3/05 I would like to vote for a "no porn" policy on the CSUA web site.
The situation is simply getting too ridiculous; not to even mention
that it may be violating some UCB policy. I propose that we all
porn pages off to OCF if they can host them and leave CSUA
to be used for more important things. THank YOu.
-A very concerned CSUA member/parent
\_ Show us what UCB policy is being violated, or for that matter
what CSUA policy. And define "porn." -tom
\_ I'm not your kids' parent. Deal with it. It doesn't take a
village to raise a child. It takes parents. Real parents. You
seriously believe that removing art from the CSUA's web site will
keep Johnny from seeing nekkig girlz on the web?
\_ If you want this done, propose it at the next politburo
meeting. If enough members vote for it, it will become
the law.
\_ Yep, and who gets squicked when non-porn gets removed or you
fail to police "real" porn and someone's kid sees it? Let it
be.
\_ No such UCB policy exists. In fact, this is a really really bad
idea because now you're trying to decide what's porn and not and
the "I can't define it, but I know what it is when I see it" method
doesn't hold water. Also, you're talking about possible
infringement of first amendment rights. I *strongly* suggest the
CSUA ignores all the porn. If you want a disk space policy, that's
a different matter, but you're looking for trouble when you filter
by content. At my site we don't do *any* sort of anything like
this. Until there's a serious legal problem, just leave it alone.
I suggest this concerned parent watch what their kids are doing on
the computer. It is your responsibility to take care of your kids,
not the CSUA's or any other computer organisation. Try NetNanny or
something if it bothers you so much. -A very concerned member
\_ Look, I'm as much in favor of a good yank as the next guy, maybe
even more, but I think a no porn policy might be good. It's not an
infringement of the first amendment, any more than, say, the
Chronicle refusing to print porn is. It's honestly mostly a matter
of bandwidth - the CSUA has had a lot of problems with porn getting
too many hits, and there's no reason to believe that'll stop. As
\_ So the problem is number of hits, not that it's porn.
Therefore, censorship solves the wrong problem and the
correct solution is either per-user hit limits or hacking
the httpd/kernel to assign scheduling tickets for user pages
out of the user's pool so if one user gets lots of hits it
only hoses them. -alanc-
far as what's porn and what isn't, that's a hard decision
sometimes;es, but it's fairly reasonable to say that it can be
judged on a case-by-case basis (like everyothing else in this
\_ Really? You plan to personally view all 5000 gifs I intend
to make available on a weekly rotating basis?
crazy, shiftless world). Or, another way of doing it is saying
that any content that generates a certain level of bandwidth
should require approval beforehand. The question isn't whether
\_ One man's porn is another man's art. Are we using my
standards or yours? I'm surprised to see such right wing
control oriented fascism coming from you, Ted. Where have
the barefoot days gone?
porn is bad - it's whether CSUA should shell out the bucks to host
it. -thepro
\_ The problem is CSUA bucks come via mandatory student fees
and are therefore bound by all sorts of University
& ASUC regulations. If the CSUA decides to exercise
editorial control over web pages it causes many more
problems than not doing so. (Not that the CSUA spends
any bucks on web serving - the machine was donated and
the net is paid for by the University.)
\_ THANK YOU! This is the point I failed to make
earlier. -first to say leave it alone.
\_ Oh pull that dildo out of your ass and shut the fuck up. If
keep your kid from viewing porn if it bothers you. Don't
make the rest of the world do your work for you. -aspo
\_ Bitch, shut the fuck up. You stole my man bitch, I'm taking
you on Springer. Bitch!!! |
http://csua.com/feed/