April 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

« Dreaming big | Main | Hazardousness »

Sep 16, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


As I read the quoted sentence, especially in the context of the article as a whole, Lehmert doesn't appear to be "describing the whole section as 'clearly pornographic'", but rather saying that "many ... items", including items posted in the Craigslist personals section, are. I suppose one could take issue with her characterization -- without seeing the items, it isn't clear how many are "many" or whether the items are "clearly" as opposed to "arguably" pornographic. But it seems like a stretch to suggest she's tarring the entire Craigslist personals section with the "clearly pornographic" brush.

In any event, the article itself is interesting and seems a worthwhile contribution to the debate. Of course, what one will make of the facts reported will likely depend on one's existing disposition about the issue. But that's life.

Ed Cone

Fair enough, Eric -- I can see your reading, too.

The question remains, though, about what would be blocked. All personals, including the G-rated ones?

I clicked through a number of ads this morning. Only a fraction of those had pictures attached, and only a fraction of those pictures were in any way risque; of that latter group, I had to squint at one for a while to figure out what was going on in the small, low-res image.


Interpretations aside, the library software identifies the entire Cragslists personals as porn, not just "many" items within it.


New from Apple labs, the iEthic personal portable moralizer.

greensboro transplant

Just curious, does it specify as Porn or Adult? Not all adult sites are porn. If the software distinguishes between the two, then this may be a case where the rules need to be tuned.


GT, "porn."

From the log file:

http://greensboro.craigslist.org/w4m/ Pornography 08/22/10 02:18 PM


@Ed -- Yes, I agree that the bigger issue is what the system filters, whether it is over-inclusive, and if so, whether that is acceptable or not. Hope my comment didn't sound nitpicky -- I meant it constructively.

@Roch -- Thanks for the clarification.


That's what I'm here for. For the sake of clarity, the log file shows the M4M and W4M categories being flagged as porn. I could not say for sure if M4W or W4W are allowed or were just were not attempted, but they did not appear in the list o' porn.

Ed Cone

Eric, not at all nitpicky. I appreciate honest attempts at clarity -- that goes for GT, too.


Because filters are not perfect and because they can identify valid sites as "porn," as I wrote here, I'm not in favor of filters. Let's not interpret this as being "for" porn, OK?

The comments to this entry are closed.