[Seattle-editorial] This article should have been be hidden.

[Jeremy Kahn]

jonathan lawson wrote:

<snip discussion of the propriety of posting this discussion to the list>

> (1) Jeremy is right, "pornography" and "inappropriateness" are not 
> part of our policy. This is on purpose, and it's because everyone has 
> their own private ideas of what those things mean, and we have to make 
> decisions based on public values--that means the editorial policy. 

That is indeed where I was going with my comments. Thanks for the 
clarification.

> (2) Jason suggests that the article is an advertisement--which is a 
> valid reason to hide something. I agree. In any case, if Jeremy agrees 
> with that, we can hide the damn thing. 

I think it's borderline advertising. Here's my sense of it:

"it's not advertising" for one, it's a free (open-source!) tool, and 
they're trying to get information out. Imagine that someone had 
developed an open-source "Carnivore blocker" -- would it not be a 
worthwhile newswire item to post about that? and yet, it might look very 
similar to the one we're posting about -- though probably without naked 
fat men.

"it is advertising"  it's a request for people to visit a different web 
site and download something. Sounds like a spam request.

I'm willing to go with the group and hide it, based on two reasons:

(1) it's borderline advertising, as discussed above.
(2) joe, in his "dirty laundry" newswire comment, raises a concern he 
never raised in this forum -- safe space. I am not convinced that this 
picture violates those concerns, but I'm willing to go with the 
benefit-of-the-doubt here -- it does seem to be mocking and unfair.

Somebody hide the sucker, already.

--jeremy