Again, it has happened, which is why they have a whitelist.

VoltageGames wrote:

DaSpudLord wrote:

VoltageGames wrote:

DaSpudLord wrote:

...

just like some someimage images could be adult… just don't post the adult pics on Scratch!
don't say it's different
it's literally the same thing

and as I've said before,
nobody is going to be posting adult content on scratch just because they have access to a whitelisted image hoster that allows it.
“Oh * I gotta put my bad pics on this kid site when I could just put them on sites made specifically for bad pics!”

I don't plan to post the adult pics to Scratch, but others might. And it is different, with TV you can use parental controls to block your kids from watching TV channels that might be inappropriate. Or you can just unsubscribe from those channels if you don't watch them. The restricted image hosts are similar to this- they block kids from visiting sites that might be inappropriate, and they prevent bad people from posting bad images in the forums.

And you're right, nobody is going to be posting adult content on Scratch “just because.” They do it because they find it fun, they like to ruin kids sites and get a laugh out of the reactions. Having a whitelisted image hoster that allows bad images will just make it easier for them to do just that. Is that what we want?

you're super overstating this.
just because someone can doesn't mean they will. and how many times have you actually seen this occur- or are you just saying that some people will do this because someone else has said it?

is a small MIT site really that popular- as opposed to club penguin or something- that someone will troll it?
And are they really that dumb to troll an MIT site- I mean it's freaking MIT. Wouldn't the person be a little scared MIT could trace back to them and call the police (yeah, it's probably a crime to expose children to this stuff- like giving drugs to kids).

No, I think you're super understating this. The argument of “just because someone can doesn't mean they will” would work, but only for people you can trust. You don't know what kind of people are trolling the internet. You don't know what they might do. I don't know about you, but I have been to sites with lots of inappropriate stuff. There are some pretty crazy people there, some who live off of trolling little kids with adult content. You can't trust people on the internet to not abuse their power when they are given that power. And there are people stupid and willing enough to troll MIT sites. Like I said- don't trust strangers on the internet.

DaSpudLord wrote:

Iditaroid wrote:

Imgur allows images unsuitable for Scratch. No support!

While I cannot confirm this, I saw that Imgur doesn't allow users hosting images on the Imgur server just to link to those pictures from another site. So basically anyone who uses Imgur as a hosting site can get their images removed and can get banned. So no support for Imgur.

If that were the case, people on reddit wouldn't be using imgur! They use it everywhere as an image hosting site!

DaSpudLord wrote:

-snip-

No, I think you're super understating this. The argument of “just because someone can doesn't mean they will” would work, but only for people you can trust. You don't know what kind of people are trolling the internet. You don't know what they might do. I don't know about you, but I have been to sites with lots of inappropriate stuff. There are some pretty crazy people there, some who live off of trolling little kids with adult content. You can't trust people on the internet to not abuse their power when they are given that power. And there are people stupid and willing enough to troll MIT sites. Like I said- don't trust strangers on the internet.

LOOOOOOL the circular reasoning is strong with this one.
You're not telling me why there's a chance of this bad thing is happening, you're just telling me it does. using your outcome as an argument.

Until you give me some actual evidence besides “people just like doing this… because they do” you don't have a real argument.

VoltageGames wrote:

is a small MIT site really that popular- as opposed to club penguin or something- that someone will troll it?

How about the “homeopathy” spam attacks that were probably done by people on Sploder?

VoltageGames wrote:

DaSpudLord wrote:

-snip-

No, I think you're super understating this. The argument of “just because someone can doesn't mean they will” would work, but only for people you can trust. You don't know what kind of people are trolling the internet. You don't know what they might do. I don't know about you, but I have been to sites with lots of inappropriate stuff. There are some pretty crazy people there, some who live off of trolling little kids with adult content. You can't trust people on the internet to not abuse their power when they are given that power. And there are people stupid and willing enough to troll MIT sites. Like I said- don't trust strangers on the internet.

