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.
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 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
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?
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
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.
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.
Because xxx.safeForKids.org is pretty much a contridiction in terms. Unless you're suggesting to make the xxx safe for kids? ;)
-lw
Mods: Disagreeing with me != my post Offtopic / Flamebait.
World without hate or war, invaded. Tragic?
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
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).
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
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
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.
Mod the parent back up - this is valid political commentary!
.kids.us for spurious reasons, and children would never be exposed to those groups' opinions.
This new domain is an excellent opportunity for propaganda. The government could keep all kinds of groups outside of
And what about foreign sites? No child would be able to read the Chinese People's Daily, say. This system could be seen as just another part of an indoctrination system involving schools, and soon television.
Although I tend to view the primary goal of this not as being for propaganda, but rather to satisfy parents, the view of it as a propaganda mechanism is NOT flamebait!
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
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.
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
Parents wish to censor what their children look at, at least at a young age. Therefore, so long as the Senate is logical in what it censors (no goatse.kids.us, then) parents will love it. You'll probably get Windows XP Kid Edition, where IE is crippled to only accept kids.us addresses.
The sad thing is, people would buy that in large quantities. That's exploitation of children.
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
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".
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.
I agree. This is not a bad idea, but the best thing would be for parents to do their job and monitor their children. You (hopefully) wouldn't allow you 5 year old to watch anything he/she wants on TV, you shouldn't do the same on the Internet. But still, I think this is a good idea. The people who are crying censorship are missing the point. It is opt-in, and the rest of the internet is out there if you don't want to "censor" your children.
Actually, this is a really good point, not about pokemon or digimon, kids don't nessecarily like that any more, but about the fact that all the stuff kids love will dissapear. All the stuff I see 13 yr old kids do on the net is IM friends, play stupid flash games and play Neopets (part Pokemon, part Evercrack and all html), of which only the bad flash games are okay, and they'd still be moderated. It'd be way easier just to get rid of the cable when the kid is on, and acheive the same result.
Erik
YOU ARE SAYING IMPUDENCE TO ME! THAT IS IMPUDENCE!
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
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...
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
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.
boobs ARE for kids, the very small ones at least. But like model trains, it's mostly the fathers the end up playing with them.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
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
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.
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.
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
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?
You are making way to much of a problem out of this. While different parents have somewhat different standards the differences are pretty much on the margins. There is a vast quantity of material on the net which NO parent wants their kid to see. The consensus exists and I suspect that those who raise this as an issue are being willfully ignorant to sustain opposition to any attempt to protect kids from the more distrubing stuff on the net. It seems that ANY attempt to restrict 6 year olds from seeing goatse.cx is ridiculed as censorship, government mind control or religious fundamentalism run amok. I'm sorry but the only fundamentalism involved in these arguments seems to be a secular fundamentalism that makes a fetish of "free-speech" far beyond anything intended by the constitution or the bounds of common sense.
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"
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.
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!
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.
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
Why not just get a new.net
</sarcasm>
I'll have something intelligent to add one of these days...
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.
> It could be because of lack of real demand.
More like the impossible amount of administrative overhead.
Whitelists are a good concept, but they don't scale well. A whitelist
of even as many as twenty sites is too much for one person to manage,
if the sites have any significant depth to them (depth in terms of the
number of pages and their nestedness, I mean). On the other hand, a
whitelist of only twenty sites is basically useless if you want the
kids to have any real ability to explore. In a month, they'll have
visited what they're interested in and be looking for something new.
This isn't to say whitelists have no value. They are useful in, for
example, an educational context, where you want to allow kids to have
unsupervised access to, say, an encyclopedia and an atlas and a
couple of things like that. But it won't be anything like having
internet access. Sure, it would technically be a subset of the
internet, but the subset is so small that the experience is not the
same at all.
The purpose of whitelists, of course, is to reduce the need for
supervision. But you can't scale them up to the size of the whole
internet; it simply won't work. The administrative overhead of
checking all the sites on the whitelist to make sure the content
on all of the pages hasn't changed and become unsuitable is too
high; it won't be possible to maintain it. It is well-intentioned
and will start out alright, but it won't be any time at all before
it degenerates to the point where kids need supervision. Which
puts us right back where we have always been.
Anyway, the whole idea of removing the need for supervision is
not really such a good idea, on the whole. Kids don't just need
supervision to make sure they behave; they also need supervision
because they need interaction with an adult on a constant basis.
It's important for their development. Parents need to spend time
with their kids; is that such a hard concept? Supervising them
shouldn't be seen as a burden for society to eliminate by clever
things like whitelists, but as a normal part of having a family.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
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
This is only bad censorship if you consider the children's secion of the library being totally devoid of porno magazines to also be bad.
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
It's been done by for-profits and failed. What makes you think a nonprofit would do better? Some time ago, Apple even made one of these "Kidsweb" type services available for free to all mac users. It was essentially a whitelist service. No one used it so the service was discontinued.
Personally, I think the government-sponsored program has similar prospects for success, but I've been called a cynic before. The problem will be such a dearth of "certified clean" content that in order for your kids to have access to even a moderate percentage of the information that makes you want to provide them with internet access in the first place you'll have to grant them access outside the .kids.us domain. That becomes a vicious cycle; if parents won't want to restrict their children to a whitelist, no sites will endeavor to meet the certification criteria (and go to the expense of producing and hosting a version with no outside links, getting it certified, etc.) because that won't gain them any additional eyeballs. Because there's so little content there, parents will only have a choice continue to allow their children to venture outside the domain or discontinuing their internet access.
.sig: file not found
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
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?
In the rest of Europe, kids are brought up with alcohol around them. Most parents don't object to the odd glass of wine or beer during a meal. Consequently, alcohol is no longer this mystical thing that only grown-ups do, and we know how kids always want to appear more grown up than they are. Teenage drinking here is a much larger problem than the rest of Europe.
The same applies for many other "adult-only" persuits, such as porn. By attempting to keep something away from your children, you'll only make them more curious about it.
Religious people might file this under "forbidden fruit".
Here's an idea. How about seeing it, not as "censoring" (which is generally bad, except that the word can have a fairly wide definition), but as choosing to separate folks according to what suits them best?
I think the main problem is that Mum and Dad are still involved in making sure kids stay within that domain - what's to stop some brat typing `slashdot.org' into the browser location bar?!
OTOH, there's no real problem with saying "this helps make a clear area appropriate for a given approximate age-range", and expecting folks to make contacts and get used to clicking around in there, then migrating out into the real world.
In fact, if it means said real world can be left intact with fewer stupid rules then all to the good.
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
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
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.
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
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.
Thats the huge problem.. who gets to desite if a site is or isnt suitable for kids? My parents genuinely belive that Harry Potter is evil, and wont let my sister see the new film at the cinema with her friends. What about factual sites about world war II and the holocaust, because im sure some 5 year olds would find that distressing, whilst a 10 year old wouldnt, and they're both in the target audience of this domain
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.
Why would small boobs be just for kids?
</sarcasm>
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
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.
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
Classic quote from the late "Family Guy"
"What's the difference between pornography and art?"
"A government grant!" -- Peter Griffin
--Joey