couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <>
Subject Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Date Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:09:43 GMT
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Antony Blakey <> wrote:
> On 23/01/2009, at 6:12 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
>> If you want to use CouchDB to build your porn empire, all power to you --
>> but
>> I think that expecting a link from our wiki is a little too much to ask.
> Why? It's a page about apps using CouchDB, not a moral statement by a group
> of developers. I'm particularly concerned with comments that say that
> pornography is obviously unacceptable in the same sense that hate-sites are
> unacceptable. What about sites promoting FPS games that tout the realistic
> nature of their ultra-violent gruesomeness? Is sex really worse than the
> increasingly realistic depiction of such violence?
>>  * Gambling
> Gambling is legal in many jurisdictions. The issue of the illegality of
> certain online gambling sites has more to do with issues of government
> control of revenue and taxation than any moral concern.
>>  * Pornography
> It's highly likely that a porn site linked from the couch site is actually
> legal in many jurisdictions. And while I'm personally concerned about the
> explicit misogyny of much porn, what about a gay porn site?

I object to links to gay porn because of the rampant misandry. I am
tired of being objectified just because I'm a man.

>>  * Untrusted sites for professional services, legal advice, online
>> pharmacies, &c
> What is untrusted? In any case, an online pharmacy may be the only/best
> source of pharmaceutical product in some places.
>>  * Political or religious extremism, racial hatred, &c
> What qualifies as 'extreme' in a political sense is difficult to objectively
> determine. IMO you can't use the 'promotes hate' line because much of the
> mainstream political discourse I saw in the recent US election implicitly
> (and sometimes explicitly) promoted hatred. Racial vilification is a clearer
> issue, but what about homosexual vilification? And what is religious
> extremism? Is your definition of 'extreme' determined by a western christian
> viewpoint?
>>  * Sites related to illegal activities, drug taking, copyright
>> infringement, &c
> Some drug taking that is illegal in the US isn't illegal in some
> jurisdictions (and in any case it's hypocritical considering the revenue
> raised from tobacco and alcohol, both of which are more dangerous than many
> illegal drugs). Still, IMO illegality is the only benchmark you can use for
> any of these issues.
> Personally I feel sites whose primary purpose is copyright infringement
> should be banned, but I'm in a minority in the connected community wrt
> copyright.
> ------------------------------------------
> I vote to allow anything that is legal in your hosting environment that
> meets the uses-couch requirement. Don't make ANY moral judgement, because
> you cannot objectively support such decisions, and it's only by making no
> judgement that you are insulated from the effects of making or not making a
> particular judgement.
> Alternatively, if you avoid anything that could offend anyone, then you
> can't link to anything political, or religious. Or any sites that promotes
> reproductive freedom or argues for abortion rights, or that has anything to
> do with alcohol, or has pictures of people drinking alcohol (those last two
> are offensive to muslims) etc etc. I've worked tangentially in
> internationalization and come across some of these issues. It's a nightmare.
> Don't go there.
> Antony Blakey
> --------------------------
> CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
> Ph: 0438 840 787
> Reflecting on W.H. Auden's contemplation of 'necessary murders' in the
> Spanish Civil War, George Orwell wrote that such amorality was only really
> possible, 'if you are the kind of person who is always somewhere else when
> the trigger is pulled'.
>  -- John Birmingham, "Appeasing Jakarta"

View raw message