Look, I don't consider myself a threat to human existence because I would like there to be a way to censor child pornography. That is all. I would like the right to choose as much as all of you here what to view. The inherent problem is that these are victims who were not given any choice as to whether their images in acts they were coerced or forced should be 'shared'. Let's step back and realize that there will always be moral obligations to a society for it's members. Freedom does not equal safety. Whether it is doable to censor seems to be a problem and I understand it may not be possible. I do believe, that if censorship is possible, cp should be censored and at that the only thing. There are those here who complain about their rights and the rights of society et al, but what about the rights of the abused, in this case I mean the victims of cp? They have been violated by a sex act and then by images or video being 'shared'. Think about it.
Darkproton I'm as appalled as you by cp and the whole reprehensibly evil "industry" it represents. Yes there are real victims of this very dark part of human nature and yes, there are hideously nasty people profiting from it too. I wouldn't think there'd be anyone on here that doesn't abhor what cp does to its victims.
However, the minute (the very second) we start down this track of "filtering" or "combing" content for any evidence of cp we're on the slippery slope and before you know it, caught in the cross fire of a million considerations. Like, photo of teenager in sexy pose where she looks 18 but turns out to be 15...is that cp? Or photo of some kids innocently playing at a nudist beach...they're nude which (in my view) is completely innocent but there are many many people that would consider that borderline cp....do we filter that? Or what about a young child fully clothed but with a strong sexually suggestive pose...is that cp? Do you see the mess you'd end up in here?
For all these reasons the MN network MUST be completely and utterly free of ANY interference as to what content is on there. It's not for DRK to be making sociological rulings on what is and isn't appropriate. It's a private anonymous network: end of story.
I understand your point of view. To further save us typing back and forth, it boils down to you valuing free speech above moral implications vs. me applying a morality that is greater than free speech.
A quick note, I believe free speech in and of itself is a moral issue as well.
Look, I don't consider myself a threat to human existence because I would like there to be a way to censor child pornography. That is all. I would like the right to choose as much as all of you here what to view. The inherent problem is that these are victims who were not given any choice as to whether their images in acts they were coerced or forced should be 'shared'. Let's step back and realize that there will always be moral obligations to a society for it's members. Freedom does not equal safety. Whether it is doable to censor seems to be a problem and I understand it may not be possible. I do believe, that if censorship is possible, cp should be censored and at that the only thing. There are those here who complain about their rights and the rights of society et al, but what about the rights of the abused, in this case I mean the victims of cp? They have been violated by a sex act and then by images or video being 'shared'. Think about it.
[addendum]I am only talking about cp, child pornography. The kind that I hope no one hear has seen and thereby does not fully understand the cruelty involved[/addendum]
Child porn is disgusting, sick, and cruel. To block it from the network would require surveillance and monitoring of the traffic of the network itself though.
It's a lose lose. On one hand you would destroy the privacy aspect of the network. On the other, you would allow any and all content regardless of type to be sent through including the above.
I see what you're getting at. The feesability of it, monitoring, that is.
