Nudity in Shopping Lens

[effenberg0x0]

This feature must have a package. Maybe you can uninstall it? We don't have this in Gnome shell, so maybe you could also consider migrating to Gnome shell remix?

I'll quote myself:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php...7&postcount=13

Regards,
Effenberg

[@nne]

I'll quote myself:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php...7&postcount=13

Regards,
Effenberg

So, you do nothing? You just accept the situation, allowing Canonical to continue on the wrong way? Why would they change their way if everyone submits?

I've never liked Unity; I felt that abandoning Gnome was wrong, so I quit using Ubuntu until I fell on this link I posted earlier and gave it a try. Now I think I should inform Canonical about that and what I think about their shopping lens, even I'm not using Unity.

[goldsniper]

But clearly for you google, microsoft and mozilla are not in the "Shame on you Ubuntu! You disrespect greedy OS!" category.

I am happy that I got your attention, and thank you for reading my article before commenting. You are so cool!

Anyway, I just want to get things straight. I love Ubuntu, i have been using it since version 6.06 and still fall in love with it every day. I like unity (yes, I do) and I like lens including the shopping lens. I love 6 months development cycle and I approve the idea Canonical getting money every time I use Ubuntu. Really, I don't mind looking at ads or even clicking it in exchange of a much improved Ubuntu version for free.

Enough said, I always use a new Ubuntu version (even betas) on my home computer. Same as my wife and my kids. We always like to get an early view of fresh Ubuntu version and talk about it once a while. But I'm using a Windows PC and a Mac at work and also like it. I like the idea we are free to choose and we are free to contribute (or not to) to anything we like.

I'm a distro hopper. I like to test new distributions and get an insight of the latest technology the world can offer me. But I always get back to Ubuntu. Something about Ubuntu is just feel right to me.

Anyway, I am not a hardcore Ubuntu user neither a Ubuntu gurus. I'm just a very content user which is very happy of what I have and I just want to express my thought.

Okay, if you are still reading this, about the words you quote above, it is not personal and no, it is not about money. IT IS truely a sarcasm. Ubuntu should be ashamed because it shows disrespect and greedy when it comes to making decision, which is already known to everyone.

Again. I really hope that, Shopping Lens stays but with improved version with filter.

[neo_1in]

I am happy that I got your attention, and thank you for reading my article before commenting. You are so cool!

....

Again. I really hope that, Shopping Lens stays but with improved version with filter.

Apologies if i sounded (read.... ??) like a jerk.
I would reiterate that i do get your concerns, but as far as filters go, and pardon may technical deficieneies, is it really possible to filter pictures or other multimedia items based on the content inside them, yet?
I mean google and all other filter the content based on the domain and the text on the page, isn't it?
Do a google image search for "jimmy ge", and you'll find that the aforementioned picture shows up (page 2, probably) even with strict safesearch enabled. Because it is not hosted on a pr0n site but on music and shoppping sites and they are not using 'report offensive pictures' or some other rating system for maturity content.
The thing is ubuntu dash or any other such program can only filter stuff if they are already filtered at the content provider's site.
Its a tough one.

[vasa1]

... Ubuntu should be ashamed because it shows disrespect and greedy when it comes to making decision, which is already known to everyone.

Again. I really hope that, Shopping Lens stays but with improved version with filter.

Blogger outrage is so tiresome. It's not "Ubuntu". Get the terms right. As the other posters have explained, you get what you searched for because there's isn't yet an alogrithm to screen for "% flesh". Or are you saying there is one but "Ubuntu" isn't using it?

[ventrical]

Blogger outrage is so tiresome. It's not "Ubuntu". Get the terms right. As the other posters have explained, you get what you searched for because there's isn't yet an alogrithm to screen for "% flesh". Or are you saying there is one but "Ubuntu" isn't using it?

I think the issue is, is that Unity Lenses are providing a pre-browser service by doing random searches. For example if you go to the "movie' lens and type in "***** cat" minus the "cat" then you have just opened wide a plethora of youtube videos (even though youtube cautions of content). Or just try 'nudity' etc.. and click some of those on.

One has to look forward and think that if even mild non-pornographic nudity is comming in then we have to think what else is going to slip through the net.!! Unity then is complicit in this fashion and bears a guilt by association. It puts a lot of heat on Canonical and possibly a lot of heat on it's users if it inadvertently redirects to a triple x porn site. In Canada and the United States the legal authorities have a zero tolerance for certain types of porn. I think we have enough of it with Facebook already. Who needs more?

[jerrylamos]

People were around for a couple million years before cloth was invented. Now what's the big deal? Even in public at Miami beaches and Brazil etc. the teeny bikini's don't hide much.

Also note in some places where women are covered head to toe and veils the incidence of violence against women is much much higher than say Sweden or Denmark or Australia where topless bathing on public beaches occurs with no problem.

Now filters (censorship) of your own choosing may be of interest. I really try to avoid bloodshed and gore to the extent I don't view movies whose theme is violence.

My personal opinion, video "shoot em up" games are far far more harmful to society. My view, violence begets violence.

On that topic, seems every day peole are getting shot. Far far more significant to society in my opinion than what people look like.

Anyone know if iPad or Nook or Kindle or Windows 8 employ filters?

[vasa1]

... Unity then is complicit in this fashion and bears a guilt by association. ...

I'm sorry. This type of argument of guilt by association can be taken to ridiculous extents. Think about it.
Basically, instead leading proper lives voluntarily, we're trying to remove temptations from our path.

[vexorian]

If this is a real problem for anyone, I'd suggest uninstalling the shopping lens, until the option to turn the shopping lens off lands sometime in the near future.

This is a real problem for everyone. You don't know when a nude image is going to pop up in the worst moment possible. Suggesting to remove it won't help the people that would actually find the lens useful. It seriously needs an adult filter, and the adult filter really needs tweak options.

Shopping lens still needs major changes, as long as the main tip we can give about a feature is how to remove it, it would not seem like an appropriate feature.

[philinux]

This is going downhill. Please raise a bug ubuntu-bug unity-lens-shopping or sudo apt-get remove unity-lens-shopping.