Slashdot Mirror
Senate Approves Censored .kids.us Domain
lostchicken writes "The Senate has approved the first viable "kid-friendly" system that doesn't try to control the Internet. See the story here. It is an opt-in system that allows a .kids.us domain to be pointed at a site approved as safe, as opposed to an adult only domain type system."
with Toys'r'Us
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
well if im a kid and im encouraged to go to .kids sites, kid stuff like pokemon probably won't be .kids cuz theres violence!
Web sites bearing an address like "www.example.kids.us" would have to certify that they do not contain sexually explicit material, hate speech, violence or other material not suitable for minors.
Who determines what material isn't suitable?
Do they get paid? By the taxpayers I assume?
Do they really have any power to tell ICANN to revoke a domain name?
they add the .mil to it?
they could not set up chat rooms, instant messaging or other interactive services unless they could certify that they did not expose children to pedophiles or pose other risks. .kids.us, what the hell did they create it for?
If you can't pick up kids on
Am I the only one thinking that a non-profit could have done the EXACT SAME thing YEARS ago? Why didn't a church or something just buy safeForKids.org and then give out xxx.safeForKids.org addresses to people that run sites for children?
It will be like hanging out by the school for them.
I like choice. Choice gives you options.
This is a good idea, and maybe might be extended to the other TLDs: kids.com, kids.net, etc. Obviously, it would require some kind of monitoring and management, but it certainly appears to be a better way of "protecting" children then spurious free speech attacks on the 'net as an entity.
In fact, I believe extending this to the commercial TLDs would be a big marketing tool. Point out to parents that "our site is kid safe, we're part of the kids.whatever domain."
Build a better mousetrap...
Joe Dougherty, Florida, USA
The words I thought I brought, I left behind. So, never mind.
Would slashdot be considered safe?
You dont have to go far on here to find a link for goatse.cx courtesy of the local troll population.
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
I don't know who chose the domain 'kids' but goat-related domain names do not always have a spotless record...
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
I remember way back when AOL's child protection worked like this, kind of. I don't know how it works now, but what happened is they had a list of keywords and websites that were kid safe and those and only those websites could be visited. This caused trouble you know, if the website for your school wasn't listed, or www.hasbro.com or something like that. So in making a list of kid safe websites you will always leave a site out, which kind of sucks. .xxx or .sex I think it would be much better. First of all it would be very easy to prevent access by kids. Second it would be easier for pervs to find porn, making porn sites more money. And there wont be a chance of a kid not being able to go to a kid's site.
If it was made mandatory for all pr0n sites to go under
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Any guesses on when NAMBLA will buy a registration on this one? :)
You know this'll be like those damned child-proof caps on medicine bottles. In your average (read: non-geek) household, who do you think will be the first to figure out how to setup the browser? Certainly not Mom and Dad!
...how long until a law passes restricting libraries to the kids.us domain?
What measurements are there to ensure that these domains go to the right people? What if someone gets a .kids.us domain redirected to, for example, this place? Maybe you could even set up a kids portal where all the links point to pornographic sites. You could argue that since the links point to sites external to your own you are not responsible for their content. Besides, who the fuck wants to talk about the .kids.us bubble?
a twelve year old cracks the system and puts up www.boobsjustfor.kids.us?
-Speed
While I look at most things that the government does as some veiled attempt of hiding the true motive I actually kinda agree with this.
Kids are running rampant on the internet and can come across some truly disturbing shite. I myself was on this technical-nerd-/. site one day and clicked on a link and was presented with largest bloody rectum I have ever seen. Wait the only large bloody rectum I have ever seen. And it is more ubitiqous than the Bonzai buddy pop up.
Anyway, I dont have kids, soon, and I plan on treating them like adults. But not turning them into little Ron Jeremys.(That is my job for the time being).
So a restricted domain where it is all about kidstuff is cool with me. Might even fun for our jades asses to look at. Of course when I strip off the emerald spectacles it is gonna be a marketing haven for toy companies, candy companies, and anything that sells kiddy products, a market with a demographic that is always renewing itself.
So lets see how it works. Could be a good thing. And we can always have a good guffaw when the script kiddies hijack a couple of sites and plaster them with the goat.cx guy, nude shots of ana nicole, and John Holmes memorials.
The Flatline
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
In my defense, I intended that word differently the first time around. As in "all browser's software" where "browser" == "user".
This seems simple enough to me. If you want your children to access the .kids.us sites, then you have to install a Mozilla or an IE plugin. Those that don't have those plugins can't go (Boo-hoo...) and those that do are subject to the restrictions placed upon them by the .kids.us domain sites.
.kids.us domain. Those serious websites that do will no doubt also maintain a regular version.
Does this allow the government or Neustar to spy on people and gather information if they want to? Yes, it does. Since it is an opt-in system, I'm comfortable with it. No serious site will place itself in the
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
I really did want a .sex or .pr0n TLD. Would make for some really spiffy email addys;)
The story title is off, it isn't "censored", it's "moderated", there's a difference.
Content isn't altered, content is accepted or rejected.
Why does that sound like an advertisement for paedophiles? "C'mon, kids us lads!"
.kids.us extention.
On another note, why is this needed? Aren't the opt-in content checker websites good enough? Personally I would consider the latter to be several times more reliable than just trusting anything with a
I'm surprised: an intelligent and implementable system actually came out of Congress.
.kids.us (he goes through a squid proxy right now that defaults to denied [I have an ACL of acceptable domains]) and he comes across something inappropriate, may I then sue NeuStar for allowing that exposure?
Of course, I wouldn't want to be NeuStar. That's a hell of a responsibility; to police an entire subdomain for appropriateness. And I wonder what sort of liability issues that creates. If I let my 10-year-old browse at will through
As it stands now, my son's email account receives close to 50 spams a day, 10 of which are sexually revolting. But because of the nature of the beast, I cannot press charges against any of the companies that originate the mail (if I could find them, that is). It would be refreshing to to have a "Kid Safe" label and have it mean something*.
* Unfortunately to get any organization to truly "Certify" that (and be able to TRUST that certification), there must be real and hurtful penalties attached.
You're right, but remember who is the main beneficiary of this new domain.
.kids.us (like Slashdot).
If it were being created to help kids then this "opt-in" system would be deemed too drastic a measure that cuts kids off from too much information outside
On the other hand, since this law is being written for voting parents who just want peace of mind, it can get away with this level of generality.
It's sad, but not unreasonable in a democracy where children can't vote.
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
Perhaps with current browsers this is true. Of course it would not be hard to have the preferences password protected.
Kind of goes withoug saying that this is a breading ground for pedophiles, or a good place to trap them I spoze.
Is somebody in Congress taking money from NAMBLA? Sure looks like it.
The intent of this bill is to corral all the children on the net into one small area, crammed in together like cattle in a truck. It will be a field day for child molesters.
Naturally, Christian sites will not be permitted in this TLD. They've thought of that already: Since it's government-mandated and supported, any mention of religion will be illegal.
I fail to see how this is of any benefit to anybody but adult atheists and perverts. The children's welfare clearly has not even been considered.
How are they going to monitor it. What about a site that is about furry teddies one day and porn the next.
no sig.
But will it work? There seems to be quite a few restrictions to qualify for this domain.
Web sites in the domain would be prohibited from linking to sites outside it, and they could not set up chat rooms, instant messaging or other interactive services unless they could certify that they did not expose children to pedophiles or pose other risks.
That "certify" part is the nail in the coffin. What about the liability associated if something slips through the cracks? I can not see companies lining up to provide this.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
homelandsecurity.governmentisourfriend.kids.us
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
NeuStar would be expected to police the subdomain to ensure it remains free of inappropriate content.
Policing a kids domain is definitely necessary. It doesn't fall to the side of censorship but rather common sense.
However this may create an opening for the government to define what is appropriate for children beyond the known vices. For example, what about people's religious beliefs. Could the government decide on one over the other, ban all as hate speech for the sake of not having to deal with it, etc.?
If the kids.us domain is too restrictive, parents are going to let their kids look elsewhere for information, which may doom the kids.us domain. Of course kids.us is not supposed to be a success story (so "doomed" may be incorrect); instead it's supposed to protect children. For the kids it does protect I know we are all thankful.
Might the system not work better if there existed different levels of these subdomains like "kids.highprotection.us", "kids.mediumprotection.us", and "kids.lowprotection.us" (no comments about the names please -- they are just examples), then the medium level might include religious beliefs, and the low level might include regular news sites, etc. This way parents could decide on a level that that deemed most appropriate for their kid/s (maybe based on age, etc). This would also provide a good way to wean the kid onto the "real" Interent as they get older. Sooner or later the kid is going to be at a friend's house (whose parents have less restrictions) and will experience the real Interent anyways. Just like when I was a kid I first got to play video games (Atari) at a friend's house because my family didn't own a game system (my parents probably thought it was a bad idea at my young age because I shouldn't have spent a lot of time in front of the TV).
The usefulness of this domain totally depends on the method the filter uses to determine whether or not the site is safe for children. Clearly, they'll prevent the usage of certain types of langauge (race/sex/whatever-ist, lewd, obscene, etc) and pictures, but where do you determine to censor content?
Do you prevent the discussion of 'adult' topics? How do you get a consensus on what an 'adult' topic is? Where do you go to file a complaint when your page discussing Linux (or Microsoft products, or Jell-O) is rejected because it contains 'adult' subject matter?
Does anyone know if this company can be trusted to perform this duty in an impartial and proper manner?
What's stopping someone from putting subversive (pick your subversion) topics in a non-offensive, clean, and veiled manner?
-lw
Mods: Disagreeing with me != my post Offtopic / Flamebait.
World without hate or war, invaded. Tragic?
But honestly, this will be difficult to regulate. And more than likely the pedophiles and grown men that cruise with names like Soccergirl342 will be there in masse. The way things are going now, the FBI is going to have to be in every chat room.
.kids for kidsfun.kids.
/.ers that think this is crap, or have some nutty agenda about having a kids safe internet, I suggest you go play legos with your cousins today, and then think about if they are mentally prepared yet for what some of these bastards will plan to do with them. You'll change your mind soon enough.
God, I hope that they do something right for a change on the internet before some place like adultsexplayhouse.com or donkeysweat.org decides to move into the kid market... and sue ICANN for "their rightful domain name" on
So for all of you
Once again, a perfect place for a certain link and you neglected to put it in! And it's even on topic!
Best Slashdot Co
and the auto-generated reply said "that's gone, but fuck.kids is available"
!!
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
oops - doubt they'll be selling bread to the kids :-) better make that breeding
How in the world this is different than a XXX domain which is marked for adults only?
Adult web sites could opt-in as well to an adults only domain (ICANN really did fuck up when they nixed the xxx domain).
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
Answers are in the article, if you would have read it.
Parent doesn't deserve a postive score.
Hell, a site like that could easily be about porn the first day!
Best Slashdot Co
I wonder how many times does it happen that 14 years old kids are the only ones able to configure a computer in their own family.
<SARCASM>Fortunately, these times are about to finish. With Trustworthy Computing and DRM all these free speech morons will finally shut up and we will live happily together placing our kids in front of the monitor and letting other people decide what's good for them.</SARCASM>
Seriously, I don't think such technology is bad, but the first prevention measure should be education of kids, which requires education of adults (I understand that not everyone is supposed to be a geek, but it's parents' responsibility to know what their kids are doing).
Signatures are for stupids.
The title of the story mentions "censored" which in itself is BAD, right? but slashdot seems to be rather positive about it.
so what opinion should i have now?! could anyone please help?
it would be cool if the stories on slashdot made it easier to get an appropriate slashdot-like opinion.
I fail to see how this is better than any filtering software. If kids can only access .kids.us sites, then they are confined to a list of sites that have been pre-approved by some censor who thinks that only they know what is good for America's children. If, on the other hand, if children surf through filtering software, then they are confined to a list of ... (i.e. the same exact situation.
Several things need to happen here:
While we would all like for the world to be a place where everyone is happy, and protected, that is simply not the case. You have to look out for your own -- you can't rely on some (government, company, whatever) to raise your children for you.
There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
www.thehun.kids.us
Doesn't making the kids disclose information in the browser violate the Children Online Privacy Protection Act? Or does the .kids.us domain get exempt? Besides, why do they need people to identify? Are they afraid terrorists are going to use .kids.us to communicate (oh, that would be funny, wouldn't it?)? I can't conceive how they could hope to keep pedophiles away with that.
On the other hand, I'm sure a pedophile could run a site, and get lots of leads.
Erik
YOU ARE SAYING IMPUDENCE TO ME! THAT IS IMPUDENCE!
http://shop.easyspace.com/shop-cgi-bin/easyspace1. cgi
.sport [or one of the others] from the dropdown
click on the New.net tab
and enter fuck and
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
For me, it means that only sites designed specifically for the .kids domain would be allowed. And, the no-external-linking and no-forum-chat-messaging gives an experience completelly different to what Internet is, and more close to TV or educational CDs. What will happen when those children have later to use the real Internet?
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
That goat-related porn will be on this domain within an hour of it coming live.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
The way I look at it, every parent will have a different view of what's 'right' for their kids. How can some central authority take a concensus of all these opinions?
As someone who wants to have children, I think this is a good thing. However, this is still not a substitute for parenting and monitoring what your kid does on the Internet. Consider TV - sure all the "Action Figure Man" cartoons and candy commercials are "kid-friendly", but you shouldn't just turn your kid loose on the boob tube all day.
grandparent meant "xxx" as in "foo" as opposed to "xxx" as in "dirty pornography"
What powers will the controlling group have when (not if) someone breaks the content rules?
.kids.us?
What recourse do I have when my kids happen upon content that should not be there in
Oh, I took it to mean we'd be able to deep fry them.
Vote for global prefs bug
What's to stop a click through link that points to a non-kidstuff site? And what happens if hackers get into a web site and do just that.
This is just like setting up a brand new park in the inner city (sorry for being non-PC here). Unless you police it heavily, the gangs come in and pretty soon, you've got a place that looks just like the rest of the scummy neighbourhood.
i read an article, that there are schools in us, that filter their internet sites also for stuff like darwin's teaching about evolution?
how common is that in the us? would'nt this be considered dangerous for the "freedom of speech" or as a fundamentalistic religious movement?
AC here...
lately i've grown some "feathers" down there and it feels itchy. what to do? thanks you all you l33t hax0rs
Are kids in the US the only ones befitting a "safe" surfing experience?
I realize that it would be nigh impossible to create a worldide standard, but theis tastes a little of "screw everyone else".
the-government.kids.us
slashdot.kids.us...
Damn this is almost as hilarious as .com/.cum !
www.goatse.cx.kids.us
>
Part of growing up is being exposed to things you shouldn't be. I would assume most slashdotters here grew up in a time, when the interenet was first start to spread its wings. There was no safeguards or protection. My parents couldn't even grasp the concept of a modem, when I was already downloading porn. Seriously, our soft culture has gone to far. Next thing you know, you will be able to vote and die in war 3yrs before you can drink. Oh wait, that is already in existance. Toughen up America.
My brother has VNC going on the home network just to keep an eye on his two kids, and one of them's gotten the family AOL account shut down for inappropriate behaviour in a chat room (don't ask).
Leave the computer out in the open, like the TV, and let the oversight be implicit. Your kids may watch something out of line when they're out or you are, but something tells me that neither you nor they are going to watch XXX when you're both in the same house.
Like it is at work. Your behavior might change if a URL log is kept, but it would really change if your back is to your boss who can always see your screen.
First, I definitely think this is a good idea. Yes, this may prove overly restrictive but if people are opting to go into a kids.us domain then it's their choice. It's another tool to help parents prevent their kids from accessing things they deem unsuitable.
But one caveat is that anyone who thinks this is foolproof will surely be disappointed. The problem is links. Let's say some Disney television program gets a kids.us domain pointing to it. That site has a link to abcfamily.com which links to abc.com which links to abcnews.com which links to the latest celebrity sex scandal.
wantsomecandy.kids.us
And browser makers responsibility to make their tools easy for "average" parents to use.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
"no serious site..."
I used to work for a serious site that would have to be in that domain. Why? Because they catered to high schools and of course, high schools will be required to use the "child-safe, corners-rounded-off, don't-want-to-learn-about-that-nasty-evolution" Internet.
The funny thing is that we would have had to change our entire business model around that domain because we provided an open publishing system to High School teachers. Some of the stuff those teachers let their kids put up would probably not be "acceptable", and we would have hand to police those schools from seeing themselves!
This sounds like a perfectly reasonable solution. Those parents that do not restrict what their kids see online (like mine) do not have to worry about having the government do it for them. Those parents that do want to restrict what their kids see online have to make sure that their restrictions only affect their kids, and not anyone else. In both cases, the control is with the parents where it belongs.
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
www.thinkofthechildren.co.uk
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Where do you see this in the bill? Do you have a URL?
