i have not clicked on this website, but is this the webcomic that crwth or whoever found that one time where it just put video game characters in rape/bondage/violent death situations?
No no that's a different one.
Don't go anywhere near this one either though.
Don't do it.
wait which one is langly talking about
there are so many weird webcomics i've posted
eric recognized it so now I know it is the same guy who does chugworth.
It was like, people found his other work and it was like holy shit these are rape comics what the hell
it's a tragic thing because I remember reading chugworth and thinking I really liked his art style
then it turns out he draws murder rape kiddie porn
The issue of false positives is a non issue with a dedicated staff and the right technology. If a user wants to fap to the bukkake page on wiki, then that is so infrequent that I wouldn't give a shit. These are workflow and political issues, not technical ones.
I'd be interested in why you think it's a non-issue presented in less vague terms.
If someone wants to masturbate to national geographics or hardbound encyclopedias you aren't going to throw those out are you? The same logic applies. We can easily filter out porn with a decent firewall that has filtering subscriptions, while also creating global exclusions to sites like wikipedia, or the mayo clinic, or planned parenthood, most health resources, really. It requires a bit of forethought and planning but only idiots throw out entirely sound processes based on fringe cases. It is a non issue because these same solutions have already been implemented thousands of times in the private sector and are tested, and the trivial amount of false positives you'd encounter.
My understanding of the library system as explained to me by a librarian wife of a friend is that libraries are way underfunded to implement technological solutions and maintain them, and way too political to get anything accomplished sometimes.
I was recently at the local library and walked past a kid that was using one of the computers available to the public, and he's just sitting there in the middle of the library watching hardcore hentai. And that's when I remembered that the Seattle Public Library system has a staunch policy of refusing to filter content to patrons. Which would make sense if it was just a matter of not filtering what you access through their connection, but you'd think they would at least require someone watching adult material to watch it somewhere more secluded.
You have never truly witnessed stupid if you haven't read or seen a discussion between librarians about whether filtering porn on public computers is a bad idea.
how can there even be an argument?
How can allowing people to watch porn on public computers possibly be a good idea?
It's not a good idea, but it's also impractical to filter porn through your own IT department if you have one or through commercial gateway services or software filters without inevitably filtering things like wiki articles on anatomy or breast cancer survivor resources, which is a pretty shit thing to do.
This is a reasonable point. The counter is that a lot of commercial filters, like the one my system uses, will let you give a patron an unfiltered session if they need to do research on a topic that would typically be blocked.
As to why not filter at all, well, prepare to have your mind broken:
I'm already familiar with the ALA stance from working in a library. I'm kinda skimming these articles though, and not seeing anything super unreasonable? Like, I disagree with some points of contention here, but I think I mostly get the reason they're taking their respective stances.
Personally, I'm not in favor of requiring patrons to make a request, but I also don't think a kid is gonna be traumatized for life if they see sex for three seconds. Like, if it were up to me, I'd say give the librarians discretion in determining if a user is viewing graphically explicit content, educational or not, and if they are, make them use a designated computer or set of computers, the monitors of which have restricted viewing angles. If they explicitly touch themselves, partially or fully disrobe, or otherwise overtly present sexually, toss 'em out.
I get their reasons too, I may have tossed around some hyperbole with the brain thing. I just don't agree with them. I'm all for freedom of access to information but some people act like libraries have some sacred duty to give people access to whatever they want and get super stupid about it and the end result is homeless dudes jackin it in public areas because the librarians there are too scared to do anything about it.
Also my system's predicated on a neighborhood branch model and almost every library is too small to allow for a special adults only computer area. The computers are just out on the floor in the middle of everything. So would you have a few special sections in a few libraries with a computer policy that applies only to them? Basically setting up little publicly funded porn theaters?
The issue of false positives is a non issue with a dedicated staff and the right technology. If a user wants to fap to the bukkake page on wiki, then that is so infrequent that I wouldn't give a shit. These are workflow and political issues, not technical ones.
I'd be interested in why you think it's a non-issue presented in less vague terms.
If someone wants to masturbate to national geographics or hardbound encyclopedias you aren't going to throw those out are you? The same logic applies. We can easily filter out porn with a decent firewall that has filtering subscriptions, while also creating global exclusions to sites like wikipedia, or the mayo clinic, or planned parenthood, most health resources, really. It requires a bit of forethought and planning but only idiots throw out entirely sound processes based on fringe cases. It is a non issue because these same solutions have already been implemented thousands of times in the private sector and are tested, and the trivial amount of false positives you'd encounter.
