jackson.linux at gmail.com
Fri Jul 1 12:25:25 UTC 2005
Dennis Kaarsemaker wrote:
> On do, 2005-06-30 at 21:15 -0400, Jack Jackson wrote:
>>My point was entirely this:
>>At the end of the day, avoidance of smut and violence depends on the
>>user, and my suggestion was not that the poster had not provided
>>ethics and passed on his values, but rather those activities were more
>>effective than any technology.
> Of course, but a proxy or block can (and will) help protecting against
> accidental 'bad pages' such as porn popups that you see everywhere, or
> the fact that almost all sites with 'fun' in the somain name seem to
> have an assiciation with (soft) porn.
The "fact"? Have you truly researched that statement? I mean, really!
Thank you for illustrating so perfectly my point.
http://www.sun-n-fun.org/ is the website of the second largest aviation
gathering on earth, held annually in Lakeland, FL Yes, it's truly sexy
to see the flight line, but not so much I'd want to stop my five year
old from seeing it. http://www.funbrain.com/ is on my son's bookmark
list. It's a popular eductional site. Disney online runs
http://familyfun.go.com/ . http://funlol.com/ has lots of corny but
clean jokes... They're dumb, but I wouldn't ban them. Shall we actually
> Of course ethics and moral are better than technology for protecting
> children, but I even use a squid myself to get rid of annoying (porn)
> popups. So please don't judge people for being a little protective. The
> internet, like the real world, can be an unfriendly environment.
I'm not being judgemental in the slightest, I am pointing out that these
programs are ineffective and unreliable. If only because they make broad
generalizations to "protect" you.
You know, like, "Let's stop everyone from looking at domains with the
word 'fun' in them."
Can we move on ... please?
More information about the ubuntu-users