - it's been a long time
since we talked much about how to make Grex better.

One big problem we have avoided by not allowing images on Grex web pages, is
becoming a source for porn.  I don't want Grex to be a source for serving up
porn, and I'm afraid that allowing images would turn us into that.  What do
you propose, David, to keep that from happening?

I'm not concerned with the content of the pictures Grex hosts so long as it
is legal.  Why do you see pornographic pictures as being a negative?  If it's
because of Grex being associated with that which is widely viewed as being
seedy, I don't think that's much of a concern as the web addresses people use
to access the pictures would make it clear that the images were being
published by an individual user, and not by Grex.  I think this is similar
to the way reasonable people don't call libraries pornographers, even if they
allow access to pornographic content.

Do you think there's a problem with pornographic images having a tendency to
use up too many resources?  I'm not sure if this would be true, but if Grex
does allow members to host images, I think Grex's staff should be sure to
monitor how many times images are being accessed and how much bandwidth is
being used to host them, and if appropriate, removing the image from Grex.
I don't think pornographic images ought to be treated any differently.

   Does 2257 compliance mean anything to you, scholar?  If it doesn't
go read up on it.  Also, go ask ISP's if they allow "adult" sites--most
of them do not, because they are an incredible bandwidth hog.  Even
places like pair.com don't want to deal with it.

Regarding #6; I'm not sure that would happen automatically.  Besides, there's
lots of written porn that could already been on grex in text format.  What
about that?  Finally, users can create "porn" sites on grex that link to
images hosted on other sites.  Hmm.  Where does that fall?

Regarding #3; No, seriously, that was just uncalled for and childish.  Like
I said, David may be a pain in the ass, but he's actually making good
suggestions here.  Why not at least evaluate his ideas on the merits of the
ideas themselves, instead of who wrote them?

I don't want Grex to be a source for porn.  That's my opinion.  I would not
feel good about volunteering for an organization that devoted a lot of its
resources to delivering porn to people.

There *is* some text porn on Grex now.  It's not a big deal.  I'm not 
proposing censoring that, but neither do I want Grex to become known as a 
place where you can post porn pictures you want everyone to see.  Maybe 
I'm worng, but I really think that might happen if we allowed pictures on 
web sites.

What do other free web hosting sites do to avoid this problem?

Why is a free speech blue ribbon endorsing site concerned with whether users
have porn in their webpages?

I'm just stating my opinions, not Grex's.

re. 8:  I'm familiar with 2257 and it seems to apply only to producers of
pornographic material, not to people who host it, Steve'.  Do you have any
reason to believe otherwise, Steve'?

Regarding #10; I don't know; has there ever been any attempt to set up a porn
site on grex before?  Despite blocking network access via the kernel, numerous
people try and circumvent that, downloading psybnc, eggdrop, etc, and
compiling and running same, despite the fact that they don't get anywhere
doing so.  I imagine the people interested in setting up porn sites on grex
would have done the same.

But one thing I've noticed about Internet porn is that the people producing
and distributing it, really *really* seem to want you to *pay* for it, which
requires CGI or something akin to it.  Since grex doesn't provide access to
THAT, then it would seem that providing images alone wouldn't be enough to
host an effective porn site.

I'm less worried about producers of porn (who, I agree, would want a more
professional platform than Grex) than kids who just want to put up pictures
for their friends.

I don't know - I may be wrong; this may not be a real worry.  Maybe we ought
to try allowing images below a certain size, and then revisit the decision
after we see what happens.

If scholar adds a line that allows the staff to set a limit on the size of
image files, I will endorse bringing this to a vote.

Members of Cyberspacce Commmunications, Inc., will be allowed to host images
in their webspace on Grex.

If a member of staff determines, at their discretion, that any image is using
too much of Grex's resources, including by being too large, they may take
action to limit that use, including deleting the image.  If staff determines
that a member has persistently or egregiously abused their privilege to host
images, that member's ability to host images may be restricted.