My understanding of the library system as explained to me by a librarian wife of a friend is that libraries are way underfunded to implement technological solutions and maintain them, and way too political to get anything accomplished sometimes.
national geographics and encylopedias that show titties as a part of life are exactly the same as a website showing a chick with a dick in each hand and two up her butt
Exactly the same
The cost argument potentially has legs but why wouldn't a county have its libraries piggyback off of the software license for filters in schools
0
Options
Larlarconsecutive normal brunchesModerator, ClubPAmod
I was recently at the local library and walked past a kid that was using one of the computers available to the public, and he's just sitting there in the middle of the library watching hardcore hentai. And that's when I remembered that the Seattle Public Library system has a staunch policy of refusing to filter content to patrons. Which would make sense if it was just a matter of not filtering what you access through their connection, but you'd think they would at least require someone watching adult material to watch it somewhere more secluded.
You have never truly witnessed stupid if you haven't read or seen a discussion between librarians about whether filtering porn on public computers is a bad idea.
how can there even be an argument?
How can allowing people to watch porn on public computers possibly be a good idea?
It's not a good idea, but it's also impractical to filter porn through your own IT department if you have one or through commercial gateway services or software filters without inevitably filtering things like wiki articles on anatomy or breast cancer survivor resources, which is a pretty shit thing to do.
This is a reasonable point. The counter is that a lot of commercial filters, like the one my system uses, will let you give a patron an unfiltered session if they need to do research on a topic that would typically be blocked.
As to why not filter at all, well, prepare to have your mind broken:
I'm already familiar with the ALA stance from working in a library. I'm kinda skimming these articles though, and not seeing anything super unreasonable? Like, I disagree with some points of contention here, but I think I mostly get the reason they're taking their respective stances.
Personally, I'm not in favor of requiring patrons to make a request, but I also don't think a kid is gonna be traumatized for life if they see sex for three seconds. Like, if it were up to me, I'd say give the librarians discretion in determining if a user is viewing graphically explicit content, educational or not, and if they are, make them use a designated computer or set of computers, the monitors of which have restricted viewing angles. If they explicitly touch themselves, partially or fully disrobe, or otherwise overtly present sexually, toss 'em out.
I get their reasons too, I may have tossed around some hyperbole with the brain thing. I just don't agree with them. I'm all for freedom of access to information but some people act like libraries have some sacred duty to give people access to whatever they want and get super stupid about it and the end result is homeless dudes jackin it in public areas because the librarians there are too scared to do anything about it.
Also my system's predicated on a neighborhood branch model and almost every library is too small to allow for a special adults only computer area. The computers are just out on the floor in the middle of everything. So would you have a few special sections in a few libraries with a computer policy that applies only to them? Basically setting up little publicly funded porn theaters?
I'm fine with the attitude "if you don't want to block something because all information is important". But blaming technology for why it can't be done is hogwash.
0
Options
FandyienBut Otto, what about us? Registered Userregular
shadbase was severely disturbing but i think this angel stuff might be worse
i wanted to find a picture from their gallery to judiciously crop and post for laffs but i actually feel nauseated
damn all of you bloody lurkers who never came forward
and these are just the ones who stayed late enough for the picture, there were at least a dozen more people who came and ate khoos cupcakes
The issue of false positives is a non issue with a dedicated staff and the right technology. If a user wants to fap to the bukkake page on wiki, then that is so infrequent that I wouldn't give a shit. These are workflow and political issues, not technical ones.
I'd be interested in why you think it's a non-issue presented in less vague terms.
If someone wants to masturbate to national geographics or hardbound encyclopedias you aren't going to throw those out are you? The same logic applies. We can easily filter out porn with a decent firewall that has filtering subscriptions, while also creating global exclusions to sites like wikipedia, or the mayo clinic, or planned parenthood, most health resources, really. It requires a bit of forethought and planning but only idiots throw out entirely sound processes based on fringe cases. It is a non issue because these same solutions have already been implemented thousands of times in the private sector and are tested, and the trivial amount of false positives you'd encounter.