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
No serious site? If this bill becomes serious, lots of parents will only let their kids navigate those sites, and every *serious site* will have one. I just hope they make the domains affordable so it doesn't become doubly expensive to maintain a kid-friendly website.
Read jack phelps dot net
The URL was "www.canda.boys.com"
it didn't take long for the rightful owners of boys.com to spot this and add a "*" entry to their DNS table...
I'm sure I don't have to tell you what happened next...
FROM: MOLLY@LITTLE.KIDS.US Subject: I am Here for You I am a hot little girl waiting for U!
WHAT ARE YOU QUOTING?
The text of the bill is here. It doesn't say anything like that. Neither of the restrictions you discuss are in the bill.
This seems to me a perfectly good way to make an internet playpen without eating internet freedom. Please don't scaremonger.
I, however, don't know if this will be successful. Parent who don't wish to monitor their children, like those that complain about South Park and the like, will complain that the system is not perfect when a nude painting inadvertently makes it into a discussion about classic art. Christian fundamentalist will try subvert the intention of the domain by using it to promote their religious beliefs. The fast food chains will dominate the advertising in a continuing attempt to brand our children.
But, all in all, a good attempt and a gold star for congress. I am really not trying to be ironic. It is just we need to first teach our children to think. Sometimes I think we are so concerned with nipples and penises that allow equally dangerous, but more socially accepted material. Of course I agree that stuff like goatsx should be banned, but perhaps also this Jerry Falwell propaganda against muslims.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I can the potential for abuse now:
"Hey let's get Ralphie in trouble!"
"Sure! How?"
"When he's in the bathroom, just try to go to [pornsite] on his computer."
"Kewl!"
Since it is an opt-in system, I'm comfortable with it. No serious site will place itself in the .kids.us domain. Those serious websites that do will no doubt also maintain a regular version.
Since the MPAA is an opt-in system, I'm comfortable with it. No serious movie will place itself in the PG-13 ratings domain. Those serious movies that do will no doubt also release a regular version.
Yeah, that's what happens, sure it does.
Hey webmasters! In the future, you only get one 'fuck.' Better use it wisely.
The story says that sites in this domain will be prohibited from having chat/IM, so that problem would be mitigated somewhat.
.us domain, which is government funded.
/. disclaimer applies!
The story also says that ICANN doesn't own the rights to the domain it's another company who controls the
I don't think the suing option will work, because the system is opt-in, but the standard
I know there are dorks out there looking to warp my kids, but I'm open to any ideas there are to protect my kids while I do teach them!
Ben
this isn't so bad. Sure, kids may or may not be exposed to propaganda and marketing and whatnot, and may not be exposed to vital news information, but at the very least, these seems like a way for a parent to be somewhat sure that your child will be looking at fairly inane sites, so that you don't have to sit there next to them monitoring with them. If you are afraid that they won't get exposure to religious web sites, or political websites offering different views, there's no reason you can't sit them on your lap when you are logged in, and visit all the non-kids.us domain names you'd like. Otherwise, the only way to make sure that your 10 year old isn't reading more about the collected works of Ron Jeremy is to sit there with him/her and watch every link they click on.
The only thing I hate more than hypocrites are people who hate hypocrites.
It's a serious problem. I couldn't allow in good conscience a pre-adolescent kid to roam free on the internet. There's just too much junk. While I'm not in the US, .kids.* (or even .kids TLD) could set a good precedent, and really get children out of the crapola.
Combined with a ".kids" browser with severe linking limitation (browser only allows links to other .kids sites) and legal repurcussions for companies violating the .kids standard (Corruption of Minors?) I'd be more than happy to make changes to the way my computer worked to facilitate this.
In a way it would create a sub-web of the internet, kids domains only interlinking with kids domains, and this would be a great thing. Many existing domains exist to populate this with numerous sites targetted for kids.
In fact, if it was made a TLD, this could easily be expanded into pretty much all IP software to make 'em kid friendly. And kid friendly would have to come first over functionality; no putting in IP addresses directly to go to a site. It is a severe limitation but with a good watchdog, and approval process for .kids domains, I'd rest a lot easier about having a kid on the net.
---
When I grow up, I want to be a kid again.
This must be the kind of weirdo's your Congress is trying to protect your children from:http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_545271.h tml?menu=news.latestheadlines
I wonder was he wearing velcro gloves?
PG, you've gotta be one of the best, most believable trolls I've ever seen. I respect that, but you're still a troll.
Everyone else: This is pure BS, just so everyone knows. Another troll from the masterful PhysicsGenius.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
This wouldn't matter to geek kids, because all they have to do is (unless this is implemented as some sort of packet filter).
Start
Run
ftp ftp.myfavoritenoncensoredbrowser.com
get myfavoritenoncensoredbrowser.zip
unzip myfavoritenoncensoredbrowser.zip, enjoy..
Atleast that is what I would have done when I was a kid.
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
yeah, but does it say before that that the PARENTS decide to activate it?
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
While I think that the idea is a nobel one, especially for parents worried about their children, I think this legislation misses the point. Parents should be the ones responsible for monitoring what their kids, especially young ones, do. Kids don't need to have a PC with internet connection in their room, especially if the parents aren't technically capable of using simple monitoring techniques (snort etc.).
.kids.us domain as actually containing anything useful. It will probably end up being a conglomerate domain for marketing to kids, rather than containing useful information.
Additionally, I don't see the
Actually this is just fine.
Even if "hate speech" is too broad, I would like a domain like this that is very restricted and controlled.
When your kids grow up and you think they're mature enough, just turn off the kids domain stuff, and let them surf away. This is the best solution, no restrictions on the "regular" internet, and a very restricted optional space for kids.
I see no problem with this.
- sigs are for wimps.
This is really pretty condescending. Most of us who have children understand this. The real issue is that there is quite a bit on the net that children may encounter that they just aren't ready for. Only a few folks have real fears of actual physical harm befalling a child as a result of surfing the web. Most of us would just like our children to have an actual childhood, however brief.
People need to realize that most censorship does more harm than good. Every attempt to provide a list of "good" and "bad" sites has failed, and will always fail, because "good" and "bad" are purely subjective.
Censorship is a bad thing only when foisted on adults. I think, however, that you are going to have a pretty hard time making the case that keeping a 7 year-old from accidentally encountering www.fursuitsex.com is a bad thing.
People need to stop raising such gullible children, The world contains bad things, and everyone has to learn how to deal with them. If a child is brought up, and hasn't ever seen "bad" in his/her life, then (s)he will be ill-prepared to function in our world.
If you have ever raised children, you would understand that sheltering a child from all "bad things" is impossible. Few parents are attempting to do this. While I'm all for porn and violence, let's not pretend that it somehow builds character and prepares you for life -- it doesn't.
While we would all like for the world to be a place where everyone is happy, and protected, that is simply not the case. You have to look out for your own -- you can't rely on some (government, company, whatever) to raise your children for you.
Nobody is relying on the government to raise their children. All this bill does is attempt to create a limited, safe space. It does so without foisting draconian censorship on the rest of us and reducing the Internet to the lowest "kid-friendly" denominator.
More importantly, the creation of such a safe space strengthens the hands (politically) of those who oppose broader censorship laws, such as COPA and its ilk, since it essentially takes away the "but we must protect the children " argument. This is a good thing.
Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot
you are making somthing out of nothing. any one who has an appropriate page can get on the .kids.us page domain. and even if teh congress decides those criteria, they are still fightable (you know, everything that is taught in highschool and below MUST be part of the domain, they can not push a creationist agenda etc.) I like this. I will install this plug-in on my son's computer soon that way, he can not accidentaly get to sites taht have nasty things on them. also, this might be usful in the library fight. you set up a bunch of computers with this plug in and then you have an over 16 system. then you don't get kids going to porn sites and adults can get access to the whole internet.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
...severely limiting research, especially into some computer related matters.
I know that most of my life on the 'net when I was 18 or under was spent learning about computer security (or lack thereof), chats that were computer oriented, etc. I do not know of many hacker sites that would not be labeled as obscene in language or non-offensive (because the material deals with possible "illegal" subject matters).
At what point to we say that we are sacrificing knowledge for smut?
I am all for protecting kids and making sure they are not exposed to "adult" material, but that should be the job of the parent, not the government, not the religious institution, not the ISP, etc. There is a lot of material that I find perfectly suitable for a child under 18 to read other than Disney. However, it does not sound like this moderation system will allow children to read about certain topics that are legitimate.
So my next question: Will it block sites like "boy-band" fan sites, or "pop diva" sites (i.e. Brittney S., Christina A., etc)? If not, why not? Half of the porn email spam I get deal with these two females.
MunITioN
"A mind is a terrible thing to lose"
And transfer it to George Carlin. "No wonder kids smoke: it helps. Not as much as weed, but hey!"
I know everyone is gushing over this as if its a good idea. Just look deeper. Look at whats happening today and you can see what will happen in the future. Let me help you.
1. servers in the kids.us domain immediately come under attack by crackers hell bent on inserting pr0n into those sites.
2. Parents attempt to sue Neustar.
3. Supreme court rules they cannot be sued and complaintants must sue the US Government (which one cannot legally sue)
4. Parents turn their fury to the individual server administrators.
5. Administrators can not keep up with all the bugs in the software and request help or protection from the us government.
6. FUD ensues.
7. White house demands new Cyber Terrorism laws.
8. DHD creates new Cyber Terrorism division.
9. more freedoms shot down in the name of "the children."
You can divise any scenario you like. The one common thread is that these servers will be major targets for crackers and they will succeed time and time again.
register www.sex.kids.us!
The bill would place a ".kids" subdomain under the control of NeuStar Inc., the Washington telecommunications firm that won the right to manage the ".us" country-code domain last fall.
.kids.us sites, and it's not practical even if they did do it, since many of the most useful website fall under their own domains at .coms, like yahoo, google and various news sites.
The Senate added a provision that would give NeuStar an automatic two-year extension of its contract in return for managing the ".kids" subdomain, a Dorgan aide said.
it's really not that well thought out of a concept, after all, most adults aren't smart enough to set up a method to limit kids to only the
what this amounts to is government sponsored good press for NeuStar. your tax dollars at work, supporting corporations.
The World's Worst Webcomic!
First off, I'm fairly certain that the people running sites on kids.us will be toystores, homepages for nickelodeon, mini flash-shockwave game sites, probably a dictionary and encyclopedia site, and possibly a health type dealy. You know, the things that kids would learn and do in school.
parents are going to let their kids look elsewhere for information
Like the library, perhaps? I wasn't online until I was in 8th grade (usenet baby!), and I learned tons of stuff from actual books.
I understand what you're saying, however, I believe that the restriction will be fairly parallel to what kids learn in school and do during after school activities. Even if they do see some other kid with no restriction on their browser, hopefully by then they'll have enough sense to know what they're looking at (and leave if they're uncomfortable). I mean, we can keep our kids away from drugs until a certain age - and then they get offered them. It's up to the parents to tell their kids that the drugs are out there, and hope that the kid will turn it down.
Also, I should note, I'm Christian, and I wouldn't want my kid looking online for religious information. There are way too many divisions in the Church, and tons of misled people. Heck, I don't even look online for religious information - I read books.
If a and b in c, and a can create b, and a can create a, and b can create b, and b cannot create a, then a created c.
Dear Parent,
This message is to notify you that your child attempted to navigate to a site outside of the kids.us domain on 11/15/02 at 9:22:05 AM CST.
Please navigate to the site using the link below and thoroughly review all of it's contents, so that you may be fully aware of your child's internet browsing habits.
http://goatse.cx
Just out of curiosity, which high-school was preventing evolution-positive from being viewed on the internet? Both this post and it's parent seem to indicate that creationism is being pushed in the schools. While I'm sure that's true in the religious schools, I can't imagine it being the case in a public school. It was quite the opposite in my school. In fact, putting pro-creationism material out within the school would have probably been grounds for suspension. What am I missing?
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Oops, you assume that creationism would be out... Pro-Religious (maybe judo-christian only) subjects would definitily be accepted into this domain. It's the evolution sites that would have a hard time getting in.
goatse.kids It will happen. they can't prevent it.
I believe that some of the censor-ware filters have removed "subjects that religious people object to" which includes evolution.
I get it! Thanks for clarifying!!!!! I was really confused there. So what is "foo"? Some sort of particular sexual deviance or fetish? Thank you for your time.
Finally, our legislature has got it right. The primary argument for censoring the internet is "My son searched for *random innocent yet suggestive term* and got loads of pr0n." The answer up until now has been, "Well, why don't you form a special interest group and bitch at your congressperson until they pass all kinds of oppressive legislation?" Now we can say "Well, why didn't you have the software on your child's computer to restrict him to the kids domain?" The only issue others might reasonably have with this is censorship at public internet access points. Remember, though, if organziation X chooses to provide internet access for free, that organization has the right to provide it such that said internet access is conducive towards its philosophical ends. Just as you can't find the most controversial and offensive books in the library, you can't get the same on the internet. The only real argument left is..."What if I can't afford internet access and need to rely on the public libraries for my access to contraversial materials?" Remember that the libraries exist to promote education as it is desirable for the government, which is only to the extent that it produces citizens informed enough to vote. Remember, Jefferson advocated regular revolutions, but he did not expect the government to organize and promote such revolutions.
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
I'm just not as smart as I seem. I guess you learn "something knew" everyday.
I think it's a great idea..when you can have censorship for prime time TV ...why not the internet? People say internet is a place where you choose what you want and not the other way around..but does a kid know what to choose?
All the people who are complaining about Dads and Moms not knowing how to configure a browser...here's a quick idea...why can't the operating system support a kid's account just like an Administrator or a Guest account on windows. This kids account when created would automatically set up all the browsers and stuf.
The whole kids domain thing is a great idea and would go a long way if pursued in the right way.
It doesn't do anything to the rest of the Internet as it is now, so if *.kids.us is a good thing, parents will use it. If it turns out not to be as good in practice, they won't, and they haven't lost anything.
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
I like this. I will install this plug-in on my son's computer soon that way, he can not accidentaly get to sites taht have nasty things on them.
Much as I'd like to see anything which discourages widespread net censorship succeed, I really can't see this working. For one, if your son has a brain, he can either uninstall this or just download another browser. For two, do you REALLY think all sites which have 'nasty things on them' will be covered? Just like all sites are covered under the current firewalls and other forms of censorship?
Censoring stuff is like trying to patch up a decapitation with a plaster. In not only won't work properly, it SHOULDN'T work properly, as it's not the correct method. The correct method is to teach children what is right and wrong so that they can decide for themselves what they will visit. Censoring what they experience online is merely delaying the inevitable.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
How about also having adult domain names such as .sex? These sites could be self policed, and it would then be easy to filter out such sites from children.
A "kid" is what you call a baby goat.
You're welcome.
Why not just get a new.net
</sarcasm>
I'll have something intelligent to add one of these days...
For those of you who think this is stupid, unimplementable, too limiting on your 1st amendment rights, etc..
That's perfectly fine -- don't use it! Ignorance is bliss!
Seriously, this is clearly optional, so if you don't like the idea, then just continue using whatever method (or none) that you want. This just provides parents another option.
"Truth is not decided by majority vote" consensus gentium -- Norman Geisler
How would you feel about telling kids how the United States Army carried out genocide attacks and slaughtered most of the Native American Indians in North America for several decades in the late 1800's? Would you say "Al Qaeda^H^H^H^H^H^H^H The US Army is bent on the destruction of the United States^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Native American Indians and the western way of life. Therefore they are evil and that is a FACT that kids can be taught. It has nothing to do with "hate speech"." It all happened so long ago that it really is just history.
So what do you think? Is hate speech about good and evil, or is it about right and wrong, or is it about us and them?
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
Just imagine, if Congress keeps this up! We could finally get fuck.us, long overdue from them.
Along those lines, feel free to reply with some original hostnames...
Remember kids, 9/11 wasn't anybody's faultIn principle, I think this is a great idea.
But unless and until similar schemes are implemented, either world-wide or on a country-by-country basis, and linked together, I can only see this making US kids even less likely to realise that there is actually a world beyond the border.
I can see the logic behind preventing access to sites outside the domain, even kid-friendly ones (after all, once you're out, who knows where you'll end up?), but I do feel that these kids will be missing out on all sorts of fascinating and - dare I say it? - educational content beyond their shores. (And no, I don't mean pr0n....)
This idea is simple to implement for parents and easy to understand for everyone involved (but a pain for NeuStar).
The various objections raised here seem silly, and not very well thought out.
Kids need to learn to avoid this stuff on their own. It's censorship! Damn right it is censorship, and you're an irresponsible parent if you don't practice it. Kids get enough chances at avoiding (or seeking out) this stuff at school and around their peers. They don't need things handed to them on a silver platter. Parents need to be ever-vigilant, but they need a break too.
