Slashdot Mirror

The answer is simple: Parents need to quit using the library as a daycare center and librarians as baby sitters.

rotten.com's standard response to those who complain about children accessing their site is exactly that: "The net is not a babysitter".

If parents want a machine to raise their children, they should use the old friend television. It's all nice and sanitized for their protection.

A Japanese gaming magazine? You're saying that we should take advice from these people? It would seem to me that the average Japanese person's taste would vary greatly from the average Slashdot readers'... at least, I hope it would.


See you in hell,
Bill Fuckin' Gates®.

A Japanese gaming magazine? You're saying that we should take advice from these people? It would seem to me that the average Japanese person's taste would vary greatly from the average Slashdot readers'... at least, I hope it would.


See you in hell,
Bill Fuckin' Gates®.

I agree -- there should definately be .xxx, and it should be strictly enforced through the force of law. And any site that habitually links to pornographic material should be forced into that domain, so that we wouldn't have to see it.

For example, one website that should be prevented from finding its way into any clean, god fearing home is this one -- you would not believe some of the filth and perversion that is constantly being linked to from that site.

And I know that all of the hard-core anti-porn crusaders would agree with me on this, too -- I look forward to the day when viewing evil, bad, rotten sites is difficult, in exactly the same way listening to evil, bad, rotten songs, or watching evil, bad, rotten movies is getting difficult up here in Fargo, ND.

I look forward to the day when ISP's are all large, scared multi-national corporations, filtering content based on almost arbitrary labels. It works so well with the only "record stores" left around here (like Wal-mart and Target), and it works so well with the homogonized movie theatre chains, too. I feel so cacooned and protected, knowing I'll never see an NC-17 movie or buy an uncensored BloodHound gang song again. I will be even safer when I couldn't view bad websites even if I wanted to.

And I know that my definition of "bad" will be the same as yours. It just has to be! I know exactly what you shouldn't be seeing or listening too!

How about Child Supermodels which seems to be another creep out site?

Okay, I have to say that I've seen disturbing stuff on the net.

Some of it is just downright vile.

But this Child Supermodels site is just flat-out creepy. I swear to god, you can replace all of the pictures of little girls with clothes with adult(?) women without clothes and you've got yet another porn site.

Look at some of these banners!

And the comments?

"Working with young girls is both a pleasure and a privilege for me." I'll bet it is, ya sick freak!

"Thousends of pictures all exclusive teen models. click and find out why we are the best!" Sounds like a pull quote off of any of a thousand porn sites.

*shudder* I agree with the other poster; I don't care how cute my kids end up being, there is no way in hell that I would ever inflict this kind of life or publicity upon them.

Jay (=
(You can even vote for your favorite "kid model" site! I swear, this is just some kind of crypto-anarchist pedophile ring site or something... ick ick ick...)

I would in half a heartbeat be happy to not allow porn sites on my system unless they ended in .porn/.xxx.

This is the real problem I have with .xxx. It would quickly become a quasi-legal standard, like the atrocious movie ratings system here in the United States, or those "voluntary" Parental Advisory labels that Tipper Gore made so incredibly important in in the sale and distribution of records here.

Unfortunately, I don't think most people who would like to filter porn have ever spent any time trying to figure out what pornography really is. I certainly have no idea what is "pornographic." Just about everyone would agree that a site like www.whitehouse.com definitely falls under the common definition of pornography. But what about the disgusting site rotten.com? Certainly, it contains a great deal of disgusting stuff that certainly isn't pornography, and some stuff that might be. Where it go?

Or, for a more difficult distinction, what about a site like photo.net? Certainly, there are plenty of photos of naked people there (or, at least, there were the last time I looked, about 5 years ago). Is it pornography? What about a document describing all sorts of disgusting perversions, like The Starr Report? Is that porn? Do we have to protect kids from that?

On an even more omininous tone, how about a totally serious political activism site, that just happens to be a political activism site for disgusting sexual perverts, like The North American Man-Boy Love Association? Where on earth do we put constitutionally protected political speech when that speech is considered the worse form of pornography available by many people?

Filtering already opens a big enough can of worms, even when the criteria for the filtering is (nominally) in the hands of the reciever of the information -- each person browsing theoretically has some chance to decide for themselves what criteria to use for "bad" sites. But to pre-apply the "pornography" criteria to a huge number of sites, and to apply it based on the discretion of people who are neither the content providers or the content consumers, is asking for a system rife with abuses and problems.

And if you believe your narrow definition of pornography is going to be the definition used by all sides when it comes time to start segregating the sites, you should spend some time really listening to what people are saying. No-one is going to be happy with the definition of porn, escpecially in a world where movies like Eyes Wide Cut can be defined as "Adult Only Pornography" by the American standards.

Robo-Gore (tm) will make us feel his bigger government.

Can you make a "kids heart dark"? Sure! It is normally done during wartime, the kids are taught to hate the enemy. Those who never got the history lessons (thanks , teachers union!) about Cambodia, Guana, and Germany can tune in the nighly news and watch kids throw rocks.

Can you do it over the internet? I don't know, but do images such as (warning: disturbing, will make you skip lunch at the very least) this and this (is porn, will offend you and make you say ouch) make kids happier and better adjusted? I cannot see how.

Just for the record- I'm voting for Bush.

Robo-Gore (tm) will make us feel his bigger government.

Can you make a "kids heart dark"? Sure! It is normally done during wartime, the kids are taught to hate the enemy. Those who never got the history lessons (thanks , teachers union!) about Cambodia, Guana, and Germany can tune in the nighly news and watch kids throw rocks.

Can you do it over the internet? I don't know, but do images such as (warning: disturbing, will make you skip lunch at the very least) this and this (is porn, will offend you and make you say ouch) make kids happier and better adjusted? I cannot see how.

Just for the record- I'm voting for Bush.

*shudder*

maybe i said that because, *gasp*, i really did expect that mentioning FreeBSD as a valuable source of potential design information for Linux would cross religious barriers, and get me marked as flamebait.

Impossible you think? Then look at the maturity which exudes from your reply to my message, and think about what you've added to the /. community. The answers, in case you missed them, are both negative. And that's *really* common, especially among the karma whores who play the /. game very well, as long as the goal isn't the disemmination of useful information or the creation of interesting dialogue. I'm referring instead to the people who think that a goatse.cx or rotten.com link is the coolest thing on the planet.
----------------------------

1. Turn off Linux-related topics in your preferences
2. Stop reading Slashdot.
3. Kill yourself in a spectacular manner for the amazement and amusement of your peers.

If in doubt, go with that third option. I'm bored.

---------///----------
All generalizations are false.

( \
X
8===D

http://smoke.rotten.com/bird
hello, my bird will be happy to help.

http://vagina.rotten.com/fish/

__/\__
|\ / * \
| X < (O===8
|/ \______/

http://vagina.rotten.com/fish/

Your testicles, eh? You really should have a doctor check that out, that's disgusting. You must look something like this.

It was really awesome when I saw it tattooed.on.your.moms.cuntlips.com

Maybe he's already discovered this and will never post a story again?

I know if I were a Slashdot author and suddenly discovered penis birds, I would get one and play with it 24 hours a day.

<O
( \
X
8===D

http://smoke.rotten.com/bird

--

<O
( \
X
8===D

http://smoke.rotten.com/bird

--

<O
( \
X
8===D

http://smoke.rotten.com/bird

--

<O
( \
X
8===D

http://smoke.rotten.com/bird

--

Please, stop your trolling, sir.

<O
( \
X
8===D

http://smoke.rotten.com/bird

--

lucky mouse

Like a nightmare...

Imagine www.rotten.com...

Consider this a downside to the proposal.

Best regards,
Steen Suder

how about rotten.com? EW.

that I found at Rotten:

Jan 4 1997
Rumors run rampant through Israel, particularly over talk radio, that a UFO will land at Tel Aviv on the following day. The predictions are purported to have been made by spoonbender Uri Geller. Thousands flock to the beaches, but no saucers.
Just thought it was an interesting bit. Find it today, Jan 4th, on their daily dose of Today in Rotten History.

that I found at Rotten:

Jan 4 1997
Rumors run rampant through Israel, particularly over talk radio, that a UFO will land at Tel Aviv on the following day. The predictions are purported to have been made by spoonbender Uri Geller. Thousands flock to the beaches, but no saucers.
Just thought it was an interesting bit. Find it today, Jan 4th, on their daily dose of Today in Rotten History.

Laws were NEVER meant to legislate morality. Laws (especially the ones you mention) are in place to prevent me from unfairly violating your rights.

