AdultContentPolicyNotes - Revision history

KristinaWeis: add signature to discussion

2007-07-11T23:21:17Z

add signature to discussion

76.176.70.148: /* 11-JUL-2007 */

2007-07-11T22:57:09Z

‎11-JUL-2007

76.176.70.148: /* 11-JUL-2007 */

2007-07-11T22:56:17Z

‎11-JUL-2007

76.176.70.148 at 22:54, 11 July 2007

2007-07-11T22:54:40Z

76.176.70.148: Get a Grip (not that, idiot!)

2007-07-11T22:53:48Z

Get a Grip (not that, idiot!)

Misha at 13:53, 11 July 2007

2007-07-11T13:53:45Z

Misha at 03:47, 8 July 2007

2007-07-08T03:47:01Z

John Cross: /* 25-Apr-2007 */

2007-04-29T19:54:01Z

‎25-Apr-2007

Kasey: /* 25-Apr-2007 */

2007-04-25T19:45:20Z

‎25-Apr-2007

Kasey: /* 25-Apr-2007 */

2007-04-25T19:44:12Z

‎25-Apr-2007

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 Just one of your reader's thoughts...
 ==25-Apr-2007==
@@ Line 72: / Line 74: @@
                   make sure those never show -[[MIsha]]
 [[Misha]] - Concerns about pedophiles and their obvious interest to promote pedophile lifestyle.  Some of the links I have encountered have thumbnails of opbvious child porn.  Also some of the description and the keywords say sick things like "boys" "pre-pubescent" "legal" "nude" "sex" "boylove" "diapers".  I think people who have pages that are pro-pedophile or poss. child porn should have the keywords, links to child porn sites and descriptions of sex with children deleted. Like Nambla.org.
 [[Category:AboutUs:AdultContentPolicy]]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 . set a policy that you DO NOT MONITOR OR FILTER CONTENT.
 . set a policy that NO ILLEGAL MATERIAL may be posted.
 . set a policy that IF YOU BECOME AWARE of illegal material, it will be removed.
 . have a statement of liability that says "we are NOT responsible for other's postings"
 . HAVE AN ATTORNEY REVIEW THE ABOVE BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 This is where it gets sticky. Seeing a 6-year old in a sexually explicit position is obvious; but how many of you can tell the difference between a naked 17-year old and a naked 18-year old without ever making a mistake??? At 18, it's legal; at 17 it is not. YOU CAN'T TELL. Don't lie; and think about what the implication is of removing a bunch of pictures of young (under 10) kids is, but NOT removing a bunch of 15/16 year old pictures...
-What it comes down to is this: there is always a burden of reasonableness. If you *think* the picture should be removed, remove it. But don't set a policy that requires YOU to be correct and responsible. So, once again:
+What it comes down to is this: there is always a burden of reasonableness. If you *think* the picture should be removed, remove it. But don't set a policy that requires YOU to be vigilant and responsible and monitor everything. So, once again:
 . set a policy that you DO NOT MONITOR OR FILTER CONTENT.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 '''[[AdultContentPolicy]]'''
---11-JUL-2007==
 [[Gary]] You guys gotta grow up. Pie-in-the-sky arguments about free speech and the "rights" of people to post potentially objectionable material is bullshit. What matters is this: you guys run the site, you're gonna be held responsible for what's on it IF (1) you set policy to limit it, and (2) you enforce that policy through proactive evaluation of content.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:53, 11 July 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''[[AdultContentPolicy]]'''		'''[[AdultContentPolicy]]'''
		+	--11-JUL-2007==
		+
		+	[[Gary]] You guys gotta grow up. Pie-in-the-sky arguments about free speech and the "rights" of people to post potentially objectionable material is bullshit. What matters is this: you guys run the site, you're gonna be held responsible for what's on it IF (1) you set policy to limit it, and (2) you enforce that policy through proactive evaluation of content.
		+
		+	Once you 'agree' (by doing it!) to monitor the content and to weed out 'illegal' 'objectionable' 'whatever' content, you become responsible for the content!!! If you simply state "we do not monitor, censor, or otherwise limit content donations" with the CAVEAT that "we do remove materials which are illegal if they are brought to our attention" gets you off the hook.
		+
		+	Of COURSE you should remove kiddie porn. It's illegal (and sick). But... if you aren't AWARE that it's on a particular page, you aren't responsible. If however you BECOME aware, you HAVE to remove it IF you know it's illegal, else you are guilty of aiding and abetting.
		+
		+	This is where it gets sticky. Seeing a 6-year old in a sexually explicit position is obvious; but how many of you can tell the difference between a naked 17-year old and a naked 18-year old without ever making a mistake??? At 18, it's legal; at 17 it is not. YOU CAN'T TELL. Don't lie; and think about what the implication is of removing a bunch of pictures of young (under 10) kids is, but NOT removing a bunch of 15/16 year old pictures...
		+
		+	What it comes down to is this: there is always a burden of reasonableness. If you think the picture should be removed, remove it. But don't set a policy that requires YOU to be correct and responsible. So, once again:
		+
		+	0. set a policy that you DO NOT MONITOR OR FILTER CONTENT.
		+	1. set a policy that NO ILLEGAL MATERIAL may be posted.
		+	2. set a policy that IF YOU BECOME AWARE of illegal material, it will be removed.
		+	3. have a statement of liability that says "we are NOT responsible for other's postings"
		+	4. HAVE AN ATTORNEY REVIEW THE ABOVE BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING.
		+
		+	As soon as you start actively browsing pages LOOKING for things to remove, and acting on that, YOU ACCEPT RESPONSIBILTY FOR POLICING THE SITE and you can be held liable for NOT doing it in a specific instance. This has NOTHING to do with morality or the first amendment; it has EVERYTHING to do with protecting yourself against a lawsuit which is based on YOU not taking some action to remove something SOMEONE ELSE posted that you DIDN'T EVEN KNOW EXISTED. Cover your ass. (Hey, that's an anti-porno pun!).
		+
		+	Just one of your reader's thoughts...

	==25-Apr-2007==		==25-Apr-2007==

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:47, 8 July 2007
Line 43:		Line 43:

	Vinh- what about tweaking the user preferences so that they could choose to see the thumbnails, one step further then the walled garden.		Vinh- what about tweaking the user preferences so that they could choose to see the thumbnails, one step further then the walled garden.
		+
		+	[[Misha]] - Concerns about pedophiles and their obvious interest to promote pedophile lifestyle. Some of the links I have encountered have thumbnails of opbvious child porn. Also some of the description and the keywords say sick things like "boys" "pre-pubescent" "legal" "nude" "sex" "boylove" "diapers". I think people who have pages that are pro-pedophile or poss. child porn should have the keywords, links to child porn sites and descriptions of sex with children deleted. Like Nambla.org.

	[[Category:AboutUs:AdultContentPolicy]]		[[Category:AboutUs:AdultContentPolicy]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:54, 29 April 2007
Line 43:		Line 43:

	Vinh- what about tweaking the user preferences so that they could choose to see the thumbnails, one step further then the walled garden.		Vinh- what about tweaking the user preferences so that they could choose to see the thumbnails, one step further then the walled garden.
		+
		+	[[Category:AboutUs:AdultContentPolicy]]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 Is illegal content [[AdultContent]] a subset? Should we deal with illegal now or later?
-John believes '''ALL''' porn is illegal.
+[[John]] believes '''ALL''' porn is illegal.
@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
-Brandon concerned about Adult Content- mom, relatives, et al.
+[[Brandon]] concerned about Adult Content- mom, relatives, et al.
 Johns's wife encountered porn on the site; she belives it is wrong.
@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 no links to these pages? but would it be useful if we did not have links- would we just be filling the internet with noise?
-Tak- if we've edited a page, then we acknowledge the content of the page.
+[[Tak]]- if we've edited a page, then we acknowledge the content of the page.
 Vinh- what about tweaking the user preferences so that they could choose to see the thumbnails, one step further then the walled garden.

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ==25-Apr-2007==
-Notes from meeting: we have decided to continue with the process of Consensus Polling.
+Notes from meeting: we have decided to continue with the process of [[ConsensusPolling]].
-Is illegal content adult content a subset? Should we deal with illegal now or later?
+Is illegal content [[AdultContent]] a subset? Should we deal with illegal now or later?
-John thinks ALL porn is illegal.
+John believes '''ALL''' porn is illegal.
@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 Johns's wife encountered porn on the site; she belives it is wrong.
 He is concerned about reputation, of his job choice, and of the company.
-Ray has some questions about the details.
+Ray has some questions about the details...
 Tak's concern is the opposite of John's concern- free speech, friends who like porn, are involved in porn.
@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 Where is the line.
-Porn is NOT our focus.
+Porn is NOT our focus. (of the company)
-Chris- does not think that we are a 'porn' site, we include but we are not defined by it.
+[[Chris]]- does not think that we are a 'porn' site, we include but we are not defined by it.
 Thumbnails- do we keep them, what is the line: sexual suggestiveness, nudity...
-Isabel- What about the descriptions of the pages: they are often very explicit, chock full of references to, ahem, body parts.
+[[Isabel]]- What about the descriptions of the pages: they are often very explicit, chock full of references to, ahem, body parts.
 no thumbnails
@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 Vinh- what about tweaking the user preferences so that they could choose to see the thumbnails, one step further then the walled garden.