Someone else is going to decide what's okay, and what's not! Their morals might not be your own! I'm willing to let someone else make the decisions, and check in occasionally to make sure they make sense. There may be material that's a little too mature (ever see some of the teenage girls on Nickleodeon?) or a out of whack politically (PBS kids programming chaps my ass some days with this), but I'm willing to trade a little boundary-pushing for a much safer experience.
Parents will never figure out how to set this up! FUD & bullshit. They won't need to. If the US adopts this how long will it take for AOL 9.0 to come out with a button that locks down the system? Or Internet Explorer 7.0? Plugins galore that do the same thing? Not long and every software resaler will fall all over themselves to help parents remove this objection to letting the kids use the Net. Remember, *kids* drive a HUGE portion of the US economy.
It's a US-only thing! Yup. Too bad. (For you or for us, depending on your viewpoint.)
Why not just have a .XXX or .SEX domain? Two problems, first is that not every bad thing for children is porn -- I don't want my kid spending time at the Illinois Nazi website either. Second is that the genie's out of the bottle already. It's going to be impossible to legislatively corral it back in. Better to set up a sandbox where the genie's not allowed to go and defend that spot rigorously.
Get off my lawn.
As much bashing as the U.S. congress has gotten here, I think they now deserve a conditional kudos for having a clue. I say conditional because they do hav a tendency to sneak in little easter eggs that come back to bite us in the butt.
.kids.us, leaving the school surfing of the 'net relatively reasonably without having to employ censorship software whose motives are often suspect (they filter political as well as objectionable content, usually but not always with a pro-right-wing bias, etc.).
.kids.us domain is transparent and public, this will work reasonably well. Yes, there will be politics and debate, but it will be open and, if not always fair, at least reasonably democratic (quite possibly reminiscent of local school board politics). If not, it will just become another dysfunctional censorship project run amok.
As one who routinely, and scathingly, bashes congress here and elsewhere, I have to agree. This appears to have been a rare instance of insightful, intelligent, reasoned, and balanced governance, something we have seen far too little of lately.
I think this actually has a good chance of being quite successful, and school firewalls can easilly be designed to only access
As long as the criteria, process, and oversight of the selection of material that is allowed in the
However, I am actually fairly optomistic that some lessons may have been learned, and it will be the former, not the latter, which happens. In any event, this is a good, well balanced start to solving a problem without, for once, trampling on either the constitution or the most promising new technology to emerge in a hundred years, namely the Internet itself.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
screws.us
fscks.us
ruins.us
like,
washington.kids.us
verizon.screws.us
or even, archaeology.ruins.us
R
Stuff that matters: circuitbreakers, vacuum-cleaners coffee makers, calculators generators, matching salt+pepper shakers
Read it here. Note that the "new language would grant NeuStar an extra two years on its four-year contract to operate dot-us if it upholds its dot-kids obligations. The legislation also would allow NeuStar to throw its hat into the ring when the government re-bids the dot-us contract."
If they can go to non-kids.us sites then they can just type www.teenfuck.com into the browser too.
The browser will be restricted, get it?
It looks like Congress is once more failing to understand what the internet is, or rather what it isn't. The world wide web is not the Internet - the net is a much larger system encompassing many more services.
A domain name references a set of records that in turn may reference computers that in turn offer an array of services, one of which may be a set of web pages.
Is congress intending to police all of those services on all of those computers that are referenced by all of those different types of records under each domain name in kids.us?
And what are they going to police? As others here have mentioned, there is no single standard for content for children.
What kind of kids are you talking about?
My pre-teen children don't watch the news, unless I happen to be watching it with them. They aren't really interested in Israel and the PLO, unless of course you let them watch it in the news.
When I see "kids.us" I think toddlers just learning to use a computer, I think of my 8-year-old daughter who is looking for some fun game to play. Sure she is getting to the point where she'll outgrow a kids specific location, but the is what the rest of the Internet is for, along with other mediums.
Life moves pretty fast; if you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it. -FB
This is an American thing.
/. should understand that information is power and freedom.
I lived in Holland for a year attending school. In Amsterdam, children walk to school past the smell of dope in the coffeeshops and the prostitutes in the windows. They speak 4 languages fluently and are smarter than we are. It's embarrassing.
The war on morality in the US does more harm by isolating children from the real world. If we really wanted to serve and protect our children we would invest in their schooling and their healthcare. We would probably also keep them from getting access to assault rifles to kill each other with at school.
It's time for the US and the other intolerant nations of the world to stop legislating morality through law. Different cultures have different moral codes and the government should have nothing to do with it whatsoever.
Understand that once you have the interenet's information categorized it is one step closer to censorship. Censorship is the restriction of information all of us here at
Lobbyists: Hot Water is bad ?
Public: No, we like hot water!
Lobbyist: Who will protect the Children ?!!
Public: Well, I guess hot water is bad *hypnotized by media deer-in-the-headlights-glazed-over-look.*
You do your children a disservice by 'protecting' them from civilization in the first world country, probably the safest country on earth.
Anyway, I dont have kids, soon, and I plan on treating them like adults.
Don't treat them like adults until they are ready. Let them be children fist.
Life moves pretty fast; if you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it. -FB
I don't understand this approach, it is exactly the opposite way that we work in the "real world." I know that this has been said here before, but I would like to point out my view points.
For example, we do not create seperate retail stores that are "just for kids" that contain kid-safe stuff (don't confuse kidmarketing stores like the Kids Gap stores). Instead, we create special stores that are allowed to sell non-kid friendly product. (Examples: Adult Bookstore, Bars, Strip Clubs, etc).
The best method is to say we are not kid-friendly as opposed to we are kid friendly.
Why is/should the internet be treated differently? Here's a real world analogy. There is a park at the corner of my street. Imagine putting up a big sign that says we are totally kid-friendly at the park. Would you (as a parent) feel safe leaving your kid at the park? Of course not, any pedifile (sp) could walk into the park too. The only way to keep it safe is to ensure that only kids go into the park. But on the internet, that's impossible to do. Why would I, as a parent, (and not being technical) let my kids roam freely in a place that is the best known target to pedifiles?
My children access the Internet through AOL. The new AOL client has nifty parental access controls that filter out the evil stuff automatically. It's just like at home. I make rules and John and Kimmi follow them or face repurcussions. For Example: One day I caught Kimmi listening to music that was inappropiate, so I locked her in the closet for an evening and she had to forgo supper. As a mormon mommy it is important to me to be firm yet fair with my offspring. Another time, I caught John masterbating in the locked bathroom. So, I firmly but fairly but that little bastards dick off.
Opt in. I think it's a great idea: It's not like there's a severely limited number of TLDs that can be created. So, if the censors of the world want to restrict freedom, then give them a "playpen" in which they can do it. You want to start a colony with religiously restrictive laws? Fine. Go to the new world and knock yourself out. Just leave the rest of us alone. Unfortunately, the goal of censors is not usually limited to "like minded people". If it were, they would not need censorship in the first place. The real goal is to "Save people from themselves whether they like it or not." So, this is a pacifier. If it shuts up internet censors, great. It's not going to be effective at keeping anyone from seeing what they *want* to see. But it *could* be effective at preventing people from seeing what they *don't* want to see.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Not unless the commentary was structured to incite hatred of the Japanese or some other currently existing group.
Given the current situation, yes, both sides undoubtably would. In fact I think we can assume that tens of thousands of complaints would be engendered by any statement that portrayed either side as less than saintly. Content providers would probably be wise to avoid the issue - and honestly, I don't think any "reasonable person" wants his or her kids to learn about the Middle East situation from a "kid" site. Such sites would be quickly dominated by the better-funded Zionist movement in any case; no balance could really be achieved.
I doubt our "reasonable person" would consider it "hate speech" to "talk ill" of an admittedly terrorist group, unless one advocated hate towards them, or a group that resembles them. It's obviously hate speech when Billy Graham's demented larva pronounces that "Islam is Evil" and proposes "new crusades", and it's hate speech when the President says we should single out Arab communities for opression, but it's not hate speech to describe terrorism accurately
But again, we come back to the issue of appropriateness for children - any truthful discussion of Al Quaeda is going to be sufficiently disturbing that it is not appropriate for unsupervised children.
I suspect that you have no kids! Why not just give three-year-olds loaded submachine guns, they have to learn sometime what death is like, right? FUD phrases like "political correctness" and "multiculturalism" should probably be banned from kids.us, incidentally.
Yes, far better, once the kids are old enough to handle the concepts. I didn't explain to my African-American three-year-old what "kill all nigger-lovers" meant when she saw it spray-painted on the sidewalk behind the house. I explained it very carefully to my WASP six-year-old, and I certainly would NOT want him to have had it explained by a web content provider while I was out of the room for a moment.
Your concern is understandable, given the slanted education given most kids by government controlled institutions (Sex is bad! The Government never lies!) entertainment concerns (Sex has no consequences! Violence is fun!) and religions (God hates people of other faiths! Sex is evil!). But I think the idea of an opt-in system where parents and providers can choose to impose censorship over what a parent's children can see is a good one, and far better than any of the current alternatives.
My children wanted to surf the web at two years old. It would have been very nice to have something equivalent to the Disney channel, where I could safely leave the room for a second or two and leave the box turned on. They will have time for hatred and violence later, right now I want them to learn things like language skills, music and arts.
My first reaction to the possibility of an internet playpen for children is revulsion. But then someone like puto posts the parent and I find myself nodding assent. I mean, nothing like protecting the children, right?
Then I think: when I was a kid I wasn't particularly sheltered. Heck, I'm an adult and goatse.cx makes me cringe. Maybe it's my inner child. . . My point is that maybe kids don't need to be sheltered from such things as long as they can pull the plug if they'd like. And if they want to look at things which might disturb me or you, why the hell shouldn't they be able to? Why doesn't freedom of speech and expression extend to children?
I'm not talking about pedophiles luring children with nasty pictures. I'm talking about the natural curiosity that children have about things that adults like, too: i.e. violence, sex, and drugs. Why shouldn't kids be able to see representations of such things?
Maybe I'm missing something here. It seems to me that sheltering our children makes them ignorant. I want my children to be whip smart. I want them to be able to challenge sexist, racist, and dehumanizing representations. And if I believe that they are harming themselves by producing and consuming such images, I will hope that it is still best to let people (even little ones) decide for themselves what kinds of expression they will listen to and read.
I fear that something like kids.us will only produce a bunch of morons who know nothing more (nor better) than Barney and Papa Smurf.
And what about hyperlinks? Will sites on kids.us protect children's surfing behavior, and if so, does that mean that any site in a .kids domain will link only to sites inside that kids domain?
Present day U.S. senators don't seem to understand why their Founding Fathers guaranteed freedom of expression as the First Amendment to their Constitution. With every attempt by lawmakers to protect people (and children) from "bad" speech, the more I'm convinced those original legislators were wise beyond reckoning.
blog
Just think:
d ot.kids.us
;)
Microsoft.kids.us
TheGovernment.kids.us
Slash
In their utmost effort in kidding us, now they have the right domain
---- Fear the mighty TsEA
I have two children and agree with your rebuttal to the original post completely. I find it somewhat ironic that parenting is being discussed on Slashdot, but I'll bite. I wanted to add an additional perspective.
In all the discussion, it seems as though everyone is defining 'kids' as either teenagers or children older than 7 or 8 years.
In my experience, kids A LOT younger than that are using computers. My 4 year old daughter has her own computer, and is already able to navigate and solve kids games targeted at the 5 - 8 range. Essentially she understands visual navigation of computer UIs before she can even read.
I plan on having that "not all people are good" talk with her when she turns 5, and she is already gradually coming to realize it in other ways(she already knows about calling 911, and avoiding strangers), but I wanted to let her have just 5 years of innocence first (is that so wrong?).
More and more kids are going to grow up in wired houses, and this type of thing provides me, the parent, with one more tool to raise my kids to be computer-literate, from a very young age. No responsible parent is going to see the kids.us domain as an excuse to park their children in front of the computer alone all day -- it will be a good filter mechanism that might allow me to turn my back for 10 or 15 minutes and give the kid a chance to explore on her own -- I'll still be checking back in to double-check that the content police are doing their job!
I for one am happy to see some sensible legislation come out on this subject for once.
"That naive cube! How long must I suffer this!" --Sheldon J. Plankton
How are they going to monitor it. What about a site that is about furry teddies one day and porn the next.
Actually, someone has already created a site that combines both in order to save time.
GMD
watch this
...but who decides what? Anything that a registrar decides will be subject to lawsuit, especially if it is not the result of a law, but their own policy. Furthermore, some sites that are borderline will object to their classification.
Your intentions are noble, but I think implementation will be impractical. Besides, most of us can agree that a lot of parents would rather have little Johnny looking at pussy than a hate site.
We've tried to teach our kids the difference between sites that are meant for kids, and sites that are not. They know that if there is ever a question, it is okay to ask. Most of the sites we all worry about are so obviously over the line that even my seven-year old KNOWS -- and isn't likely to trip over it from the children's sites we know they frequent. But if she DID happen to trip over goatse.cx, or bigtitties, or whatever,
we would have an opportunity to talk about it. I'm not looking forward that day, but it's preferable to hiding from it.
Both my kids know the rules about chat rooms -- we borrow from the second Harry Potter book: "Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain."
My eleven-year old knows that there's some stuff out there she might stumble across while doing research for a school project, or whatever,
and we've talked about it. Some of the things we talk about are " ewww, GROSS!" and we don't need to dwell on the details.
Any page that falls in a gray area, we talk about: why we don't think the opinions expressed at site xyz are suitable to quote in your science project, or why these pictures aren't appropriate for children -- or daddies.
My kids know I keep a log of the Internet sites they visit. I hardly ever check the log, but the fact that they know it exists means that they don't go wandering off into grownup land without a guide.
It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.
Dude you are so smart I can't believe your rapier wit
actualy, I was making the point to the parent that there is no way creationism will be the only thing out there on kids.us.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
1)my son is 5 so no I do not think he will be able to download anything yet as I have not done that with him yet...right now, he is having to much fun on the flash games at nickjr.com
2)I know enough about computers that I can restrict my son's rights to install programs etc.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Who are you arguing is harmed by this plan: Adults and their right for free speech, or children and their right to see smut?
If you are concerned about free speech, don't be. Under plan, does anyone have less of a free-speech right than they do now? Is my ability to register goatse2.cx lessened? No. All of the domains currently in existence are allowed to be free. This seems to be one of those rare instances in which a law is passed that gives a group rights without taking away from another. That's a good thing.
Or are you arguing that kids have the right to see smut, which they won't under plan? Realize that this isn't mandatory - ie, there is no penalty if parents decide not to use it. So, under plan, kids are allowed to see what their parents let them - exactly as it is now. The only difference is the efficiency with regard to how parents control what their children see.
Admittedly, plan is a bit coarse - it's either kid friendly, or not. I might like to see it divided up a bit, with increasingly restrictive definitions. For example, example.kids14yrs.com might have more than example.kids8yrs.com. But again, this is nitpicking.
Ultimately, this is the BEST CASE scenario for us. You can still get your smut, and the Christian Coalition will stop being nazi's because they have no excuse. Embrace this plan because it won't get any better.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Making the net safe for kids...
Because some of us don't feel that your approach of blocking chunks of information from your kids under the mistaken assumption that doing so will make them "better people" is valid, and don't agree with these standards.
If some person feels that their kids are totally incompetent to handle hate speech or pornography until they hit 18, at which point they suddenly magically develop the ability to do so, you're in for an unpleasant surprise.
The only way you learn to deal with people is by interacting with them -- a common complaint about home schooling. "Shielding" your kids from something doesn't help them in the least -- it retards growth.
Take "American History X". I'd consider this one of the best movies I've ever watched. It definitely contains content that lots of people would like to "shield" their children from -- anal rape in prison, racially-motived murder, Nazi propaganda, children using guns...but it's one of the most helpful resources I've ever seen for eliminating racial issues. Why? Because it *isn't* pussyfooting around and trying to say "You shouldn't do/believe/feel X because it's *bad*"...it demonstrates exactly the issues that are at hand, and lets you come to your own conclusions (which, I think, are likely to be pretty sensible given that you're looking at the uncomfortable, true state of affairs). That's what people should be given. Don't tell people they should do or think something -- give them all the information, and let them decide for themselves. That is the *only* way to build informed, competent, responsible citizens. As a child, one of the major reasons I respected the decisions of my parents is that they were more than willing to justify advice they gave me. I wasn't *told* that they were right -- I could *see* it for myself.
The whole idea of "making the Internet safe for children" smacks of ideological brainwashing. I suppose Satanism isn't "safe for children", but the Bible is, right? And Wicca is clean out as well, right? Nothing like nationally-endored religion...
I still can't get over the fact that pornography is considered "inappropriate" for children, but movies containing people being killed are -- see the TV. Where, *where* is the logic here?