----

That good enough, Mark?

I think that is a sound proposal.

I would like to see a line that says, "The staff may also set a limit on the
size of images, which will apply to all users."

right here : 
"If a member of staff determines, at their discretion, that any
image is using too much of Grex's resources, including by being 
too large, they may take action to limit that use, including 
deleting the image. "

That's in resp:16, mark.

Yeah, I'm not really sure what Mark's talking about, but the official proposal
now includes his line appended to the ende.

If I were in favor of this proposal -- I'm not -- I would want a line allowing
Grex (staff, probably, with user recourse to the board to prevent abuse) to
remove images in violation of Grex's other policies or of the law.

Oh, okay.  Good point!

Append the following line:  Staff may remove any image that violates Grex's
policies or the laws under which Cyberspace Communications, Inc. operates.

 Here's why I don't like the idea of hosting images:  I would like to keep
 the people who keep Grex running out of the content evaluation business.
 By having a content-neutral policy banning all images, staff doesn't get
 put in the position of making personal decisions for themselves which images
 are acceptable and which are not.

So if its ascii art then you're okay with it but if its photographic art then
you aren't?  Is that the divining rod of censorship which prompts a "lack of
human resources" claim?  I didn't want the folks who run Grex in the content
evaluation business either...whether that be textual expression or otherwise.
I don't see a huge difference, really.
True, if there's a complain of kiddie porn or credit card #'s on a webpage
then the staff should react but there is no difference in their legality even
though one is text and one is imagery.

Exactly what tod said.  There can be appropriate content consisting of images,
and totally inappropriate content consisting of text.  GreX staffers really
shouldn't be in the "content evaluation business", unless it involves
something illegal or hogs system resources.  Both exceptions are covered in
scholar's proposal.

 re #24, 25:  I'm not pretending that images are the only format
 where one has to make decisions about legality but I honestly
 believe that in practice with images the "grey area" is substantially
 larger, calling for a substantially higher number of subjective
 judgments.

I'd agree with that.  Allowing even one more image will mean a higher number
of subjective judgments.

Scholar, could we see the whole proposal in one response?

Sure:

Members of Cyberspacce Commmunications, Inc., will be allowed to host images
in their webspace on Grex.

If a member of staff determines, at their discretion, that any image is using
too much of Grex's resources, including by being too large, they may take
action to limit that use, including deleting the image.  If staff determines
that a member has persistently or egregiously abused their privilege to host
images, that member's ability to host images may be restricted.

The staff may set a limit on the on the size of images, which will apply to all
users.

The staff may also remove any image which violates Cyberspace Communication's
policies or violates the laws under which it operates.

OK, I'll endorse bringing that to a vote.  I haven't decided if I'll vote
for it or not.  I don't like member-only perks, because Grex is not a
fee-for-service organization.  But I'm interested to find out how the rest
of the membership feels about it.

GreX is a fee-for-what organisation, then, Mark ?

Well, supposedly when you become a member you are doing so to support
Grex's mission (whatever that is). Its like, you don't become a member
of the Humane Society to get free dog care.

Speaking of dog car, I took my son to the Ringling Bros circus last night and
there were filthy hippy picketers outside with mangled animal photos on their
picket signs.  Quicker than you can say "The kid from Detroit called the pigs
on you", the boys in blue came out in force and made them hide their signs
and stand out of the way so we could go inside to watch the tortured and
abused dogs/cats run around on their hindlegs for treats.

Ruff ruff.

The point I was getting at was that porn is not the only type of image people
might take offense at.  

steve, as useless you are and as smart as scholar is you should just fess up
to your wrong doing with a gmail account of his, crawl under some rock, and
fuck off. you are an annoying fat pig with an attitude that just won't die
all for no reason. :(

Wow. Reading #36 is like a peek into bizarro-world.

Amein.

   The problem with this is how to implement it, time wise.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss