Content Most Foul: the British Library's Nanny Filter Blocks 'Hamlet'
An anonymous reader writes "A man using the British Library's public wi-fi found that access to an on-line copy of 'Hamlet' was blocked for 'violent content'. Now, it is true that 'Hamlet' is pretty violent (8 murders, including one before the play starts, plus one suicide). But the heavy-handed irony of a guardian of British cultural heritage censoring the greatest work of British literature is just too blatant to be ignored. Library staff initially didn't seem too interested in fixing the problem, but in the end they adjusted the filters."
TFA's a little short on detail, but why are they blocking violent content in the first place? I assume they have some reason to do so. And if that's the case, should it matter how old or famous the unacceptably violent work is?
Bottom line: if Hamlet fits their definition of inappropriate content, should they make explicit exceptions for particularly famous and important works, or should they evaluate the overall filtering/blocking objectives and rationale as well as the mechanisms and algorithms implementing those restrictions?
I am not a crackpot.
The old joke: Hamlet is a lousy play because about half its lines are cliches.
Not that Bill didn't write some other great stuff, but the fact remains that Hamlet is more influential than Lear or The Tempest or Richard III.
I am officially gone from
Rule 18.1: if you admit to liking some popular work of art, be it a song, a painting, a book, a movie, a videogame, or a play, and do so on the internet, someone will immediately criticize it. "Overrated" has a 50/50 chance of being used.
...
Observe. (ahem) The Beatles were a pretty good band. They had good songs. Like "Hey Jude." That was a good song.
Greatest Work? English Literature?
LoTR, you fool! ;-)
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."