Re: Bug#138541: ITP: debian-sanitize (was Re: inappropriate racist and other offensive material)
On Sun, 2002-03-17 at 00:45, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 04:52:19PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
>
> > True. Unfortunately, when you're talking about something as subjective
> > as offense, there aren't many good classification systems that won't
> > themselves be offensive to someone. Democratic vote strikes me as one
> > of the few that's hard to challenge.
>
> Who, then, becomes the target audience for such a package? How can
> users tell if this package is something they want if all they know is
> that it measures how much stuff offends Debian Developers? Bad code
> offends Debian Developers; broken licenses offend Debian Developers. By
> and large, swear words do not offend Debian Developers.
I'm envisioning the target audience for the package to be people who
want some kind of vetting of the content of packages, but who don't have
the time to do the research themselves. This might include less
technically-minded parents or corporate and government sysadmins. To
these people, "taking our word for it" is better than no vetting at all.
As I've mentioned in another message, I'm not interested in targeting
swear words or mild stuff. I'm hoping that this will catch packages
with highly offensive stuff, like the joke mentioned in this thread.
The point of the voting system is that a package would have to contain
something really bad before it would get onto a list like this.
> A democratic vote is difficult to challenge precisely because it's a BAD
> metric here. The only thing you're measuring is how much DD's like or
> dislike certain things. It neither guarantees that the excluded
> packages are offensive to a given user, nor gives a user the means to
> find out if he shares the values of the DDs who voted.
True. This package isn't meant to substitute for people's better
judgment. Rather, it's intended for people who don't want to exercise
better judgment, or people who would be held liable for the offense
others might take.
> > - Most developers, joking aside, are capable of distinguishing between
> > technical preference and moral repugnance.
>
> The more important assumption at issue here is that it's worthwhile to
> have a group of DDs decide on behalf of others what does or does not
> constitute an 'offensive' package, without being subjected to open
> review.
The open review is one of the goals of the package. The voting system
is intended to be a "good enough" approximation; I'm hoping to come up
with a conflict resolution system that allows for overriding votes in
some way.
As for people deciding offense on others' behalf, I think this thread
amply demonstrates that there is a demand for this. My concern is that
this demand be met in a way that reflects on Debian's generally open
policy.
Up to now, censorship has been a matter of the developer's choice, and
is thus exposed to the wrath of offended users. Since users have no
recourse other than by harassing the package maintainer, you end up with
developers self-censoring (before the fact, even) to relieve or avoid
the pressure. I don't want to take power over a package away from a
developer, though; rather, I'd like to divert the users' wrath away, so
the developer can make choices about the package that aren't based on
relieving peer pressure.
Reply to: