Internet Firms Launch New Web Rating System

Jeremi writes: "Salon has a brief article about a new content self-rating system being proposed to Congress in lieu of government-imposed restrictions. I wonder if this is a good thing or bad, and whether or not it will succeed where previous attempts failed?"

Comments

Re:Bunch of CRAP

[geekfiend]

Actually, a voluntary system will give parents the choice of what censorship method to use. Although I don't agree with technology protecting childern when parents can fulfill the role, it gives flexibility in this realm. Perhaps this will catch on, and allow the categorization of "good" versus "bad" sites to be determined by people other than right wing conservatives who's sole purpose is to hold to the values of a society differnt than today's.

From a teaching point of view......

[vstat]

Coming from a future teacher I am divided on the issue of self assessment. On the one hand, students can be harder on themeselves when assessing because they know themselves better than a teacher does. They know their strengths and weaknesses when it comes to the task at hand. However in every bunch you will have those few students who always give themselves an A.

The point here?

I don't think you can rely solely on the industry to do it themselves. Especially where money is involved. Like a classroom there are mostly the good students who take it seriously, but I can tell you from experience that it only takes a few bad ones and an opportunity to corrupt the rest.

Needs integration to succeed

[e5z8652]

IMHO this won't go very far unless browsers integrate the codes and let the user set levels of access similar to the security levels - i.e. no porn, but online casinos are OK.

As long as you need to download a list, too many people will be too lazy to do it, or just not computer literate enough to realize that they *can* download a list.

Then again, I wonder what percentage of users 1) know that their browser has security settings and 2) how to set them.

Self-Imposed Standards come and go

[Speare]

The Associated Press had a story also reprinted on salon.com, describing one view of the fall of the Comics Code Authority, a "self-imposed" ratings system that either turned all comics into pablum, or saved the industry, depending on who you ask.

• The Code was created in 1954, when comic books were read by many more children than they are today. A product of the McCarthy era's witch hunt for "unAmerican" activities, the major comic book companies adopted the Code as a form of self-regulation to avoid sanctions from a Senate committee investigating the corrupting impact of comics on America's youth.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Or, if you can't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it.

Other Countries...

[dadragon]

If this is what it seems to be, a non-governmental corporate rating system, then it is a good thing.

Why? Because other country's people get a say in how it will be rating websites. I've found that the USA's rating system is MUCH more prudent than those of other countries. Case in point: 14A ratings in Canada vs R in the USA for the same movie.

Kill two birds with one stone

[indiigo]

how about kill two birds with one stone and migrate TLD's to synchronize with content ratings? Just add a .kid .xxx etc for the appropriate content, and move those two areas away from .com?

I have the solution

[gregm]

A Non profit group, preferably some kids group, becomes the registrar for a new top level domain: .clean. If you want to register slashdot.clean you must follow the rules and you can only link to other .clean sites. Everyone builds the ability into the their browsers/OS the ability to limit visiting domains that are .clean only. Ftp downloads are not allowed. Anyone impersonating a .clean domain get's in trouble.

Uncertified ISP's could be banned from serving dns for .clean domains and the kids group could run the dns for the entire domain. Disney and all the biggies would put forth the effort to make their sites .clean compliant, others would create .clean versions of their existing sites and others could care less.

No one says I have to opt in to the .clean domain and create a .clean ver of my site and no one says you have to limit your PC to .clean only domains. ISP's could opt to only allow .clean stuff through their systems as added security.

Make it expensive for business to get a .clean site and free for non profits. This kids group has .clean cops who investigate .clean infractions and remove any violators from the .clean domain using the proceeds from the business/commercial entities that pay for the .clean privlege.

It's not censorship, no one has to do it. If I illegaly serve .clean dns, point it to a gay bondage site I get in big big trouble.

you could even make it based one .g .pg .pg13 .r

And best of all..... I still get to look at porn.

G

Re:Well...

[pod]

Still, the voluntary ratings system puts shackles around a studio's hands. When they give something R or NC17 they know most BIG theatres won't carry it, it's bad for image, it's bad for business, but that's where the money is. There are all too many examples of otherwise excellent movies being cut up to meet an acceptable rating (even Disney movies, which in their current state, if they weren't animation, would easily get R). Every frame you cut that is not filler takes something away from the movie.

Re:Yet Another Censorship Plan...

[Masem]

Where is censorship coming into this???

No one is telling sites that might not be meeting 'high ethical standards' to go away, nor is the group pushing that filtering MUST be made available in the browser or that everyone had to install a filter.

Instead, they want a way to rate sites (as rated by the site owner, not a third party) such that those that would *LIKE* to install filters have a more informed choice as to what the filters will block, instead of relying on closed filter lists made up by another company. And as I have read it, there will be both exclusionary filters (don't visit sites that have certain ratings), as well as inclusionary filters (visit sites that ONLY have certain ratings), and that these filters can be piggy-backed onto each other to give those that would want to use filters a selection to choose from.

But since *you* don't feel like using filters, then you'll still be able to go to any site you want, and they will still be able to deliver the content they have to you.

So where is the censorship???

Will libraries (already very opposed to closed-list filters) accept this? Maybe; but certainly making sure that their cliental understand filters are not perfect and that because it is self-rated, some sites might slip through. But this will give libraries better options to have filtered computers in the kids section, and unfiltered ones for adults to use.

In addition, the ratings are more detailed that than of TV (which in turn are more detailed than that of movies). Is a reference on a page to sexual reproduction in the context of health, or in the context of erotica? That will be covered by the ratings, so that those pages that felt they were unfairly on filters blacklists before know that they can specify their content more exactly.

There is no censorship here. Given that nearly every part of this plan is volentary with no force of law behind it, I cannot see any connection.