<html>
<head>
<style>
.sw_message P{margin:0px;padding:0px;}
.sw_message {FONT-SIZE: 12pt;FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;background:white;}
.sw_message blockquote{margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;border-left:2px solid #144fae;color: #144fae;}
.sw_message blockquote blockquote{border-left:2px solid #006312;color: #006312;}
.sw_message blockquote blockquote blockquote{border-left:2px solid #8e5656;color: #8e5656;}
.sw_message blockquote blockquote blockquote blockquote{border-left:2px solid #888;color: #888;}
</style>
</head>
<body class="sw_message">
This thread did go goofy and bad (and off-topic, given the subject in the emails). It seems clear that there are important reasons Tor could never begin examining/taking direct responsibility for/filtering the content that flows through it (as opposed with disallowing specific ports, which is different). Asking for this seems naive.<br><div><br><br> </div><div id="editor_signature"></div><div>On Saturday 31/08/2013 at 8:54 am, Steve Snyder wrote: </div><blockquote type="cite"><br><br>On 08/30/2013 08:05 PM, Andrea Shepard wrote:<br>[snip]<br><blockquote type="cite"> If I were going to work on filtering by technical means, it'd be filters to<br> keep neo-Puritans like you out of my life, thanks.<br></blockquote><br>Well said. This whole thread is example 87653478965432 of the <br>"censorship is A-OK if I don't like it" mindset.<br><br>Maybe we need a competitor to Tor, a privacy network that only allows <br>pictures of cute kittens and puppies as traffic.<br>_______________________________________________<br>tor-relays mailing list<br>tor-relays@lists.torproject.org<br><a target="_blank" href="https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays">https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays</a><br></blockquote><br>
</body></html>