[PostOnce]

Who complains about stuff on someone else's website not being tagged NSFW? It's their website, they didn't name it workrelated.com -- I just thought "protest" sounded a little extreme and a sign of our sensitive new culture, where we each expect everyone else to tiptoe around us. Maybe I misinterpreted.

[graeham]

Protest here was more of 'make a comment on'...

I think its a cool site. I was thinking of showing it to high school students I teach summer courses to, but its probably not appropriate for them. That's why labels are helpful - nude images weren't ok in schools or work in the 'old culture' either. As art or entertainment (as this website in general was intended), I think there is wide license to the creator, but I think there is still some duty to a website creator to consider what else people might want to use it for.

[jaquers]

> I think there is still some duty to a website creator to consider what else people might want to use it for.

I could not disagree more with this opinion. The creator presumably hosts this website on her own dime & invested the time and effort to create this piece of art - and you are connecting to their server, free of charge. I don't see how you could reasonably claim that they have a "duty" to do anything.

You're right that an image of a nude woman would be make this unacceptable in a school setting - however, it is your duty to vet the content that you show in class, not the other way around.

Finally, I don't see what educational purpose this would serve - as it's not like this is actually an OS, perhaps as an example of html5/js programming or nostalgia. In fact the whole thing is a JS app, so there is nothing stopping you from running it locally, where you can edit to your heart's content. Ironically the first JS file I clicked on (desktop.js) contains the shortcut definitions for the desktop.

[graeham]

I think you've amplified an out-of-context statement to try and start an argument, and in fact part of my point is that the main responsibility would go to the teacher. But I would say there is still some responsibility for a creator - duty can be held by multiple parties. As an analogy, if I were to break my leg cycling on someone else's private property, there may be some liability held by the land owner depending on the circumstances and jurisdiction. Hence the popularity of 'No Trespassing' signs in these jurisdictions. My background is in medical device design, and we are trained to obsess over the ways that users might cause harm through incorrectly using a product - even if this incorrect use is from ignoring the instructions. If an artist made a sculpture, they may be responsible if the sculpture crumbled onto someone.

As an educational purpose - my idea would be mainly to show it as a fun start to a discussion around product design evolution, computing history, and emulators. The kids I teach were born about a decade after this era of computing, and it would be interesting to see what they perceive to be similar and different. Most of these students have done very little or no coding themselves so the implementation isn't relevant for this use.

[jaquers]

My purpose was not to start an argument and I certainly respect your right to an opinion, I just strongly disagree.

I don't think an artist has a duty to anyone but themselves, especially on the internet. Should medical devices be designed so that they don't harm people? Definitely. But the factor there is that you're actively selling/distributing it to the public - or at the very least, you are making certain guarantees about the function of the device.

This website/artwork makes no such guarantees and as such I don't see how you can reasonably expect that it should tailored to any specific audience. Again, in the time that you and I have spent commenting on this - you could have either PM'd a mod to add a NSFW tag to the title, or modified the site itself to suit your needs - that's what's awesome about the internet.

[PostOnce]

> I think there is still some duty to a website creator to consider what else people might want to use it for.

Am I the only person baffled by this? Does the world now revolve around every passer-by?

Why is the creator's duty to do anything other than satisfy his own artistic urge? Why does what someone else wants to do with his art matter? He kindly provides access, he isn't forcing anyone to view it. Where do you draw the line on what concessions he should make for someone else? What sort of absurd concessions might someone demand?

What you want sounds like a cascade of chilling effects, self-censorship, and second-guessing.

Also it's odd that you think a bare ass is not appropriate for for high school. How long do you imagine the psychological scarring from that might afflict them? At what age do you think it is appropriate to set foot in an art museum?

Bizarre.