LOOOOOOL the circular reasoning is strong with this one.
You're not telling me why there's a chance of this bad thing is happening, you're just telling me it does. using your outcome as an argument.

Until you give me some actual evidence besides “people just like doing this… because they do” you don't have a real argument.

People like doing this because it's fun for them. You're basically asking me to explain why something is fun. In order to answer that, I would have to break out my psychology textbook (aka Google). While I could try to answer that question, I would prefer not to. So for now, I'm just going to leave the answer to that question as “because it's fun.”

No support.

Why not just use tinypic?

Tinypic is a good option though, and there are no viruses! I never got one form them! And I have a good anti-virus ^_^

VoltageGames wrote:

DaSpudLord wrote:

-snip-

No, I think you're super understating this. The argument of “just because someone can doesn't mean they will” would work, but only for people you can trust. You don't know what kind of people are trolling the internet. You don't know what they might do. I don't know about you, but I have been to sites with lots of inappropriate stuff. There are some pretty crazy people there, some who live off of trolling little kids with adult content. You can't trust people on the internet to not abuse their power when they are given that power. And there are people stupid and willing enough to troll MIT sites. Like I said- don't trust strangers on the internet.

LOOOOOOL the circular reasoning is strong with this one.
You're not telling me why there's a chance of this bad thing is happening, you're just telling me it does. using your outcome as an argument.

Until you give me some actual evidence besides “people just like doing this… because they do” you don't have a real argument.

Are you seeing any of my posts? Trolls have literally attacked this forum with inappropriate images before, which is why the whitelist system exists! Before the whitelist was implemented, you could post an image from any site. After incidents of the inappropriate images on the forums, spread through various methods, a whitelist was added and only sites which do not allow explicit content were whitelisted. Imgur is not such a site, therefore it was not added to the whitelist, and shouldn't be since there's a higher chance someone could use it for bad purposes than there is on any of the others.

kittykat_005 wrote:

Tinypic is a good option though, and there are no viruses! I never got one form them! And I have a good anti-virus ^_^

Tinypic is not good. Ads everywhere are a distraction to me when uploading, they you have to do a captcha every other time, plus a lot of other bad stuff.

Iditaroid wrote:

VoltageGames wrote:

DaSpudLord wrote:

-snip-

No, I think you're super understating this. The argument of “just because someone can doesn't mean they will” would work, but only for people you can trust. You don't know what kind of people are trolling the internet. You don't know what they might do. I don't know about you, but I have been to sites with lots of inappropriate stuff. There are some pretty crazy people there, some who live off of trolling little kids with adult content. You can't trust people on the internet to not abuse their power when they are given that power. And there are people stupid and willing enough to troll MIT sites. Like I said- don't trust strangers on the internet.

LOOOOOOL the circular reasoning is strong with this one.
You're not telling me why there's a chance of this bad thing is happening, you're just telling me it does. using your outcome as an argument.

Until you give me some actual evidence besides “people just like doing this… because they do” you don't have a real argument.

Are you seeing any of my posts? Trolls have literally attacked this forum with inappropriate images before, which is why the whitelist system exists! Before the whitelist was implemented, you could post an image from any site. After incidents of the inappropriate images on the forums, spread through various methods, a whitelist was added and only sites which do not allow explicit content were whitelisted. Imgur is not such a site, therefore it was not added to the whitelist, and shouldn't be since there's a higher chance someone could use it for bad purposes than there is on any of the others.

was this before or after Scratch got better spam bot prevention?
I think Scratch spambot prevention has evolved to the point that it works pretty well, and nothing can be spammed. bad image or not bad image.
Also, is there anyway (like a wikipage) I can get more information on your claims of this bad stuff happening?

VoltageGames wrote:

Iditaroid wrote:

VoltageGames wrote:

DaSpudLord wrote:

-snip-

No, I think you're super understating this. The argument of “just because someone can doesn't mean they will” would work, but only for people you can trust. You don't know what kind of people are trolling the internet. You don't know what they might do. I don't know about you, but I have been to sites with lots of inappropriate stuff. There are some pretty crazy people there, some who live off of trolling little kids with adult content. You can't trust people on the internet to not abuse their power when they are given that power. And there are people stupid and willing enough to troll MIT sites. Like I said- don't trust strangers on the internet.

