Re: Bug#138541: ITP: debian-sanitize (was Re: inappropriate racist and other offensive material)
>>"Jeff" == Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org> writes:
Jeff> Good point. I suppose we should have an exception for packages at some
Jeff> level of importance (standard + tasks? just standard?).
Ah. purity tempered by pragmatism.
Jeff> Note that the kernel source isn't essential.
Note that the kernel actually printk's some offensive stuff.
Jeff> There are many corner cases where this is true; there are
Jeff> others which are more clear-cut. I'm intending my package to
Jeff> cover the latter cases.
Were they really that clear cut, one would not need such a
package, or complex voting schemas.
Jeff> That is a good point. Assuming I go ahead with this package, can you
Jeff> suggest a process you would be comfortable participating in, that would
Jeff> register your general feeling of opposition to this kind of thing while
Jeff> not allowing you to become marginalized?
I am not sure there _is_ a process where I shall feel
comfortable aiding and abetting censorship.
Jeff> As an example, if you were to find one of your packages "blacklisted" in
Jeff> this sense, you might file a bug against the package BTS instead of
Jeff> lobbying for votes, explaining your position. This might cause some
Jeff> review process to be instigated, which might result in your package
Jeff> getting an exemption.
I am far more likely to actively go forward and taint as many
packages as I can lay my hands on, and get them all blacklisted.
Jeff> Do you prefer the current situations, where maintainers feel
Jeff> pressure to censor their packages or feel the wrath of bug
Jeff> report after bug report of angry users, to an open process
Jeff> whose decisions are open to appeal and discussion?
I prefer the current situtation to any institutionalized
censorship, yes.
Jeff> See the note about BitchX. Some of those tag lines have
Jeff> already been removed. Does that bother you? Do you feel that
Jeff> you've had a moral judgment made for you? Do you trust the
Jeff> BitchX maintainer to decide for you what taglines in the
Jeff> package are right for you to use - or the users of BitchX to
Jeff> not harass him into submission?
Yes. That is a conrerstone of the fellowship.
Jeff> Heh heh yourself. If you're the kind of person who can't see a
Jeff> distinction between moral and technical spheres of discussion, then you
Jeff> need to get out more.
I find this process of censoring or passing moral judgements
on packages to be far worse that what they are censoring.
>> People ought to be making subjective, individual decisions by
>> themselves. Enforcing some kind of moral majority standard is
>> something I find highly offensive
Jeff> Generally, I agree with you.
Jeff> Unfortunately, that's not how the world works. No corporation
Jeff> or government has the time to go through the entire corpus of
Jeff> interaction provided by a modern computer system and vet it for
Jeff> appropriateness according to the moral and legal restrictions
Jeff> they must operate under. Instead, they foist that job off onto
Jeff> the organizations that provide those modern computer systems,
Jeff> and expect that they will behave in a professional behavior.
I fail to see the relevance of this.
Jeff> That results in censorship. You may not like it, but you can't
Jeff> tell me that this isn't the way it happens.
I see. Children die and are moelsted, that is the way the
world is, so we may as well join the action? This is despicable.
Jeff> But, in that case, I wouldn't hold up Debian's virtues in regards to
Jeff> freedom of expression - especially if its members attempt to hack the
Jeff> package's own infrastructure to destroy it because they dislike its
Jeff> message, as some here have proposed.
If a package uses non technical reasons to declare conflicts,
I would see no reason to not do the same.
manoj
--
April 1 This is the day upon which we are reminded of what we are on
the other three hundred and sixty-four. Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead
Wilson's Calendar"
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: