> On Nov 15, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 16/11/2014 07:34, Yoav Nir wrote: >> Hi, Lloyd >> >> That is one possible outcome: all decent people have “safe” set. > > Please define "decent" in a culture-independent way. That’s easy. Lloyd said “if you don’t set it, you will be investigated for terrorist thoughts”. Decent people are those who don’t get investigated for terrorist thoughts. This isn’t a circular definition. Investigator behavior can be observed, and those investigated can be assumed indecent. > >> Another, IMO more likely possible outcome is that servers serve content that is so bland with “safe” set, that nobody sets it, but some people feel like they’ve done something good by setting it for their children. >> >> Imagine Wikipedia with nothing controversial: nothing about abortions, religions, genetics, evolution… > > And that will not happen, so Wikipedia will simply ignore "safe", so browsers > set to request "safe" will just get raw Wikipedia, so "safe" will be useless > for parents wishing to censor their children's access to Wikipedia. > > Thanks; this is a good illustration of why this whole thing is a pointless fig leaf. Glad to help. BTW: Matthew is correct that Wikipedia currently does not provide a safe option, while Google’s search does. Both Bing and Yahoo also offer a ‘safe’ option, but both of them want a ternary value (off/moderate/strict). Some content providers go way beyond, providing categories of unsafeness (nudity / sexual themes / violence/gore / strong language / ideologically sensitive — those are the categories from deviantart.com) Yoav