So could you please tell me which of your rights are being violated by a rotten.com? Pretty distastefully funny stuff. If you don't like it, the solution is pretty easy... don't look at it. But don't you dare tell me what I can and can't look at.

Censoring films is one thing, I don't agree with it, but its feasible. There's a finite number of movies produced that need to be examined and a whole industry that can just be disallowed based on the genre (the hardcore porn genre, or maybe even soft core, I have no idea what the Australian censorship board views as offensive)

Censoring web sites is pretty close to impossible. There are the obvious ones, I would expect that Hustler and any page attached to that domain would be blocked for instance. What about individual pages though? I can set up a page on a free web server such as Tripod or GeoCities with objectionable content. GeoCities would eventually yank it, but Tripod seems to not care. Personal web pages with material they would find offensive probably numbers in the millions. For an ISP to selectively block these pages isn't feasible, so their only choice would be to block sites that have one or more user pages with objectionable material. I.e. block GeoCities, Tripod, AOL and a large number of other providers. Great, except for the small fraction of objectionable pages on these servers there is a large number of non-objectional pages. A few of these even have useful material.

Basically the end result would be that a site such as slashdot could be censored from all Australian internet users if it ever were to fail Australia's movie screening process. Oh yeah, there's a small box on slashdot which contains the latest image from JenniCam as well as links to Rotten.com and so on.

Although the main page of the Dilbert Hole has indeed changed to have the scanned in letter from the lawyers, the 17 comic strips themselves are still there. If anyone hasn't read them yet but, for some reason, wants to, start here:

http://thump.rotten.com/dilbert-hole /d001.html

http://thump.rotten.com/dilbert-hole /d017.html

As far as I'm concerned the comics haven't been "removed from the Internet" so hopefully the lawyers will get medaevil on this guy's ass. Freedom of speech is all very well but the copyright holder has rights, too.

If people try to tell me that this qualifies as a parody one more time I'll have no choice but to reach for my bucket and be violently sick.

Andrew.
(Who remembers when all the Internet's crap was just on USENET, and the web was nice and clean and new.)

--
The Yautja
"It was all so different before everything changed."

Although the main page of the Dilbert Hole has indeed changed to have the scanned in letter from the lawyers, the 17 comic strips themselves are still there. If anyone hasn't read them yet but, for some reason, wants to, start here:

http://thump.rotten.com/dilbert-hole /d001.html

http://thump.rotten.com/dilbert-hole /d017.html

As far as I'm concerned the comics haven't been "removed from the Internet" so hopefully the lawyers will get medaevil on this guy's ass. Freedom of speech is all very well but the copyright holder has rights, too.

If people try to tell me that this qualifies as a parody one more time I'll have no choice but to reach for my bucket and be violently sick.

Andrew.
(Who remembers when all the Internet's crap was just on USENET, and the web was nice and clean and new.)

--
The Yautja
"It was all so different before everything changed."

I'm not too sure why the "author" of the Dilbert Hole is really bothering to do this. I don't find it particularly amusing at all.

Quoting from the main page, this comment has just appeared:

Dilbert Hole is an acquired taste, reserved for the true connoisseur! Please be excusing me. I, a subversive counter culture type, have someone's nuts here to shave, and I've been ordered to be gentle. Gurgle.

Definitely an acquired taste. #17 brought a smile to my face, but only briefly.

However, apart from simply using three characters' pictures from the Dilbert comics, there are no real references to the actual characters themselves - so I don't think this qualifies as a parody, or even any type of humour really.

The "Mr T vs ..." page was a much worthier Quickie posting I think. I'm looking forward to the time when my computer knows that I won't find certain things funny and so can filter them from slashdot. :)

Andrew.

--
The Yautja
"It was all so different before everything changed."

hooray for protecting only popular opinions! you're a true american, buddy!

Do you mean to tell me that you actually think this is funny?

The last legal litmus test for obscenity that I read said the work in question has to have "no literary or artistic merit", and I believe the Dilbert Hole cartoons qualify in that regard.

I think the dialogue was optimized for its potential to offend -- straight gay-bashing profanity laced with dialogue taken from a bad direct-to-video porno.

If the "creators" of the Dilbert Hole want to create their own characters to spew that trash, that's their right. But the syndicators of Dilbert would be right to sic the legal attack dogs on them for using Scott Adams' property...

Jay (=

-Dan

http://thump.rotten.com/dilbert-hol e/index.html

Be very afraid.