[Clipart] More nsfw stuff

[Nicu Buculei]

On 05/04/2010 11:28 AM, chovynz wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Nicu Buculei wrote:
>
> I think automatic traces are valid. Jon does (as per his recent upload
> of 300+). However it's a different style. Autotrace is still Vector.
> Vectored photos can be scaled up with no loss of quality, original
> photos often can not. As we can see Jon has been re-defining "clipart"
> for a long time now so I have no problem with autotraced photos.

What's the benefit of scaling the vectored image with no quality loss 
then  the vectorisation itself brought q *huge* quality loss already 
compared with the original photo?

> Free speech does not apply when we (OCAL) are supplying pornography to
> minors. Vectorised or not, that is what those particular images are, and
> there is no precedent "against" them. If there ARE original PD
> pornographic clipart then my kids will find them if there are no filters
> in place. It is not about offense. It is about being able to include a
> large number of people of all sorts of walks in life that do not want to
> see pornographic images - for whatever reason.

Hold your horses: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pornographic

Showing a nipple is NOT pornography. You did a huge jump here from NSFW 
to pornography. To my knowledge, w don't have any pornography on the 
website.

> Also, note here that I am not advocating removal of the cliparts in
> question, but rather that they can be chosen to be hidden. There is a
> huge difference. They are still there IN the library, but the user can
> hide them if they don't want to see them. OR they can view them if they
> want to. THAT is free speech in spirit and in truth.

I agree with tagging to people can hide stuff, but hiding should be opt-in.

> Many churches will not be able to use OCAL because of the search results
> providing pornographic clipart. I personally know of a church that has
> 400+ members. I know for certain they will not use OCAL because of the
> potential porno issue. I know of many churches that could benefit from
> using OCAL, IF there were suitable filters in place. Why do we need OCAL

My first reaction would be: why do I care about churches? but I can go 
on: the nudity we have so far does not show more skin than you can see, 
for example, on the Sistine Chapel.

> to be a porn factory? Isn't google enough?

You went to such an extreme... from a bit of pubic hair to "porn 
factory", seriously... take a step back, breath and think.

> Other cases. Universities are not keen on the same. Their school
> policies don't allow those kinds of things. Students get expelled if
> caught looking at pornograhic material. And so on.

Stop repeating "pornographic", we don't have such stuff.

> You misunderstand. My children cannot take parts of the library, they
> must take the whole. We must assume that any user that comes to OCAL
> must take it as the whole. My children do not have the technical
> knowledge to separate those images that they do not want out. Niether do
> they have the life-experience knowledge to filter out images that I do
> not want them to see. Don't you dare tell me that they have freedom to
> choose what images they can view, when that's exactly what we are not
> providing in the first place.

The sky is falling: your children will the the badly vectored "Naked 
Asian Lady", masturbate to it and go blind.

> *Choice. Filters. Filters give choice. They don't remove "free speech"
> as you like to call it, rather filters enhance free speech. They enhance
> freedom rather than take away freedom. Filters are a good thing.
> Deletion is judgemental censorship. Filters are freedom.*

You, tag the images, then go in your children;s profile and activate 
some tags to be kept out.

> I accept that I have used an appeal to emotion, however, I do not accept
> that I have used fallacy. Be wary of throwing out the good points by
> bringing up "fallacy" issues.

You used a *huge* fallacy by equating "nudity" with "porn".

> Current system excludes many people (all those mentioned before,
> including many muslims and other faiths, not to mention just the
> practical side of schools and universities). I want to see more people
> use OCAL, and therefore OCAL gains directly. Hence; put filters in place
> so that they can browse "safely" while allowing those who want to view
> all content to do so. I would go so far as to suggest we make a weapons
> filter as per your example above. Or a christianity filter if you
> prefer. That's bordering on ridiculus though. Where do we stop? Magic
> mushrooms? Aqua Icons?

Yes, is ridiculous, that's I don't want to go on the slippery slope.


> Porno (and drugs) is a recognised adult thing. It is not suitable for
> children. If we want more people who are involved with children to use
> OCAL "freely" then porno/drug-promotion filters are a must. That's not
> fallacy. That is proven via many surveys. I do not need to go into it to
> any great lengths here. The very reason of many universities policies
> are because of those surveys.

Is fallacy, we don't have any porn.

> I thought we needed proof to remove them. I have no way of knowing - I'm
> not a porno expert - and I don't want to go searching either. Some of
> you have said that she looks recognisable so I guess it would be good to
> remove her. I disagree that they are not clipart. I think they are.

I am no porn expert either and I don't recognize the model, but my 
experience as photographer tells me they are not self-made photos.

> Thanks again Nicu. You had thoughtful replies. I appreciate that you've
> taken the time to reply. I hope we can come to some workable solution to
> this.

But please stop with the exaggerations, again, nudity != porn.

-- 
nicu :: http://nicubunu.ro :: http://nicubunu.blogspot.com