LOOOOOOL the circular reasoning is strong with this one.
You're not telling me why there's a chance of this bad thing is happening, you're just telling me it does. using your outcome as an argument.

Until you give me some actual evidence besides “people just like doing this… because they do” you don't have a real argument.

Are you seeing any of my posts? Trolls have literally attacked this forum with inappropriate images before, which is why the whitelist system exists! Before the whitelist was implemented, you could post an image from any site. After incidents of the inappropriate images on the forums, spread through various methods, a whitelist was added and only sites which do not allow explicit content were whitelisted. Imgur is not such a site, therefore it was not added to the whitelist, and shouldn't be since there's a higher chance someone could use it for bad purposes than there is on any of the others.

was this before or after Scratch got better spam bot prevention?
I think Scratch spambot prevention has evolved to the point that it works pretty well, and nothing can be spammed. bad image or not bad image.
Also, is there anyway (like a wikipage) I can get more information on your claims of this bad stuff happening?

But no anti-spam system is perfect, which is why Scratch uses extra safety measures. Also, what if it'sdone by an actual human and not a bot?

The Wiki says the attacks happened in June 2010. While it does not mention image host whitelisting, I believe that was one of several measures implemented to prevent future attacks. This page also mentions a period of time from December 2011 to April 2012 when image tags were disabled for an unspecified reason.

Also: the article on image hosting does mention that there's been calls to bring back Imgur hosting in the past, but still has the reason Imgur was removed.

Iditaroid wrote:

The Wiki says the attacks happened in June 2010. While it does not mention image host whitelisting, I believe that was one of several measures implemented to prevent future attacks. This page also mentions a period of time from December 2011 to April 2012 when image tags were disabled for an unspecified reason.

Also: the article on image hosting does mention that there's been calls to bring back Imgur hosting in the past, but still has the reason Imgur was removed.

Ok so yes, there was a spam attack. But if you continued reading…

The New Scratcher Status was implemented in response to the spam/troll attacks.

Are you going to pretend the Scratch Team just never did anything about it to prevent it?
That was years ago, Scratch Team obviously put in new ways to prevent the attacks.
They weren't just gonna leave it ‘lol let’s just hope it never happens again'
plus, the wiki/forum post cited never said the images were actually inappropriate (although I know they wouldn't have used the specific word for bad images, all they needed was the worse inappropriate).
That means it could have just been a dude spamming images of potatoes with a bot before preventions happened.

VoltageGames wrote:

Iditaroid wrote:

The Wiki says the attacks happened in June 2010. While it does not mention image host whitelisting, I believe that was one of several measures implemented to prevent future attacks. This page also mentions a period of time from December 2011 to April 2012 when image tags were disabled for an unspecified reason.

Also: the article on image hosting does mention that there's been calls to bring back Imgur hosting in the past, but still has the reason Imgur was removed.

Ok so yes, there was a spam attack. But if you continued reading…

The New Scratcher Status was implemented in response to the spam/troll attacks.

Are you going to pretend the Scratch Team just never did anything about it to prevent it?
That was years ago, Scratch Team obviously put in new ways to prevent the attacks.
They weren't just gonna leave it ‘lol let’s just hope it never happens again'
plus, the wiki/forum post cited never said the images were actually inappropriate (although I know they wouldn't have used the specific word for bad images, all they needed was the worse inappropriate).
That means it could have just been a dude spamming images of potatoes with a bot before preventions happened.

That's like saying that we shouldn't put security cameras in the highly important vault because we already have a fence on the outside. Sure, the ST has done some stuff to prevent spamming, but becoming Scratcher isn't hard. The ST is going to take every opportunity they can get to keep Scratch safe, and I agree with that.

