[Clipart] More nsfw stuff

[chovynz]

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Nicu Buculei <nicu_gfx at nicubunu.ro> wrote:

> 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?


Comparing apples with oranges. It has no relevance to the issues at hand.
Vectors are scalable and do not lose quality of themselves, when a photo
can't necessarily be scaled up without losing quality. I used to think they
weren't clipart, however Jon says they are. Try convincing Jon that his
vectorised photos are "shit" and are not clipart. If you have a problem with
vectorised photos then you need to talk to Jon. What's valid for Jon is
valid for all and vice versa.

If you say remove these cliparts on the basis that they are not clipart,
then Jon will need to remove 300 of his vectorised photos. If you say Jon's
photos are clipart then there is nothing stopping anyone from auto-tracing
photos and uploading them.

That's besides the points I am trying to make and a distraction to the topic
on hand of adult content. On with it.


>
>
>  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.


No, showing a nipple is not porno. Did I say that? No. Showing genital muff
and organs *is *classified as porno. For the purposes of *age-appropriatness
* and these cliparts and the proposed filters there's no difference between
nsfw and porno. What's to stop someone uploading a clipart of some child
porn or beastiality? OCAL doesn't censor "offensive material", remember?
Through these conversations, it has become clear to me that there IS nothing
to stop someone from uploading porno. So, as a result we must also have
filters so that those, who do not want to see the
generally-and-widely-accepted-as-adult behaviours and images, can browse
freely.

I want my children to be active in OCAL.
I want my students to be active in OCAL.
I want many more people involved in OCAL.
I want many of those universities who would ban and block students from
using OCAL because of porno supply to be able to use and be involved in
OCAL.

Having porn visibly available on OCAL will stop many people from using and
joining OCAL.
I am proposing *to remove that hinderance to OCAL's growth*.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pornography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_the_United_States

Note: OCAL is registered under US legislation.

Registrant City:San Francisco
Registrant State/Province:CA
Registrant Postal Code:94107
Registrant Country:US


>
>  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.


Other way around friend. Showing should be choice. Hiding porno or other
things tagged as "adult-only" should be default, so that kids can browse
without being exposed to these things, without their or their parents
consent. They are not adults, therefore should not have easy access to
"adult-content."


>  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.


What about universities? What about schools? What about other people with
different values than you? Are you thinking of the bigger picture or only of
yourself? I find it interesting that you "picked up" on caring about
churches. What about the people IN those churches? What about the people IN
those universities? What about my 6 year old daughter? Or my friends 4 year
old daughter? Or your cousins 5 year old boy or 11 year old daughter? Those
are the people that I would like to see using OCAL regularly.

Again you are not comparing relevent images and info. The sistine Chapel is
physical "art". It's also 60 feet (?) in the air and can't be easily
recreated by my little kids. Nor can it be copied easily, only really by
taking photgraphs of that, and that, by being there. It is a recognised
masterpiece, done by one person. And the Chapel does not display the stuff I
am talking about.

OCAL on the other hand, is readily available, is on the internet, has high
Net-profile, can be accessed from anywhere, is promoting using their stuff
in any way, and can be seen and copied by all humans with a computer. The
content is uploaded by users from around the world with a variety of
viewpoints, interests and skills. Any pedophile with computer skills can
upload images, and if I understand Jon's stance of "No censorship", and "no
value judgements" correctly, there is nothing we can do about that image
that that pedophile has uploaded.


>
>
>  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.


I am thinking. *Very *seriously. See below.

>
>
>  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.


We do. And we might (probably will) have more in the future. This is an
issue that has come up now, and one that we can deal with now, BEFORE those
images get onto OCAL. See below.


>
>  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.
>

Exaggeration and misleading information based on misinformation and fear (or
frustration!). Masturbation doesn't cause blindness. You are ignoring my
points because you don't like the stance. Reply with reason or not at all.


>
>  *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.


Which is what I am advocating. We cannot do this yet. You seem to be
contradicting yourself. You say we shouldn't filter, yet you tell me to do
so. Which is it to be? Filter or not filter? Growth by inclusion of people,
or smallness and elitism by sticking to a false "free speech" mentality?


>
>
>  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".


You misunderstood my statements. I have not stated that nudity is the same
as porn. It occured to me while we were talking that this IS an issue that
needs sorting out and I changed my words accordingly. The real issue goes
way beyond just these cliparts mentioned here. I apologise for not being
more clear with my words. I don't have a problem with these cliparts being
available. I do have a problem with the visibility of the cliparts stopping
other (LARGE) groups of people from using OCAL freely. It's supposed to be a
community, not a select few. It could be a global community, and OCAL has
the potential to be HUGE! not just 63,000 members, but over 11,425,733 of
active, contributing people. I want that. I'm proposing a method of growth
for OCAL.


>
>
>  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.


