Slashdot Mirror
WHO Bid To Regulate Health Sites
Andy Smith writes "This BBC story reports on efforts by the World Health Organisation [?] to improve the quality of health-related web sites. They want a new TLD -- .health -- to be introduced. All .health sites would then be regulated by the WHO. Here's the press release, which predicts that 'dot health could soon be as well known as dot com'." It's quite an issue - do you want to be able to "trust" the health sites, assuming that's what regulation means, or do you worry more about the innovation of the sites being quashed by an organization?
"WHO bid to regulate health sites"
"I don't know, who bid to regulate health sites?"
"Exactly."
"Oh, exactly bid to regulate health sites?"
"No, WHO bid to regulate health sites"
"Exactly."
"Now you've got it!"
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
First, this violates the first Amendment (not that the UN cares, but people in democracies should be concerned about attempts to regulate any content).
Second, intelligent people do disagree on medical issues. For instance, herbal remedies or chiropractic medicine. Some say it's quackery, and others say it works, and shouldn't be banned just because the mechanism by which it works hasn't been understood yet.
Third, the whole value of the internet is its freedom. ANYONE can make a web site. But if the WHO is going to regulate anything, they will have to have prior approval. If they do, that pretty much bans all 'unofficial' health web sites. If they don't, that just guarantees that hospitals, companies, doctors and other credentialled providers have a huge regulatory hurdle to jump through, when the quacks and con men don't.
Really, what does this accomplish which the WHO can't do already with a gif, a review committee and a 'seal of approval'. If they like a web site, just give it the seal and the right to use the trademarked gif.
Answer: Noone cares what the WHO does or thinks. By getting the force of law behind them (through ICANN's power over TLDs), they are hoping to grab legitimacy and importance by force-- when they certainly haven't earned it.
I don't understand your logic. Because traditional modern medicine doesn't have all the answers they can't have a TLD?
.health sites (to some extent). If you don't trust the WTO, than just ignore the .health sites.
.gov, so I can go to irs.gov and d/l my tax returns without having to worry if irs.gov is REALLY the irs's web site or not.
The TLD will just mean certified by the WHO. If you trust the WTO you can trust
For instance I don't trust the government to tell me the truth about a lot of issues, but I'm still glad there's a
http://overwhelmed.org
Since, if you don't agree with WHO, you don't have to be in .health. After all, no one seriously thinks that .mil violates the 1st amend since it's restricted to US military? Or .edu being restricted to schools?
Best Slashdot Co
...and it sure would be nice to know that .sex and .xxx domains really will be qualified smut, not just the head of some high profile actress cut-and-pasted onto another body.
Whst's wrong with .health.com? Why can't they just create a subdomain? Why do they need a topplevel domain? The system was intended to be hierarchical, not flat. And health-industries are industries, aren't they? Should be under .com!
/. that a good idea might be to have the price on domains raise with the numbers of domains an organisation wants - that way, the system would force hierarchy. I like the idea, but it is to easy to work around - just have an employee register the domain name on him/her, or a daughter-company...
Btw, someone at some moment suggested here on
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
There are an awful lot of websites covering an awful lot of fields that appear to be "authoritative" at a casual glance, but that are actually riddled with inaccuracies, bias and half-truths.
Admittedly, not all of them are as downright dangerous as giving out dodgy health information, but people still need to learn to be critical of the information they may find on the web. "I saw it on the Internet" is still used by some people as an indicator that information is somehow more authoritative than that received from other, possibly more reliable, sources. Just look at some of the fantastical assertions that appear in the average day's load of spam, from "This cannot be considered spam as it is in accordance with House Bill 1618" upwards, for a fine example of this.
One of the problems with the Web these days is that nifty graphical design is still considered superior to accuracy of information, and J. Random Luser needs to work out that frames and Shockwave don't necessary mean that a site's an authority on its subject.
Health information is unique. It makes sense to have some form of objective evaluation of sites providing healthcare information. They may not mean this form or proposal is appropriate and not that I am supportive of censorship. You should be free to claim anything you want on the web. But, if a comittee of unrelated physicians disagrees or supports your results, then they should have the right to say so, and if I ran a website, I'd want to advertise that fact. Making this international could really help a lot.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
There is innovation. Many slashdotters may not care, but for those of use who need this sort of information international regulation doesn't sound cool.
Despite the professions arrogant claims, modern medicine does not know everything. What causes CFS (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome)? Is it physical or mental? A combination? What is the best way to deal with it?
That is a real concern for millions of people (sufferers and families), and virtually no "facts" are known about it. What you would call "bogus," reports that have not gone through the wonderfully-quick process that is anything WHO, are useful. Being able to find a report from Israel that showed a x% remission rate for ages y-z was a godsend. Being able to show that report to my doctor, who said he never heard of any remissions, was more wonderful than you could believe.
One of the internet's greatest benefits is allowing patients to learn so much about what ails them. To the patients who don't blidnly trust, but want to learn all the facts, the freedom of information on the internet is fantastic.
Is everything on the web gold? Of course not. But is regulation by an bloated, international treaty organization the answer? You seem to think so.