DaSpudLord wrote:

VoltageGames wrote:

Iditaroid wrote:

The Wiki says the attacks happened in June 2010. While it does not mention image host whitelisting, I believe that was one of several measures implemented to prevent future attacks. This page also mentions a period of time from December 2011 to April 2012 when image tags were disabled for an unspecified reason.

Also: the article on image hosting does mention that there's been calls to bring back Imgur hosting in the past, but still has the reason Imgur was removed.

Ok so yes, there was a spam attack. But if you continued reading…

The New Scratcher Status was implemented in response to the spam/troll attacks.

Are you going to pretend the Scratch Team just never did anything about it to prevent it?
That was years ago, Scratch Team obviously put in new ways to prevent the attacks.
They weren't just gonna leave it ‘lol let’s just hope it never happens again'
plus, the wiki/forum post cited never said the images were actually inappropriate (although I know they wouldn't have used the specific word for bad images, all they needed was the worse inappropriate).
That means it could have just been a dude spamming images of potatoes with a bot before preventions happened.

That's like saying that we shouldn't put security cameras in the highly important vault because we already have a fence on the outside. Sure, the ST has done some stuff to prevent spamming, but becoming Scratcher isn't hard. The ST is going to take every opportunity they can get to keep Scratch safe, and I agree with that.

Do you have any evidence to support your claims that it's not hard to become a Scratcher, and that a spambot/trolling human will take the time to become a Scratcher, or are you just throwing rocks at a site that has a 0.2% chance of being used to spam us so you can feel superior to me?

VoltageGames wrote:

plus, the wiki/forum post cited never said the images were actually inappropriate

I'll admit, I wasn't there for the attacks so I couldn't really tell you the details, but I've heard from friends they were not innocent!

VoltageGames wrote:

Are you going to pretend the Scratch Team just never did anything about it to prevent it?

No. First of all, they added whitelisted image hosting to prevent it, and second of all when I said this:

Iditaroid wrote:

that was one of several measures implemented to prevent future attacks

the New Scratcher status was implied as another of “several measures”.

Iditaroid wrote:

VoltageGames wrote:

plus, the wiki/forum post cited never said the images were actually inappropriate

I'll admit, I wasn't there for the attacks so I couldn't really tell you the details, but I've heard from friends they were not innocent!

VoltageGames wrote:

Are you going to pretend the Scratch Team just never did anything about it to prevent it?

No. First of all, they added whitelisted image hosting to prevent it, and second of all when I said this:

Iditaroid wrote:

that was one of several measures implemented to prevent future attacks

the New Scratcher status was implied as another of “several measures”.

So you admit there are measures…
but what's the point of having these measures if we just play it safe and never whitelist anything?

although I might add right now my dad's anti-bad sites thing is a very strict firewall when it comes to image uploads, which is why someimage is blocked for me (but I've used it before it got blocked and the thing is just super suspicious) so I wouldn't personally be using it, but I recommend it to everyone which is why I'm fighting for it to be whitelisted.
(Just like I don't have cable, but I will tell people why some channels were great from when I did have cable)

VoltageGames wrote:

but what's the point of having these measures if we just play it safe and never whitelist anything?

I don't know what you mean, several sites are whitelisted and Imgur is not because it allows inappropriate images. And really, since this site is intended for all ages, “playing it safe” is exactly what the Scratch Team should be doing!

VoltageGames wrote:

Do you have any evidence to support your claims that it's not hard to become a Scratcher,…

I became a Scratcher in 2 weeks, and it was not hard at all. But no, I do not have any actual evidence.

VoltageGames wrote:

…and that a spambot/trolling human will take the time to become a Scratcher,…

It's happened before, no? So obviously there are people willing to take the time to become Scratcher.

VoltageGames wrote:

…or are you just throwing rocks at a site that has a 0.2% chance of being used to spam us so you can feel superior to me?

I am not insulting any site. I am simply saying that these sites are inappropriate for Scratch. And I am in no way attempting to prove that I am better to you by disproving your argument. Alternatively, I could accuse you of the same- attempting to feel superior by disproving my argument.