Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.198.235 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=rbAY08RMmVHJnvvIL7tgbmhoQ5DXG7E5Gacjww/08whRFIYvHccl4iP3ZUx3cm2rv6
         udGXiIyQclR328LBSHuenW9JE9MAOkL6PBGa0/uKzxm9fy+Cj542K1Ev/WenPJb2BEcK
         17sGJC+mpqYAc1lKhl5ouzb3mBzxYpVc3ze3s=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9D99A5C9-C12A-4A78-BDB8-1DF2C53284A3@gmail.com>
References: <20090122004744.11866.19920@eos.apache.org>
	 <20090122144305.GV28041@tumbolia.org>
	 <6b6419750901220911u1161082fy4bc34b4e300ef4ca@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20090122175919.GB28041@tumbolia.org>
	 <ec7a93a0901221055w695ee2d2i841da82a04642b2d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <e282921e0901221059l51396aa5yfbb99246f67c86a7@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20090122194244.GD28041@tumbolia.org>
	 <9D99A5C9-C12A-4A78-BDB8-1DF2C53284A3@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:09:43 -0500
Message-ID: <e2111bbb0901221409r5e97d53fu682424002df822d5@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
From: Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Antony Blakey <antony.blakey@gmail.com> 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"
>
>
>