I don't have the problem with voluntary censorship. If a person wants to undergo censorship *themselves*, that should be their choice. If people at a church want their free-access computer to block porn so that they don't have to see it, that's certainly fine with me. But when you start doing nationwide stuff, then you start looking at schools forcing kids to stay within such a domain, and the thing becomes unpleasantly nasty.
May we never see th
It was passed by the House at 3:00am this morning.
geek. lawyer.
This is typical political bullshit: members of congress can get their names on the list as having voted for this nonsense, and it'll sound good in a campaign speech, but other than that, nothing's changed.
Why am I not surprised?
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
"Therefore they are evil" is not a fact. Evil is something created by storytellers
I agree. The quote was a direct copy from the comment I was replying to. I don't agree with it either. I put it in for relative affect.
In the history of humanity, it's always about us and them.
Also agree. But I wish people would acknowledge that rather than claim hypocritical superiority based on "Good" and "Evil".
But as globalism progresses, while it's not all picnics and roses, it expands on 'us', until maybe the world can be at peace.
One can only hope, But I have doubts. Even when people unite in one cause, they divide on another. We are united in America but divided in religion, politics, and culture. For the disruptors (or even just the proud), it is rarely the cause itself that drives the division. It is the desire to distinguish oneself from the masses by creating artificial measures with which one can presume superiority. When one measure is shown false, another is created to replace it.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
Actually, am thinking that there are some things I would not want my kid to see. Real people dying, people being raped or tortured or hurt (even animals being tortured). So, with a little thought (and some more coffee), I agree with you more.
I don't get it, what does the senate have to do with a technical decision like this, is'nt that for some body to take of?
A special web browser that will only connect to
So, you're back to watching your kid and knowing what they're doing. Which is silly of course, people can't do that!
Before I go any further, let me say that while I am a born-again Christian, I am also against filtering software and tend to lean towards moderate libertarian (i.e. I tend to vote a mixture of Libertarian and Republican based on the issues and not on the party). I have always been against filtering software because of the all-to-likely possibility that perfectly good content will be blocked unreasonably; filter software companies have been shown to purposely block commentary critical of their product, websites for competing products, views contrary to their agenda, etc; finally, I would rather not have someone block the content I value (whether it be religious or secular).
As a result of my convictions, I have taken the responsibility of "protecting" my children to heart; I or my wife is present when they are online.
Based on your list, I fall either into (a) (because I would like to be able to assign a "safe" playpen (if I chose to) for my kids) or (c) (because I am willing to allow my children access out of the .kids domain -- with appropriate monitoring by myself or my wife).
It is too bad you couldn't let it go without:
(a) allows parents who'd rather not teach their kids about using their brains (an amazing majority in these days of babysitting-by-TV) to assign a "safe" playpen.
(c) Does not coerce intelligent parents into restricting access to their kids to the domain alone
So...just because I would rather not make my children available as potential prey to pedophiles, potential prey to pornographers (moral issues aside on this one there are still plenty of reasons not to encourage pornography), I'm unintelligent? Just because I would rather know that my child can sit by himself at the computer, use the internet and have unfettered access to lots of good, kid-relevant information, educational games, and educational material without me having to be present, I'm unintelligent?
Ha!
I'm all for giving children the chance to prove they can handle responsibility. You either do that or you potentially raise children who are unable to handle responsibility. However, you wouldn't ask a four-year old to carry a heavy suitcase up a flight of stairs; likewise, their are certain topics that are "heavy" (pornography, sex, etc.) and should be dealt with at an appropriate age -- which is a determination to be made by the parent. kids.us, as you have pointed out, provides a great tool for exercising parental responsibilities -- and it provides a great way for a parent to implement a blanket policy that allows a child to explore without the parent present at every click.
Will kids.us filter content? You bet. But, you know, my two-year old son does not need to see the latest pictures of Susie Sucksall and her friends Peter Penis and Tandy Twat. He does not need to be force-fed the impression that women are just sexual objects present to gratify men whenever some porn-king uses deceptive advertising practices to lure people to their sites. That also goes for a six-year old, eight-year old, ten-year old, etc.
I'd rather he was taught right -- by me -- that a woman is to be cherished and loved. Not exploited.
I realize this might be more than you meant to bite off; but I felt your generalizations warranted a response. It is not my intent to offend you -- despite the fact that I might have done so.
Then make it mandertory that all porn sites move to that domain.
This would make things so much easier to filter.
The marketing monkeys must be happy - they now have a fully segregated and controlled market to prey on.
I guess we'll see the powerful "Happy Cows from California" lobby get calfs.us, and maybe Elmer's Glue will get foals.us.
Animal rights my hoof. I didn't even know baby goats could use a mouse!
Remember your Internet history. It used to be, that .com meant commercial, .org meant non-profit, .edu meant educational body, .net meant an access-providing network and .gov meant US Government.
.com, .net, or .org domain without checking to see if they really qualify for the definition of those TLDs. As a result, the TLDs lost their meaning.
.news was maintained by the Associated Press, only news organizations who are members or partners of the AP (which is almost anybody worth their salt) would be allowed to create domains under that TLD. If you are a news orgainsation that doesn't play ball with the AP, you can still publish in .com territory and let people decide for themselves if they trust you. The Onion would not be welcome in the .news TLD, and that should hopefully cut down on the number of humourous stories that result when somebody thinks information presented in The Onion is a real news report.
.xxx domain, because they'll insist on claiming their not smut and saying they belong in .com. So, you let them have the .xxx domain if they're smut and proud of it (putting the honest ones where they can easily be blocked), and then make sure that the smut is limited to the "free-for-all" domains by saying that they don't meet the qualifications for the resticted ones.
Well, that went out the window rather quickly. Network Solutions decided in the interest of being able to sell more domains, they'd let anybody whose credit card clears own a
For example, if
You can't regulate smut into the
I'd have to agree with you that these sort of restrictions often end up being silly. Compare them to the rating of television or movie content where the difference between PG-13, R, and NC-17 is often how many seconds a nipple is displayed without blinking away.
You get wrapped into levels and things just get confussed. Is cartoon violence such as Looney Toons disallowed? What about nudity such as in Sailor Moon? What about videos of child birth? Can we show a model of the human body without fig leaves? Can there be a wildlife site that pictures animals mating? Shall we go the National Geographic way and it's okay to show sex and nudity of humans if they are from a third world country and are non-white?
I do think there is something to be said for a domain set aside for childrens sites but I don't really think it'll be possible to keep all porn, violence, etc off the domain. What if I'm on a shared server and my porn site happens to also be address as someone elses kids site? Some kid types smiles.kids.us/~happygetlucky instead of smiles.kids.us/~happygolucky and I'm charged with some crime? Why no chat area? Don't let your kid talk to other kids because there might be a pedophile hiding in the park? That makes no sense.
PARENTS SHOULD ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN THEIR CHILDRENS LIVES. EVEN ONLINE! That's the only way to keep children safe. There is no magic law that'll heal all. There is no magic technological button to heal all. Parents must take responsibility.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Surely you must mean www.autopr0n.kids.us. Only Micro$oft lackeys visit the Hun.;)
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
is this how they .kids.us?
... good idea
Apart from that
disney.kids.us can set a .kids.us cookie to be read by any other .kids.us site, like nickelodeon.kids.us. Companies can get together and share user -- kids -- preferences.
I've been told that modern browsers won't allow this with country-code (2-letter) TLDs. I don't see that in the spec, but I don't know.
Pornography depicts women as nothing more than sexual toys, who live only to service men.
Exposure to pornography warps the normal sexual relations between a husband and wife, by setting up unrealistic expectaions, and inciting unhealthy desires.
I don't expect my comments to be taken seriously here. It seems whenever someone takes a stand in favor of self-respect, self-discipline, and public morality and decency they are flamed, and then modded out of view.
Oh, well. At least the moderators will see this.
November 15, 2003
.kids.us domain become a favoraite target of hackers
.kids.us liscence rejected
.kids.us domains
.kids.us domain unconstitutional
Sites on the
January 21, 2004
PETA complains after
March 30, 2004
Parents sue after children pull up pornograhic pages on domains US gov guarenteed "safe"
January 4, 2005
Legislators push for increased sentences of anyone who hacks
October 13, 2007
Supreme Court ruling finds
'Web sites in the domain would be prohibited from linking to sites outside it....' (from the article)
Say goodbye to Encarta, BBC News, Britannica, most school sites...
> Every attempt to provide a list of "good" and "bad" sites has failed, and will always
> fail, because "good" and "bad" are purely subjective.
