Write down existing excluded categories from twofactorauth.org

[Carlgo11]

I've written down the categories that we've previously decided not to include on twofactorauth.org.

If you think a category shouldn't be excluded then open a new issue or comment in an existing one about the topic and we'll discuss it there. Let's just try and get this merged so that we have a something to reference to in said issues/PRs.

That being said, please let me know if there's any spelling mistakes or possible improvements to the text.
Thanks! 😃

[mxxcon]

I completely disagree with the content of this issue and how you are trying to shove it through.
If you want to make such significant content changes to the site, let's do it properly, let's do it atomically.
Each section should be separate PR on which we can discuss merits.
@Carlgo11 I know based on your previous comments to PRs that you have a personal aversion to religious topics, however, that is not the voiced viewpoint of most of the contributors to this project.
I personally think there's absolutely nothing wrong with listing political and religious sites.
There's a difference between religious/political and hate speech sites, and classifying all into one group is WRONG.

[Carlgo11]

@mxxcon these are existing rules that we've had for years. Just not written down in an organized fashion.

You're right in that I've previously voiced my opinions on listing adult content and religious and political sites here. We've also discussed that thoroughly before.

I don't think we should be in the business of trying to distinguish between good and bad religious and political views. That would only be damaging to the site's reputation.
If you look at any of the big religions you can find clear human rights violations.
There are segments in the old testament about how and when women should be stoned to death, the ostracism of the LGBT group in JW & Scientology etc.
If a group is actively against another race, religion or sexual orientation are we to make free advertisements for them? I think the only way to stay neutral is to not include any.

The same can be said for political parties. There's clear racism in both major political parties in the U.S. against minorities and at least one party in every EU country is derived from Neo-nazism or the militant extreme-left.

But again, this has been thoroughly discussed before and the decision was block these categories.
I'm simply writing down what was already been decided upon. If we are to change any of these rules then I agree with you that that should be done in another PR/issue and voted on in advance.

Also, please don't attack me personally. It's against our code of conduct.
Remember to be inclusive and respectful towards others and their viewpoints.

[mxxcon]

I don't think we should be in the business of trying to distinguish between good and bad religious and political views. That would only be damaging to the site's reputation.

If a group is actively against another race, religion or sexual orientation are we to make free advertisements for them? I think the only way to stay neutral is to not include any.

The same can be said for political parties. There's clear racism in both major political parties in the U.S. against minorities and at least one party in every EU country is derived from Neo-nazism or the militant extreme-left.

Then we should outright ban all the financial institutions too. There are countless accounts of their hostile and predatory practices against people of lesser economical statues, races, ethnicity, sexual orientations and even professions.

But again, this has been thoroughly discussed before and the decision was block these categories.

I do not remember a decision being made to unilaterally ban political and religious sites.

Also, please don't attack me personally. It's against our code of conduct.

I did not attack you personally. I am disagreeing with how you are handling this issue.

[kmpoppe]

Referenced in #3550.

I think it's a bit more complicated than "religious people don't change their beliefs whether their church supports 2fa or not." - I think it's safe to assume that they wouldn't.

Now what's the purpose of this project? In my view it's to make people aware that 2fa exists and that to encourage them to use it. Also (see 1password and the browser extension), other services rely on this data to inform their users. And what's the impression a user of, say LDS.org (#3625), gets told they wouldn't support 2fa, yet he is presented with the possibility to add 2fa right after login?

I currently can't come up with a very good wording to explain this, but it should be something like "we are not endorsing the behaviour of some religious groups and political parties, yet we want to encourage people to use 2fa if it's available, so we will show you, unbiased, if sites do support 2fa".
This wording should of course also be available on the compiled sited and not only in the git.

Am I making any sense?

//Kai

No longer applies.

Resolved by e980da9

[RichJeanes]

I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to include a statement somewhere that also makes clear our desire to avoid getting filtered by professional and academic web filters (which is why we don't list gambling sites). Though we do list plenty of gaming services so it's possible we've already made it onto at least some lists, but gambling and other adult sites (eg. porn) would almost certainly get us filtered.

[kmpoppe]

@rugk PTAL.

[RichJeanes]

Mostly some language changes, but I tried to keep the original spirit, if not the letter.

[kmpoppe]

Approved after intensive discussion.
Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this.
// Kai