|
Grex > Coop7 > #128: Web-Page Building on Grex |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 382 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 225 of 382:
| 
Jan 23 16:08 UTC 1996 |
Right. No adults here... ;-)
|
scott
|
|
response 226 of 382:
|
Jan 23 17:09 UTC 1996 |
Although a verified Adults conference would limit users to those who had gone
to the trouble of getting verified. Much different than just typing in a hot
URL somebody told you about.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 227 of 382:
|
Jan 23 18:08 UTC 1996 |
Well, perhaps Grex should bifurcate: Grex -- and Grexlite?
|
janc
|
|
response 228 of 382:
|
Jan 23 20:00 UTC 1996 |
I think Grex is *already* known as a system with an ADULT area, only it's
known as a system with an ADULT area that lets non-adults in. What were
Steve's statistics on the number of users in hsex and cyberflirt? Seemed
like lots of people come here mostly for those.
|
scg
|
|
response 229 of 382:
|
Jan 24 06:10 UTC 1996 |
Given that many of the posters in the hsex and cflirt conferences are minors,
I don' tthink we can expect them to more their discussion to the adult only
area. I don't think we'd let them. I'm not sure how much good such an area
would do us.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 230 of 382:
|
Jan 24 08:06 UTC 1996 |
Any evidence that they are being harmed?
|
ajax
|
|
response 231 of 382:
|
Jan 24 08:39 UTC 1996 |
We could enter items in those conferences asking them. :-)
|
adbarr
|
|
response 232 of 382:
|
Jan 24 21:28 UTC 1996 |
Are we getting off the point? Compliance with the law?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 233 of 382:
|
Jan 24 22:34 UTC 1996 |
What law?
|
adbarr
|
|
response 234 of 382:
|
Jan 25 00:55 UTC 1996 |
The one (not yet enacted, and maybe never to be enancted) we have
been discussing. Picky, picky! Your point is well taken, of course.
But we have been discussing actions based on a reaction to the
proposed federal legislation containing the "decency" provisions,
have we not? I think it is important to note that neither Clinton
nor Dole have objected to the proposed telecommunications reform
on the basis of the decency provisions. Maybe it is a dead issue
until after the 96 elections. The Christian Coalition is not resting
however. Assuming the law is enacted sometime in the reasonably near
future, or something similar, is the point of departure, I thought.
"That" law.
|
srw
|
|
response 235 of 382:
|
Jan 25 05:51 UTC 1996 |
Well there are sort of two threads here.
(1) Regardless of the not-yet-enacted telecom Bill with CDA, we have been
discussing the possibility of the need to restrict minors' access to certain
parts of Grex. This started when we discovered the "Brandy" story in a web
page (which is gone now). We don't want to censor or otherwise abbreviate the
freedoms we all cherish (including speech, or e-speech in this case), so we
have been discussing the merits of somehow making parts of Grex inaccessible
to minors. This is not a fully-formed idea, yet.
One of the unresolved questions is precisely what would be unacceptable if
placed in the public areas. I have argued that some things, even though only
text and not graphical, would fit in that category.
If we don't have a place where people can post these things, whatever they
are, then we have failed to protect our freedoms to my satisfaction. Another
"solution" I keep hearing is that we have no restrictions on what can be
placed in the public areas (all of Grex). I have repeatedly warned that this
is not a smart move. Some (but not all) disagree.
(2) If and when the infamous bill is passed by both houses, there is ample
evidence that the President will sign it and it will become law. It will
immediately be challenged by civil liberties groups. The Grex community
seems to be fairly solidly behind such an effort to challenge the law.
I know I certainly am. It is doubtful that we can support them with money,
but there are perhaps other ways we can help fight the law.
What we will have to decide at some point is how to behave while the law is
being challenged. We certainly do not need to figure this out immediately, but
it is probably prudent to put our thinking caps on before we are pressed into
a corner. Therefore I think debate on how we should respond to the possibility
of such a law should be welcome, and encouraged.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 236 of 382:
|
Jan 25 12:59 UTC 1996 |
Yes. Sorry if I mixed this item with the Exon discussion elsewhere, but
they seem directly related to me. Srw states the situation better than I
could.
|
ajax
|
|
response 237 of 382:
|
Jan 25 22:19 UTC 1996 |
One way Grex could classify web pages would be to use standards that
others have created or are developing. The SurfSafe (or is it SafeSurf?)
standard was developed by a parents organization. It calls for web page
authors to put a comment line in their HTML code, something like
<! ~~~ SS ~~~>, to indicate that they think the page is "safe for
children." If the comment isn't in a web page, then SurfSafe-compliant
browsers won't let kids see it. It's up to the authors to determine what's
"safe for children." Grex could easily put this into its main web pages,
and suggest to users that they add it to theirs.
A plan that will probably be more effective is the PICS standard,
developed primarily at MIT, but supported by most industry heavyweights
(AOL, Prodigy, Apple, IBM, etc.). It uses the http protocol to transmit
rating information about web pages from distributed ratings databases.
