Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:13:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5588 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.nntp, John Neal wrote:
| |
Of course not. All I’m saying is that if he wants LUGNET to be “kid-
friendly”, steps need to be taken to make it that way because I think it is
getting too adult-oriented in certain areas.
|
LUGNET is a free, mostly self-regulating community of FOL’s, primarily of the A-
variety, but with a few T- and K- types thrown in as well. Putting stricter
systems in place to restrict and censor the tone of conversation in so-called
“on-topic” areas is as likely to drive users away as it is to make parents
somehow see an improvement in kid-safeness.
| |
Exactly. And when they do check out LUGNET and see all of the adult content
flowing out of certain groups, they will choose not to let their kids go
there.
|
Eh, that is, and should be, their decision. To the point where, if they feel
there is content online that they don’t want their kids to access, they should
be sitting beside their kids and surfing with them.
| |
| |
and every attempt to make the internet kid-safe only reinforces their false
beliefs that there is nothing that their kids can access that is not
appropriate for them.
|
After four rereads, I still can’t parse this point...
|
Parents, and government, are under the ridiculously naive impression that they
can regulate morality on the internet, and that by doing so can make it a safe
place for kids to access completely unattended. That’s like saying that having
comprehensive traffic laws makes it safe for them to play in the middle of
Telegraph Road. This is the reason why almost every government-imposed
regulation which hasn’t been overturned on 1st Amendment grounds has been
overturned on the basis that it doesn’t work worth diddly.
| |
This isn’t necessarily about .lgbt (although the creation of it did
precipitate my current views).
|
You’ve been the most vocal opponent of the formation of an LGBT group, which,
regardless of whether it’s true or not, pretty much makes this look like a
further attempt to suppress the LGBT minority by shutting them behind closed
doors. Teens are LGBT. Kids are LGBT. It’s been pretty well established that
you are in the minority in your assumption that a simple statement of sexual
orientation equates with publishing Penthouse Letters, and that the TOS prohibit
posting the graphic descriptions that you can’t seem to stop seeing in your
head. Barring younger LGBTs from being able to get support from the .LGBT group
is about as harsh as barring younger cancer survivors from being able to get
support through the .people.support group. And whether you’re willing to admit
it or not, that’s exactly what your proposed idea would accomplish.
| |
Controlling access to the adult parts allows the adult parts to be more
freely “adult”, and the kid parts to be better off without them.
|
Have you ever thought that maybe the LUGNET community isn’t really interested in
seeing discussion go in that direction? Or that having a walled-off section
would pretty much disqualify LUGNET for the claim of “friendliest” website?
NORAD is safe, but I doubt there’s a person in the world who would call it the
friendliest workplace in the world.
| |
| |
People on LUGNET mention their kids all the time (and, when you really think
about it, that’s about the clearest indication you can give that you’ve “got
some” at some point without blatantly stating it).
|
That is unless they’ve adopted them. Where were you going with that?
|
Just getting back to your anti-LGBT position which prompted this proposal to
wall off anything that’s not directly brick-related as “unsuitible for
children”, including .off-topic.fun, .off-topic.geek, .off-topic.test, oh yeah,
and .people.teens and .people.kids.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) How do you know this? Are you only considering members or posters? What about all of the people who use LUGNET as an online resource? And BTW, membership on LUGNET is most certainly not "free". (...) That is purely opinion with no basis on (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) Of course not. All I'm saying is that if he wants LUGNET to be "kid-friendly", steps need to be taken to make it that way because I think it is getting too adult-oriented in certain areas. (...) Exactly. And when they do check out LUGNET and (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
|
151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
