Re: Pornography Causes Reflector Shutdown

David Winetsky (dwinet@qal.berkeley.edu)
Sun, 7 Jan 1996 09:04:45 -0800 (PST)


Two reflectors is a good idea. Thanks Michael.

David
On Sat, 6 Jan 1996, Michael Sattler wrote:

> At 12:17 1/4/96, Bob Dixon wrote:
>
> >Due to the increasing level of pornography appearing on the
> >Ohio State University reflector, it has been turned off until
> >a solution to prevent this is found. This useage has become so
> >prevalent that it is driving legitimate users away.
>
> I hear the frustration. As I see it, you have several options:
>
> 1. Shut the reflector off.
>
> This has obvious drawbacks to the entire community.
>
> 2. Restrict access to your campus only.
>
> One small community continues to enjoy the benefits of an open reflector,
> but the worldwide community suffers.
>
> 3. Restrict access by class (vs individual IP addresses).
>
> This seems to be the best of all practical choices. Dynamic IP addresses
> tend to be drawn from the same class C, so filtering by class filters out
> troublesome persons. If it happens to filter out an innocent citizen,
> apologize and explain why, but don't add an individual unless you're in a
> really good mood.
>
> 4. Do nothing.
>
> New technology spawns pinheads. Let them play for a while. If people
> don't want to see it, they can close the offending windows. If after some
> period of time things don't change for the better, then call this
> experiment a failure and do something.
>
> 5. Create alternative adult-content reflectors.
>
> This has promise. Create two reflectors, one for community usage and the
> other for sexually explicit usage. As soon as I get back into the swing of
> things I'll allow reflector.jungle.com (currently down due to my travels)
> to be an sexual-content reflector.
>
>
>
> At 10:32 1/5/96 someone wrote:
>
> >So if somebody likes to display himself he goes to the
> >gays only reflector. And if everybody stops watching this guys
> >then they may go away.
>
> The only thing worse than overt ugly behavior (such as unwanted sexual
> content on a reflector) is covert ugly behavior (such as ignorance and
> homophobia).
>
> People who "like to display" are no more likely to be homosexual than
> heterosexual. Most of the sexually explicit video I've stumbled across in
> the last six months (and what little I've seen on the CU-SeeMe Internet
> Relay Chat channels and on USENET) is heterosexual; "I'll show you mine if
> you'll show me yours".
>
> It sounds to me as though education is needed to deal with all the issues
> contained in this message.
>
>
>
> (Rating system)
>
> If someone is interested in proposing a rating system that reflector
> operators are comfortable with I'll be glad to add a field to my reflector
> list. I think such a rating system should have day/night provisions, as in
>
> A - No nothing at all
> B - Sexual content okay during our local night hours (1000-0500)
> C - Sexual content okay all the time
>
> Any takers?
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> Michael Sattler, Digital Jungle <mailto:msattler@jungle.com> |
> San Francisco, California, USA <http://www.jungle.com/msattler/> |
> |
> My book "Internet TV with CU-SeeMe" (ISBN 1-57521-006-1) is available! |
>
>
>