Parents can choose which ratings systems to use - they can use the web page
author's rating, the Moral Majority's, the ACLU's, or srw's. The ratings
allow multiple measurements of whatever the reviewer wants to rate. For
example, a right-wing church might rank Satanic Content of web pages, and
parents could say "don't let my kids see anything with a Satanic Content of
more than 4.2!"
|
kerouac
|
|
response 238 of 382:
|
Jan 26 01:02 UTC 1996 |
What exactly was objectionable about this "Brandy" story that staff
didnt want it on file in Grex? I've seen explicit stories and topics
discussed in the sexuality conf and nobody's made a stir about those.
Suppose that web page and the "Brandy" story, whatever that is, were
still here. Doubt anyone would have said anything and noone would
really care. I think its unethical for staff to be removing files
based on their content without a policy in place to remove the
subjectivity from the decsionmaking process.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 239 of 382:
|
Jan 26 02:05 UTC 1996 |
Terribly unethical.
|
scott
|
|
response 240 of 382:
|
Jan 26 03:33 UTC 1996 |
Staff didn't remove the file. The author did, on his own volition.
|
robh
|
|
response 241 of 382:
|
Jan 26 04:25 UTC 1996 |
Um, kerouac, we ARE discussing a policy about these pages.
That's what this entire item is about, yes?
And what exactly was unethical, sidhe?
|
tsty
|
|
response 242 of 382:
|
Jan 26 05:55 UTC 1996 |
if scott is right, nothing, robh.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 243 of 382:
|
Jan 26 14:26 UTC 1996 |
If you folks are going to go screaming "CONSPIRACY!" every three responses,
you could at least have the courtesy to get your facts straight.
1) Staff didn't remove the story. Its owner, arthurp, did, by his own choice.
2) "Staff" as a group doesn't "find the story objectionable". There is no
official staff policy toward this item.
3) The decision about what kind of stuff is OK to post on Grex is a
decision for all users, or *maybe* the board, but not for staff.
4) Kerouac, this is the umpteenth time you've gotten your facts way
wrong and then started hurling accusations. Personally, I'd much
appreciate it if you'd check your facts first, before hurling.
These things are discussed *right* *here*, in this item. Have you read it?
<sigh>
Flame away at me...
|
robh
|
|
response 244 of 382:
|
Jan 26 14:46 UTC 1996 |
(I will note, though, that I personally found the story as dull
as dishwater, but not "offensive" by my definitions.)
|
kerouac
|
|
response 245 of 382:
|
Jan 26 20:33 UTC 1996 |
Popcorn, I always speak in hypotheticals, I said "IF" staff removed
that file...IF....that is not an accusation, because such would
constitute an acceptance of something as fact. SRW made it appear
that this whole item is here because staff found this story
objectionable. I just said that if staff removed it as opposed to
simply encourging arthurp to remove it, it would have been unethical
And it would have. After all, if arthurp simply removed the story
noone would have noticed. Therefore logically it would appear someone
complained...but SRW didnt spell this out in his response.
He said that discussions of such a policy were resulting from the
circumstances surrounding this story and its removal. It was a
partial misunderstanding, but this is going to happen when some issue
is being discussed by staff in mail or the staff conf and then brought up
here in a partial or incomplete manner.
I was speaking hypothetically based on incomplete information and in
general. Popcorn, you're the one assuming the facts and making
accusations (you assumed that I was speaking specifically and not
hypothetically and that I was critizing an individual act as opposed
to what could have in theory been an unofficial policy). Look up
the word "IF" in your dictionary and if you read what it means, you
should know I wasnt directly critizing anyone.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 246 of 382:
|
Jan 26 20:52 UTC 1996 |
The trouble with expounding at length on IFs, is that it can quickly
become irrelevant - and lead to drift (discussing that which is not
the topic).
|
scott
|
|
response 247 of 382:
|
Jan 26 22:59 UTC 1996 |
It's also risky to say that things weren'e properly discussed here because
they started in staff. This item didn't have much, if any discussion in any
private staff mail or conf.
"If" is a form of accusation, since it is very likely that somebody may
misinterperet it. A much better response would be "It's good that staff
didn't remove it, because it would have been bad otherwise."
|
scott
|
|
response 248 of 382:
|
Jan 26 23:11 UTC 1996 |
Hey, guess what? I just reread some of this, and kerouac never did say "if".
Let's look at a replay:
really care. I think its unethical for staff to be removing files
based on their content without a policy in place to remove the
subjectivity from the decsionmaking process.
I don't see the word "if" in there anywhere, or anywhere else in the
response (#238). If this is hypothetical, it's pretty hard to interpret
as such.
|
arthurp
|
|
response 249 of 382:
|
Jan 26 23:40 UTC 1996 |
'Staff' had nothing to do with the removal of the file. I was advised
by several friends, who happen to be on staff, that a file of mine
was eating considerable net bandwidth (1/3 of web traffic). Because
I didn't want to hog grex all to myself, I removed the file. The
people on staff never approached me as staff members. Several of them
approached me as friends. No recommendatinos were made, and no
policies were alluded to. And, Kerouac, every bit of this was
discussed in grinding, exhaustive detail earlier in this item.
|