You aren't a librarian as far as I'm aware. You don't need to do any work on
this issue in the background. You will still have access to your nude
cliparts and pictures. So why do you have an issue with bringing in some
processes that would help *to bring in more people onto OCAL*? To me, your
reasoning is one of the reasons why OCAL has grown so slowly. It's been 6
years. SIX YEARS! since OCAL opened.

30,000 cliparts is a sad number for a clipart site that has been around for
six years.
According to a news feed recently we have 60,000 members. But looking at the
artist page I have to ask "how many people are contributing"?

There are only 13 artists (WORLDWIDE) who have contributed over 300
cliparts. The total combined of these 13 artists are 13100 cliparts, one
account of which is used by librarians to upload "old clipart". That's
almost one half of "reported" cliparts on the site contributed by a small
handful of people.

That does not speak of a healthy community to me. My aim with this proposal
is

   - to promote the growth of OCAL by
      - allowing adults to view adult content and
      - allowing children to view children content
      - Enabling them both to browse together, with age appropriateness
      filters in place
      - Enabling the freely given word of mouth, and advertising that will
      happen when we build up the trust of involved community that
their kids will
      be "safe".
      - Therefore encouraging more groups of people to join, who may not
   want to see nude, or obscene, or pornographic, or drug-use-promoting
   clipart, on a normal search for "green" or an innocent search for a
   colouring in picture of a "girl" or a "skirt" for their dress up doll
   program. *Filters are a must in this environment of supplying PD clipart,
   to all humanity, for all ages.*

Note that these are statements of fact. I don't have a problem with nudity.
I do have a problem with small growth for something as special as OCAL.

Never underestimate the power of word of mouth. Currently, Nicu's mindest
towards this issue promotes negative word of mouth. Jon's seeming
indifference doesn't help. Am I the only one who cares about what our
children see? No. I do not just speak for myself when I propose these
measures.


>
>
>  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.


Really? what would you call, under US law, showing genitals, in public then?
If it's an offense to do so under law in public, then it's an offense to
supply such cliparts to minors. I'm no expert on US law, but it IS an
offense to show your genitals in Public in NZ. I assume that's the same in
US?

Case in point; this is legitimate clipart, and (as far as I know) IS public
domain.* This is a legitimate clipart for OCAL.*

http://www.openclipart.org/detail/26406

However *it IS also porn*. It is sexually suggestive, it displays genitals,
it is not appropriate for children of 6 years old to see. It also comes up
when searching for "Skirt", and "school", and "work" all of which are
innocent little searches. You cannot argue with this. My arguements are not
based on fallacy. They are based on fact. Porn CAN and will appear on OCAL.
Beastiality can and will appear (it's only a matter of time due to human
social standards entropy.) Perhaps even child porno. Would you still support
"free speech" when those types of images appear on OCAL in mainstream
searches for "Baby" or "Kid"? That is the mindset that you currently have
Nicu, and *I will not stand by to allow that mindset to influence what my
children view, when they are simply looking for pictures to colour in*. That
is my personal viewpoint, but it stands alongside many ten thousands who
think this way (not fallacy - fact.). I share it with you in the hopes that
you will see I'm* not just talking hot air*. Nor is my stance based on fear,
or ignorance, but a desire to see things grow, and community to become
stronger. The ONLY way to build community is to include other people in your
community, in your circle of influence, in your friendship.

If someone wants a nude fix then there are many other places someone can go
to get that. OCAL does not need to be one of those places. Because of the
stance of the founders of "no censorship", and "no value judgements", we are
forced into a place where we either change the way we think, for the good
growth of OCAL, or we face becoming "just another clipart library" with
little membership and not much community. I personally don't want to see
that happen. I also don't want to see another six years go by and OCAL has
only 120,000 members - most of whom don't do anything.

Filters are a good way forward, so that people can choose to view what they
want. Tags are not filters. They can be used BY the filters, but by
themselves,* tags are useful only for finding things*. Filters are the next
step to making a clipart community safe *for all*. It is not a bad thing,
when you supply choice to the users. Heck, you could even think of it as a
bonus to have access to the adult material when you become a member!



>
>
>  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.


Then, only, on the copyright issue, they should be deleted from the Library,
not just "Hidden." This is a moot point since we librarians cannot yet
delete images. The visibility toggle only "hides" clipart from searches. You
can still access those cliparts if you know the URL of it.

>
>
>  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.


When have I called nudity porn? You are bringing in something I have not
said. I think my best points so far are up above. Re-read them.

*Summary *:
Let's bring in filters.
Let's let the user choose what they want to view, by providing adult content
filter toggles in their user preferences.
Let's enable young people and children to browse the site "safely" and
therefore allow universities and large groups of people involved with
children to interact, together with others who have no such restriction, in
a taylored Open Clipart experience.

Now it's off to bed for me. I'm tired after all this thinking and advocacy.
:) Be well. Debate hard. The floor is yours.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/clipart/attachments/20100505/d6c8b62d/attachment.html>