My understanding of the library system as explained to me by a librarian wife of a friend is that libraries are way underfunded to implement technological solutions and maintain them, and way too political to get anything accomplished sometimes.
Well, I did give a wiki article as a hypothetical example, but obvious exclusions like Wikipedia and major health organizations aren't the ones I'm really worried about. I'm not convinced the number of false positives are really fringe or trivial, but even if they were, I think that's far less acceptable for a public library than anywhere else. I'm essentially opposed to creating additional barriers of entry for finding information in that context, and I don't think you can divorce the technological component from the political issues, since pornography is a subjective determination, and technology isn't an objectively pure arbiter of reason at all levels yet.
Posts
it's a tragic thing because I remember reading chugworth and thinking I really liked his art style
then it turns out he draws murder rape kiddie porn
Probably wasn't you, at least.
and he's but one of the four horsemen
Gaia age: 3149 days
Last login: 3073 days ago.
scribblekid's super cool torture porn site i have but i don't think i mentioned shadbase
Posts Per Day
9.07
but hey i still post cause a bunch of my friends are still there in a private-hidden-forum
don't give a gosh darn
edit: it was in the WebCATcomics Tsundere thread.
...careful with some of this material. If you get it on you you'll need to take antibiotics.
huh well i stand corrected sory everyone
good to know i can still come through
If someone wants to masturbate to national geographics or hardbound encyclopedias you aren't going to throw those out are you? The same logic applies. We can easily filter out porn with a decent firewall that has filtering subscriptions, while also creating global exclusions to sites like wikipedia, or the mayo clinic, or planned parenthood, most health resources, really. It requires a bit of forethought and planning but only idiots throw out entirely sound processes based on fringe cases. It is a non issue because these same solutions have already been implemented thousands of times in the private sector and are tested, and the trivial amount of false positives you'd encounter.
My understanding of the library system as explained to me by a librarian wife of a friend is that libraries are way underfunded to implement technological solutions and maintain them, and way too political to get anything accomplished sometimes.
but it's harder to come through after reading shadbase
I get their reasons too, I may have tossed around some hyperbole with the brain thing. I just don't agree with them. I'm all for freedom of access to information but some people act like libraries have some sacred duty to give people access to whatever they want and get super stupid about it and the end result is homeless dudes jackin it in public areas because the librarians there are too scared to do anything about it.
Also my system's predicated on a neighborhood branch model and almost every library is too small to allow for a special adults only computer area. The computers are just out on the floor in the middle of everything. So would you have a few special sections in a few libraries with a computer policy that applies only to them? Basically setting up little publicly funded porn theaters?
I doubt anything in these comics can phase me.
worthless worthless worthless worthless worthless worthless worthless worthless worthless worthless worthless worthless worthless worthless worthless worthless
national geographics and encylopedias that show titties as a part of life are exactly the same as a website showing a chick with a dick in each hand and two up her butt
Exactly the same
The cost argument potentially has legs but why wouldn't a county have its libraries piggyback off of the software license for filters in schools
that's the spirit
now let's go shave you with the clippers of shame
how'd that rub turn out?
I'm fine with the attitude "if you don't want to block something because all information is important". But blaming technology for why it can't be done is hogwash.
i wanted to find a picture from their gallery to judiciously crop and post for laffs but i actually feel nauseated
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/19914441/#Comment_19914441
damn all of you bloody lurkers who never came forward
and these are just the ones who stayed late enough for the picture, there were at least a dozen more people who came and ate khoos cupcakes
Well, I did give a wiki article as a hypothetical example, but obvious exclusions like Wikipedia and major health organizations aren't the ones I'm really worried about. I'm not convinced the number of false positives are really fringe or trivial, but even if they were, I think that's far less acceptable for a public library than anywhere else. I'm essentially opposed to creating additional barriers of entry for finding information in that context, and I don't think you can divorce the technological component from the political issues, since pornography is a subjective determination, and technology isn't an objectively pure arbiter of reason at all levels yet.
agreed
I need to make my way to PAX East at some point.
Khoopcakes.
I still haven't made it. We're waiting until we get our new outdoor BBQ to give it a preparatory venue worthy of its fame.
you mean the webcomic stuff? the answer is no unless he is depicting specific people
I mean, IANAL so I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure
wtf i want bbq
god damnit lar