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."

Comments

So what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.
If you can't pick up kids on .kids.us, what the hell did they create it for?

This is the way to do this kind of thing...

[joedoc]

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...

Re:This is the way to do this kind of thing...

[killmenow]

Yeah, I can see it now: goatse.kids.cx

Will someone please think of the children?

[Ed Avis]

I don't know who chose the domain 'kids' but goat-related domain names do not always have a spotless record...

Grudgingly Admitting it is a Good Idea

[puto]

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

Not censored!

[MadKeithV]

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.

Re:I think it should be the other way around

[Rhubarb Crumble]

If it was made mandatory for all pr0n sites to go under .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.

The problem is that there is lots of content that some people (christian right) would find "objectionable" for children, and a lot of it isn't pr0n. The classic example is that of renaissance nude paintings, which always get picked up by the "naked people finder" filter programs and will probably be banned from .kids.us as "smut" even though they are obviously art. For that matter, do you want to force every site that mentions human reproductivity into a pr0n domain, just because some "anti-smut" campaigners don't want their children to know that babies aren't delivered by the stork?

(cf the ridiculous controversy about a "burka" being forced on that statue of justice)

Re:Questions

[wiredog]

Do they really have any power to tell ICANN to revoke a domain name?

It's a "dot US" domain name. ICANN has no authority over how the names are handed out.

wean into real world slowly

[jdkane]

Web sites bearing an address like "www.example.kids.us" would have to certify that they do not contain [snip ...]
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).

What an absolutely idiotic idea

[clarkcox3]

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:

1. Parents need to realize that the Internet is not some evil place trying to take their children away. There is no way that someone can come out of the computer screen and snatch your child away. If your child is stupid enough to go and meet someone in the real world just because some text on a screen told them too, then you have bigger problems as a parent. This is no different than someone pulling up in a van, and offering your kid candy, except that the person on the other end has no way to physically grab and take the child.
2. 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.
3. 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.

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.

Re:What an absolutely idiotic idea

[cfulmer]

So, exactly how many kids do you have that you're now an expert in child-rearing?

Children are not just little adults who are capable of making their own decisions and who understand not only what's good and what's bad, but why. Teaching them the difference is a long process, not an instantaneous event. People always raise gullible children -- the hope is that they won't be gullible adults. 6-year-olds are easy to fool, not because their parents did a lousy job of raising them, but because they're only 6 and aren't done learning. The job of raising them isn't complete.

I have a 3-year old who occasinally sits in my lap and we go to disney.com, nickjr.com, pbskids.com, etc.... I directly monitor what he sees -- is it censorship to only allow him to access the sites that I want him to? When he says "Daddy, click here," and that's not someplace I think he needs to go, should I let him go there just to let him see "oh yeah, there's bad stuff out there"?

In a couple of years, probably by the time he's 5, he's going to want to do the computer himself. Now, 5 years old is too young to be exposed to things like pornography, pictures of dead people or serious violence. When that point comes, you can be darned sure that I'm going to limit the sites that he can go to. Sure, it won't be perfect -- it may be that I accidentally ban him from Scoobydoo.com or something. The point is not to exactly mirror my preferences for what he can and can't see, but to let him learn how to use the computer by going to some websites that are fun and age-appropriate.

If the .kids.us domain is managed and yes *censored* well, at some point my kids may be allowed to visit any .kids.us site without my being in the room. That would be an improvement both for them and for me, and that's what makes the idea good.

Enforcement?

[YrWrstNtmr]

What powers will the controlling group have when (not if) someone breaks the content rules?

What recourse do I have when my kids happen upon content that should not be there in .kids.us?

Keep the computer in the living room

[Insightfill]

As a parent (of a 2yo), I'm not looking forward to her days on the net. Right now, Teletubbies disturbs me a little bit.

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.

Re:NAMBLA?

[naelurec]

North American Marlon Brando Look-a-like Association? What does THAT have to do with .kids?!?

Perfectly Reasonable

[dmarx]

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.

good try, who will (really) control

[fermion]

This really solves a lot of problems. It leaves the internet in general free to do what it does. It bypasses ICANN and puts the subdomain in the control of a U.S. company beholden to the U.S. government, and, most importantly, it does not impose U.S. law on the rest of the world. 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.

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.

Re:How long before

[ch-chuck]

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.

No -- think it through

[Hayzeus]

Parents need to realize that the Internet is not some evil place trying to take their children away. There is no way that someone can come out of the computer screen and snatch your child away. If your child is stupid enough to go and meet someone in the real world just because some text on a screen told them too, then you have bigger problems as a parent. This is no different than someone pulling up in a van, and offering your kid candy, except that the person on the other end has no way to physically grab and take the child.

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.

Re:No -- think it through

[Hayzeus]

I am well aware that "sheltering a child from all 'bad things' is impossible", but that is exactly what this bill is attempting to do. I am not claiming that porn "builds character", nor am I claiming that we should go out of our way to show it to children, but a fact of life is that they will see it -- with or without the internet. By pretending that we can corral children into a "safe" area, we would actually be providing a false sense of security.

No -- what you appeared to be claiming (unless I misunderstood the post) was that all censorship was always bad in all cases. This is flatly untrue.

To be a parent is to live in a perpetual state of insecurity. The bill in question does not appear be an attempt to provide a blanket sense of security to anyone. What it does provide is a tool, at minimal cost and intrusiveness, for those parents who whish to avial themselves of it. Don't think it's appropriate? Don't use it.

That is the point, people are relying on the government to raise their children. No one, other than the parents themselves, should decide what is "kid-friendly" or appropriate for their child.

Providing tool != "government raising your children". Can you really not distinguish the difference between these two things? Obviously, this is no substitute for parental oversight -- but then nobody is claiming otherwise.

Moreover, Congress is not deciding what is "appropriate for all children". They are deciding what is appropriate for inclusion in a domain which, as a parent, I am free to use or ignore. The key phrase here is "free to ignore".

Can you honestly say that everything that you believe is alright for your kids to see, is the same as what your next-door neighbor believes is alright for his/her children to see?

Of course not. But then that's irrelevant to your argument. It would be relevant only if my neighbor were forced to adhere to my standards or visa versa. It might also be relevant if the Senate bill would incur massive taxpayer costs. However this does not appear to be the case.

In fact, I suspect that the kids.us domain contents will probably skew toward younger children. For my older kid, it'll probably be too restrictive and won't be used. In any case, whether my neighbor and I share the same standards (and you'd be surprised to what extent standards tend to be shared, especially regarding younger children) is entirely beside the point.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill should be supported for the simple reason that it potentially heads off truly onerous legislation. Being fetishistic about free speech doesn't help matters here; in politics it is generally wise to choose your battles with great care.

Answers to your "hate speech" questions

[Ashurbanipal]

What's more important, is exactly what counts as "hate speech"? Who decides what is "hate speech"?

The oft-consulted and mythical reasonable man so beloved by lawyers.

If a child's web site is dedicated to history, would commentary on the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor be considered "Hate Speech" since it might offend Japanese kids?

Not unless the commentary was structured to incite hatred of the Japanese or some other currently existing group.

Or what about a current events story on the conflict between Isreal and the PLO? Would the other side denounce any opinion given as "hate speech"?

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.

Or more recent - there are some that consider it "hate speech" to talk ill of Al Qaeda (despite the fact that their goal is the destruction of the US).

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.

Sounds like this may be just another example of political correctness gone too far. Why shield kids from any speech, even if it is vile, racist garbage?

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.

Wouldn't it be better to point out to the kids that racist organizations exist, but are wrong because they don't believe that All Men (and women) are created Equal?

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.