So don't provide a list. Make a Bayesian filter that the consumers (presumably, the supervising parent/guardian) can contribute to. Before the page is displayed, it must pass the filter. The filter can adapt to each "user".
Perhaps the only requirement on these kinds of sites is that *every* page be tagged well enough to filter (or perhaps you collect tags via moderation). In other words, you need a solution to the problem of what exactly is this gif a picture of?
Then you meta-moderate the tagging.
What we parents (you forgot to answer if you were one) welcome this idea.
I want a very restricted domain, for kids. I would still browse with my daughter, but I would do so to explain and discuss, and not be worried about going to the wrong website.
My two year old doesn't care about reading "criticism of the government", and she won't for quite some time. I totally do not care if that's included or not. I just want her to access the stuff she likes and that's it.
Ironically this is a matter of choice. Now we have the choice of a potentially more safe domain, that's great. And you still have the unrestricted internet, perfect.
I just don't see you coming up with a better solution. Criticizing all parents as lazy is well, just lazy in itself
- sigs are for wimps.
I'm sorry but this is a terrible idea. I guess it's good that they're working toward a system that doesn't try to control the net and make it "safe", but making an OK list is an awful plan. Who determines what's ok? Is a sex education web site for teens ok? What about a web site with pages outlining how intravenous drug users can avoid getting aids? Limiting the scope to "kids" take away a few of the most controversial issues, but it doesn't eliminate them all.
What we need is proper content labeling, a la RSACi. It's as simple as saying within the page in a machine-readable format what the page contains (sexuality [How explicit? Is it educational in context?], violence [How much gore?], swearing [Which words? How often?], etc...) and then giving the parent, library, or school the ability to set their computers to filter based on those characteristics.
This way, morality is separated from law giving everyone the freedom and the power to choose what they (and their children) see. Do you believe abortion is the most disgusting and immoral kind of murder? Set your filter to block "pro-choice" when your children are browsing. Do you believe right-wing antifeminist propaganda is harmful to youth? Set your filter to block "pro-life". The laws give you the ability, and you set your own limits.
Of course, a helpful, nurturing, and guiding influence from a parent is infinitely preferable to a big flashing "NO!" message on the screen and an entry in a log file, but eventually your kids will want to chat without you looking over their shoulder, and you're not exactly available every minute they want to be online.
Sounds good, no?
I don't like the slippery slope aspect of this.
.porn TLD.
If the "kids" domain takes off, there will be political push to put "porn" into some
And of course, information on sexuality or herpes, or birth control will have to become part of the porn domain. Then it becomes trivial to filter.
I think that's the point. By starting with a children's TLD, politically, its hard to argue against it.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
It's a fact that pro-Palestinian propaganda dominates some media and seriously influences others. When in doubt, ignorant journalists (and they're never as well-informed as they ought to be; I'm talking about well-intentioned journalists doing their best, which most of them are) almost invariably make "guesses" favorable to the Palestinian terrorist organizations. Take for example the recent massacre on that kibbutz: The AP initially reported that the kibbutz was a "settlement" -- even though it's inside the Green Line, in territory which is not disputed (except by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Syria, Lebanon, al Qaeda, et al: Those who deny that Israel has any right to exist at all). The journalist didn't know, so he made an assumption.
If that were an isolated case, it wouldn't mean anything, but that sort of "default assumption" is very common. Let's bear in mind also that I've yet to see any mention (AP, CNN) of the fact that the terrorist in that case was from Jenin, and the closure on Jenin had been lifted not long before the massacre: Israel lifts a closure, and the terrorists respond by massacring Israeli civilians. Every time. Like clockwork. There was a massacre in Hebron today; guess what? Israel had just lifted a closure on Hebron. And so on, and so on. Were you aware of this? No? Why not? Because the Western media don't think you need to know. They also don't think you need to know about the popular celebrations in the PA every time there's a massacre. Part of that, of course, is that the PA has killed a few journalists who pointed their cameras in the wrong direction, and revoked press passes from quite a few others: When you're reporting from the PA, you report exactly what you're told to report if you know what's good for you. Of course, that fact itself is not widely reported, though Reporters Without Frontiers did recently mention a lot of it in their "press freedom" rundown not long ago. Amusingly, they gave clear documentary evidence of systemic and rather savage repression of the press by Arafat, and a very, very few scattered bonehead moves by Israel -- and then they put Israel lower on the list than the PA (also lower on the list than Lebanon, which recently threw a journalist in prison for participating in a panel discussion in DC in which a Jew also participated; Lebanon's got almost as long a rap sheet as Arafat on that stuff). It's funny! Laugh!
Were you aware that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are not just demanding that Israel pull out of the territories, but rather than Israel cease to exist entirely? Were you aware that the current Israeli presence in the West Bank followed a horrific series of massacres of Israeli civilians back in March? That the "re-occupation" is a response to terrorism, rather than its cause? I'm saying that when you look at a sequence of events, and A precedes B, you don't conclude that B caused A.
Take, for another example, the claim that Arafat's security people would like to control the terrorists, but that they can't because Israel's doing the job for them (and if you paid attention to honest media, you'd be aware that there are two or three significant attacks being prevented every day by the IDF right now). Now, that claim looks good unless you're familiar with the fact that Arafat was promising to control those people for months and months, but doing nothing, while his Preventive Security apparatus was in pristine condition. This inaction culminated in the bloodbaths of December, 2001 and March, 2002, when Palestinian "freedom fighters" massacred Israeli civilians almost every day. So how, exactly, are we to take seriously the incessantly-repeated claim that Arafat would control the terrorism if he could? We've seen what happened when he could: More terrorism than you could shake a stick at. Yet we're told again and again a strange fairy tale where that very recent history is entirely forgotten.
You're probably also not aware that what everybody says Israel should give the PA is precisely what Israel offered the PA at Camp David in the summer of 2000: Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. Arafat turned it down, went home, and started making war speeches. It happened.
Were you aware that the PLO was founded in 1964, before the Six-Day War? There's another piece of forgotten history, along with the Arab League's loud rejection of UN 242 and 194 (or was it 195? The one about the refugees, which they rejected because it implied that Jews had a right to live on "Arab land" in the Middle East (as significant numbers of Jews have been doing continually since Biblical times, but you don't know that either, do you?)). Oh, and the Arab ethnic cleansing rampages of the late forties and fifties, when 850,000 Jews living in Arab nations had their property confiscated and had to flee for their lives. Lots of people don't like to talk about that one, it seems. It makes the fundamental issue here just a little too clear, when you compare it to the way Arab citizens of Israel (inside the Green Line) have been living there in peace since 1948. They vote, hold office, you name it. Arabs in Israel have more rights than Arabs in any Arab nation on Earth.
The picture painted by the Western media is grossly distorted. There aren't very many outright lies, there's a smattering of ugly mistakes (all consistently in the same direction), and there's a tremendous amount of omission and distortion.
I'd sure like to see an end to the settlements and a meaningful peace, but until somebody on the Palestinian side is willing to live in peace with Israel, or until the "international community" cuts the crap and lets Israel win decisively and disarm the lunatics, the war will continue.
Schools and Libraries filter out anything that isnt in a kids.us domain?
not unlike telling people what they can do, instead of telling them what they cannot do. Then again, with the amount of adult sites relative to kid sites, it is most likely beneficial
Classic quote from the late "Family Guy"
"What's the difference between pornography and art?"
"A government grant!" -- Peter Griffin
--Joey
Compare:
Just my shave and a haircut...
Stefan.
The truth shall make you fret. (Ankh-Morpork tImes motto)
If the Kids.us domain is to be totally free of "hate material" then it must omit all (100%) of religious content from it. There is no such thing as a loving religion (well, except Kama Sutra, and THAT is NOT for kids... 'cept mebbe the ones here.)Even something that links to religious trash should be omitted. "God told me to hate you and all like you" -An idiot.
Now watch this drive.
I wonder how long it'll take for a porn site to be set up under kids.us.
I wonder how soon after the'll lose the domain. and then the lawsutes.
Happends every time somebody trys to set aside a segment of the net for something some legalistic jerk comes by and uses the law to force his own "freedom of speach" in a totally innapropreate way.
I don't actually exist.
> If you don't need X then little VT-100 terminals are available for real :)
> cheap. Should be able to find decent ones used for around $40 each.
> For that price, they're a must for the kitchen, den, bathrooms, etc..
You're right. Can you explain this to my wife?
-- Seen on c.o.l.development.system, on the subject of extra terminals
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...