"If you want to hide the image behind a thumbnail or a black/white outlide and require an explicit click, fine."
Fortunately, that is exactly what is being proposed [1]
I belive SOPA, PIPA, et al, were more about online piracy. However here in Austraila we reciently had to fight againt a proposal for manditory internet censorship, who's reason for being was precicly: "Think of the children!". But just because trying to protect children has been used as a cloak for some pretty unpalatable things does not mean that everything done in the name of protecting children is automatically bad. For example child labour laws were done with the express goal of protecting children and you would be hard pressed to find somebody that would argue they are a bad thing.
Instead we need to think about what is being proposed and evaluate each case it on its merits. Having a knee jerk reaction against filtering is almost as bad as having a knee jerk reaction against porn.
In this case:
* The filter is opt in, not opt out.
* No images would be permantly removed, only hidden
* The feature should be visible, clear and useable. Its not going to silently hide things.
* The principle of least astonishment for the reader would be applied.
I belive that this presents a quite acceptable trade off, between making all information avable to everybody and as you put it - censorship. The tool is there for anybody who wants to use it, and if you don't it has no impact on you.
Fortunately, that is exactly what is being proposed [1]
I belive SOPA, PIPA, et al, were more about online piracy. However here in Austraila we reciently had to fight againt a proposal for manditory internet censorship, who's reason for being was precicly: "Think of the children!". But just because trying to protect children has been used as a cloak for some pretty unpalatable things does not mean that everything done in the name of protecting children is automatically bad. For example child labour laws were done with the express goal of protecting children and you would be hard pressed to find somebody that would argue they are a bad thing.
Instead we need to think about what is being proposed and evaluate each case it on its merits. Having a knee jerk reaction against filtering is almost as bad as having a knee jerk reaction against porn.
In this case:
* The filter is opt in, not opt out.
* No images would be permantly removed, only hidden
* The feature should be visible, clear and useable. Its not going to silently hide things.
* The principle of least astonishment for the reader would be applied.
I belive that this presents a quite acceptable trade off, between making all information avable to everybody and as you put it - censorship. The tool is there for anybody who wants to use it, and if you don't it has no impact on you.
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial...