[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn

Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 11:32:55AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > My reasoning is roughly:
> > 1. how much of a problem is WebCollage? (10% porn finds. ow)
> even 1 is too much in the family, school, whatever case.

Depends on the family. Mine doesn't even lock the porno channels
on the TV AFAICR. There's nudity in quite a lot of the adverts on
some channels, too. We watch who's controlling the TV sets, as far
as possible. Is it a bug in our TV sets that porno isn't autolocked?

Just the same as with the TV setup, you should check your debian
setup carefully if you are worried by such things, or use a
"child-safe" config which shares your view. Main debian should
not be moral in this way, but it can be customised to be so and
I believe there are projects working on sharing those configs.

"Won't somebody please think of the children?" is a poor rally-cry
for your suggested debian boycott campaign. debian-jr is a place
who thinks of the children. Have you checked their setup on this?
That could be more persuasive if they're releasing in step. (And
is there even mandriva-jr and fedora-jr yet?)

> > 4. is this a much larger problem than a mail client which
> > displays graphics from junk email? (seems not)
> Definitively yes, because you are not forced to see junk email, while

Why not? I wish I could avoid seeing all junk without losing other
emails. Do you think I never have to open email or what? Well,
I could never install a screensaver either. (Actually, I don't. I
switch my monitor off. I last used a psychadelic screensaver a few
workplaces ago as a distraction to make cow-orkers pause after 2
minutes so I could get a word in edgeways.)

> screensavers get activated while you are not there, and out of your control,
> and can represent potential damage to innocent bistander.

To be honest, I think there are worse sources of damage than porno.

Reply to: