Slashdot Mirror
Separation of Church and Microsoft
theodp writes "Last week, the USPTO published a rather odd Microsoft patent application for Content Ratings and Recommendations, which describes how religious-based communities and other 'subcultures' can use the patent-pending process to prevent their members from viewing undesirable television programs and movies."
See that 'Church' in the title? Where did that come from?
FTFA-
"Other groups of viewers may include a parent-teacher association, a religious-based community, or any other subculture wanting to provide standards and boundaries for program viewing selections."
Who cringes at stuff like this mostly out of the fact that it will be used against (intentional word choice) children/teenagers to enforce a parent/group's own set of values upon the youngster who might not even share them? Yeah yeah I'm all for people's rights to raise kids however they want, but I'm also for the rights of kids to not be brainwashed by david-koresh-worshipping freaks or indoctrinated into neo-nazi-ideology and such at an age where they are too young to have an educated opinion about it ...
That's the beautiful catch isnt it? These crazy belief systems -require- their members to brainwash the kids ... who then grow up and think its the "normal" thing to do to spread the brainwashing, and if you try and stick up for the rights of the kids than everyone bitches and whines that you are "trampling" the rights/beliefs/values of the brainwashing parent....
Sigh, the times we live in ....
the patent nowhere mentions a collusion between church and Microsoft. The patent submission suggests several applications, including, "groups of viewers may include a parent-teacher association, a religious-based community, or any other subculture wanting to provide standards and boundaries for program viewing selections.".
Labeled as kdawsonfud.
don't the Christian Scientist have prior art on this?
Really? You don't like comedy then?
Deleted
So basically this is NetNanny for TV and it's "censorship?"
Churches, schools, rec centers, libraries, etc have been applying this kind of technology ever since the internet got popular, I don't see what the big deal is. If you want to watch porn go home, don't do it at your church, right?
Though I suspect that this patent is probably designed not as a submarine patent or a patent troll, I have to wonder about its validity considering the existence of rating systems and parental controls, as well as technologies such as "flag this post" and "flag this user" which allow community-based censorship of content.
That said, this type of technology would be immensely useful in DVR devices. Rather than seeing this as a means of restricting your (or your kid's) viewing habits, a rating system that grew to be more appropriate to your particular tastes would mean less time spent channel surfing and more quality time with the boob tube. You would, in an optimal system, only be presented with programs/media that fit your profile which you generate as you watch and rate shows.
The less time spent in front of the TV the better, I always say (seriously, I say it all the freaking time). If you can get your daily dose of porn in a single block of recorded programming, you all of a sudden stop being fat, lazy American porn-loving slobs, and you become efficient Japanese tentacle fetishists. Or whatever kink you're into.
Information overload and underload is the biggest problem with media (mass or otherwise) today. What we need are sources of content that give us the right amount of load so we can be satisfied without getting worn out.
Content ratings and recommendations is described in which embodiments provide that a viewer can create a rating system that other viewers can then subscribe to which forms a group, or subculture, that collaborates to identify and rate television programs, movies, and other programming choices for the viewers of the group. This adaptive and flexible approach enables individual viewers to discover like-minded subcultures, benefit from a rating system that represents similar viewing choices, and optionally, participate in identifying media content and rating the viewing choices.
A group of people willingly subscribe to a group that recommends TV shows they would be interested in and blocks those deemed inappropriate/off-topic/irrelevant. It's like Slashdot for TV.
Is there any chance that Slashdot moderators can apply 'Troll' and 'Deliberately Misleading Flamebait' to article titles and summaries?
As in, could one use this to block all religious programing? Or all $FOO that the viewer doesn't want to watch?
If so, and it's controlled by the viewer... problem?
A switch to block $naughty_things ( cancel or allow? ) doesn't seem as useful, but if it's user controled content filtering it might be ok.
A Human Right
You already have that feature - it's called a "Channel Lock".
Ya know, some people would like a little more information about what a movie contains so they can make a rational* choice about what they choose to watch - and there's nothing wrong with that, nor with getting a little technical help from the publishers etc.
* - just because YOU don't agree with their reasoning doesn't make it wrong.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Sounds like this is going to be little more than a V-Chip, which is prior art and already mandated in all PCs currently made, IIRC...
Look at which "editor" posted the "story": KDawson. Mr. Dawson has become the Poster Child for misleading Slashdot headlines and summaries. I'm as anti-Microsoft as the next reasonably sane guy, but Dawson's editing generally has little relationship to the actual story.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Seriously, it must be obvious to everyone why Microsoft is pulling this. We have an American election in which the right-wing conservatives have been "amiable" to Microsoft's continued monopoly and dubious practices (such as buying out standards bodies). It is in Microsoft's interests at exactly this time to be seen to be "friendly" to those same right-wing conservatives and to win support from the very power-base the politicians are relying on. They are losing support from some of their traditional sources and need to replace them.
That OLPC will need to sell in the US and doesn't (yet) have adequate filtering makes this a skillful move on Microsoft's part. Why? Because if the churches and assorted other fringe groups insist on this Microsoft-patented technology on any laptop provided to children, it completely kills off OLPC's own OS and requires the use of Windows. There will be no alternatives. Schools, libraries, Universities that receive money from religious or other censorus body and so on will likewise be forced to give up Linux or give up their funding. (The Golden Rule of Arts and Science is He Who Hath The Gold Makes The Rules.) If there's a right-wing President, the same will likely become true of all public schools "in the best interest of the kids".
Microsoft doesn't care two whits about the religious groups or the feelings of those involved. It's never cared about anyone's feelings before and I don't see it starting now. This is purely a tactical move to manipulate those feelings into having other people destroy Microsoft's competition. If others are conned into doing so, then Microsoft cannot be (so easily) be held liable, now that it's a declared monopoly.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
You already have that feature - it's called a "Channel Lock".
Or his Kentucky cousin, "Vice Grips"!
That wouldn't have anything to do with the Fox Blocker I read about off Daily Kos now would it?
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
It's plain as day.
MS's only real money makers are Windows & Office, so they're trying to diversify the L. Ron Hubbard way and are preparing to start their own religion. That's where the real money is.
Aum MSFT! Aum MSFT!! Aum MSFT!!!
Become... one... with... MSFT!!!
Aum Nirvana.
Aum Shantih Shantih Shantihhiii
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Agreed. =P That's THE most ridiculous headline I've ever seen on a Slashdot article. #1. Unbelievable.
The Church of Scientology would certainly want this. The Church already has the Scieno Sitter, "a content-control software package created by the Church of Scientology, which, when installed on a computer, blocks certain Web sites critical of Scientology from being viewed." Perhaps, as in the case of the Scieno Sitter, subscribers of MS COS television wouldn't even have to be told about the censorship program. After all, we wouldn't want people finding out about Xenu.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
Now you have a rating of a television program after it aired. That is going to be usefull.
If you ask me this is just an elaborate excuse for hypocritical pervs watching porn.
"I'm not a porn watching pervert, I was just rating it."
big deal, they are trying to patent a rating system where an identified user can join a rating list to filter shows/news/etc. BFD, rating systems already exist and this rating system within a rating system shouldn't even be patentable. Besides, isn't Tivo already doing this with their Recommended Lineup thing? It's not blocking shows but instead providing shows which others also liked/watched. Not patentable due to prior art. IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I did not read your post but I think you wrote a paradox.
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
The FCC (in addition to other functions) does a lot of censoring to protect society from rogue nipples and people who swear on the basis that everyone has access to television and therefore television shouldn't offend the sensibilities of anyone at all. Well, let's say you're deeply offended by boobies and monk seals. You join a ratings block of like minded folks who also are offended by boobies and monk seals. I, who happen to adore those things but am deeply offended by Jerry Lewis, join a block that reflects my tastes. The result is that networks, rather than being unable to air shows which portray boobies, monk seals, or Jerry Lewis for fear of offending anyone, can now show NOTHING BUT Jerry Lewis, boobies, and monk seals, since my rating group blocks shows featuring Mr. Lewis from my channel listings, and so forth. If this sort of technology could enable me to see nothing but documentaries, porn, old movies, porn, porn, horror movies and porn, all without making soccer moms and ministers upset, I'm all for it.
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
To answer my own question: you can tag the article with 'misleadingheadline'. Type in 'misleading' and you will get a dropdown list of 'misleading*' tags. Although I'm curious as the difference between 'misleadingheadline' and 'misleadingtitle'. Can we tag a tag as redundant? =)
Also known in the USA as "public school".
Seriously, I've filtered my childrens web browsing through squid since RedHat 7.2 (how long ago is that?). What's with the patent? Usually, restrictions have less to do with inappropriate content, and more to do with, "no, you can't watch/play ... until you finish your homework." The Microsoft system sounds worse than useless. Once, a porn email with embedded images slipped past my spam filter. 10 year old daughter had little idea what they were seeing, other than a vague feeling of something "not right" and called mom - mom and dad did the freaking out. (Is emailing porn to minors a criminal offense?)
Yes, appropriate content varies widely by child. One daughter had nightmares about "ducks biting her". No, "Jurassic Park" is not appropriate. Another daughter is a budding Lara Croft, and adores action/adventure. Currently wants to join Coast Guard. (Cue a dose of reality to meet real accident/war victims and see real animals slaughtered [for food] so that she doesn't think it is all "fun".)
This is essentially how most if not all censorship or group filtration has been accomplished. Noteably the National Legion of Decency used this method to review and filter movies for their participants with a selected subset of their members (usually the priests) viewing films and then delivering a content rating to their remaining members via the pulpit often along the lines of "You'll go to hell if you see Mae West!" This became the basis of the existing MPAA ratings which use a selected set of individuals to rate a film for others and in some cases (e.g. X ratings) censor it from widespread public view.
This is also how other churches have censored things for years, how school boards go about banning books, how large political organizations censor materials, etc.
Basically Microsoft is trying to patent censorship as it has been practiced for centuries.
How exactly do you cite the Spanish Inquisition as prior art?
"It is not heresy, and I will not recant!" -- from To the Devil a Daughter, said by Christopher Lee
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
Is that what they're calling this? I guess I'm old fashioned... I like my comedy, well, funny :P
Now the crazy parents who don't keep track of their children can use this instead of parenting. ...And they can stop trying to pass legislation to restrict MY television viewing.
And here I was hoping to see how a church could enlist the help of the USPTO by submitting a carefully crafted patent that, by its nature, made it illegal for church members to watch the undesirable shows.
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
In sociological terms, a subculture is just a subset of a larger culture with its own tailored set of values. For instance, geeks have own our subculture. We're part of where we live, but have our own values and way of speaking and criteria for membership. Certain occupations, such as police, have a subculture. You can also fairly say that a religious group has their own without having to qualify it with irony quotes.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Depends on how you define "social skills." The many home schooled kids I have encountered have a much better ability to socialize outside of what is normally defined at their peer group. They can converse with adults much better than other kids their age. Although some are too sheltered, I've also seen kids that are very confident in who they are and seem, to me, less likely to be influenced by the day's fad by peers.
So what if I as a parent want to subscribe to a viewing community that helps me screen out certain content that I as a parent deem inappropriate. For a site that often exclaims the personal right to choose Slashdot's article posting seems to be on the wrong side of the fence on this one.
First off, with the rate of new show turnover these days combined with the number of channels and shows on TV. There is no way a parent could preview ALL the programming without it being a full time job. So anything that makes that task easier is a plus for caring parents.
Second...shows change. I've been watching Smallville over the years. The early seasons I'd consider a family friendly show. Perhaps a bit flirtatious but nothing too out of bounds. A couple of seasons back Smallville decided to take a turn toward a more adult tack. For example, the Smallville Halloween scene insinuates female vampires biting off a guy's penis and drinking his blood. That might be a fine scene for your children. But I'd rather not have my children watch such a scene. A content rating like the one proposed above could allow people to be alerted to when a show or even a particular episode goes down a track that might not be what you want your 7 yr old watching.
Lastly, we're talking personal screening. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH AN INDIVIDUAL CHOOSING TO CENSOR WHAT THEY OR THEIR CHILDREN WATCH.
"Government Censorship" = evil.
"Personal Censorship" = freedom.
Somewhere along the way we have seemed to confused the two. Look, politics and political views aside. Taking away personal censorship and forcing people to accept content is an extremely bad thing. You have to look at such laws and concepts from an either or view. You may think these parents are wrong for wanting to censor certain content and that they should not be able to edit said content or even avoid it. But I am sure you'd hate the reverse. How many of the people ranting against this personal censorship have the "Foxnews" channel skipped/blocked out of their channel listings? Would it be right if someone told you that you could not choose to do so?
Come on folks...can we have liberty before politics!!!!
Slashdot can we have "News for Nerds" without the political slants. Otherwise, we should consider changing the name to "Slantdot". Which would be a crying shame. I love Slashdot because it's filled with geek news instead of the constant glutt of political news. I don't mind if an issue is inherently political (ie: politics and Diebold voting machines). But I am tired of submissions which have to twist 359 degrees in order to turn the topic into something political.
*blech*
- Saj
And feeding a baby steak instead of meat because adults can eat meat isn't just as stupid?
And from your argument, I guess we can also assume that being vegetarianism is out. Everyone should be forced to have to eat meat!
"Where it bugs me is when they start telling me I have to live according to their rules."
Nothing about this is to force you to do so. Nothing says "everyone must join x or y community. It's merely to provide an opportunity for like people help rate and review and approve.
The only ones I hear trying to force someone to live by their rules in this case are the ones decrying this as censorship and saying it must be stopped.
I'd have to agree. Most of the home-schooled students I've met did not associate well with their peers until about age 24. However, they got along with other adults, other homeschoolers. And those peers who tended toward a higher maturity level.
I realized, that most of these home schoolers don't fit into the lifestyle of the avg 16-24 yr old who is often on a rampage of discovering their freedoms via teenage years and parent free college. I think many home-schoolers skip this period because they're often granted much greater personal freedom in their studies and responsibilities. They don't have to plunge into excess because they feel as if they've already had freedom.
That said, there are always exceptions. As there are with every demographic. Those home-schooled individuals who were overly sheltered or poorly educated. But from my encounters I'd say this is less the case than what it's made out to be.
Oh, did you join that particular community? If not, then you were blocked. If so, and well, you don't like what they block. LEAVE the community.
If not...guess what...it wasn't blocked! So no worries. Live your life happily and let others do the same!
Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to make it sound like I was bashing home schooling. In fact, I was home schooled for grades 1-3, 5, and 11-12 and feel I came out of it MUCH better than if I had stayed in public school for all twelve years. I'm extremely social, fairly intelligent, and Atheist. One thing I learned from about half a dozen various home school gatherings, though, is that the vast majority of home school families are religious to the extreme, at least here in the US. IIRC, more than 90% are devoutly Christian and between 50-67% are evangelical (Jesus Camp quotes the high end of that range).
So anyway, I'm not at all trying to put down home schooling. If anything, I think more people should do it, so long as they can leave religion out of it. I'm just saying that many parents use home schooling as a means to have total control over what their children are exposed to: Christian "science", Christian friends, Christian activities, etc, etc. The kids don't stand a chance.
Seriously, go buy/rent/pirate the movie.
Funny, my TV already has that feature. I don't turn the TV to Fox News, and strangly enough, Fox News doesn't appear on my television.
where are mod points when I need them...
I resemble that post... I was homeschooled until I was 16, then I chose start college (and the first of my fulltime jobs), I never (and still dont) in with most of my "peers" who are/were in my age group... they were (in my mind) acting stupid and immature... that continues today where I am 22 but fit in perfectly with 28-30yo people MUCH better than I fit in with 19-24yo people...
Aaron Z
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote
My blog
FWIW, I think the technology may have valid and positive uses, but the way it's portrayed here doesn't put it in a positive light.
Wow ... that was incredibly distasteful, nothing like jokes about lesbians, tornado victims, and pedophilia to get me laughing out loud. The type of people who find that moronic pap funny are the same that don't see the irony of this bit.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
I don't have a problem with Fox News. I have a problem with a few specific talking heads (including one or two from CNN) - if this patent would result in technology that could overlay a Charlie Brown's Teacher audio track on top of their segments in real-time, that would be great.
"wawa waa wa wa"
Take That, Nancy Grace!
I understand the Libertarian -- anti-regulation bent here. Perhaps there is an assumption, since most people here are reasonably well educated, that we can actually just let people "make up their minds." I'm sure that, if it's only a small minority of folks who have chosen to shut out the real world and only watch what Pat Robertson wants them to watch -- it's all personal choice.
But we are fast approaching a test-taking, brain dead society. Sure there are smart enough people to hire and do work -- but how can you function as a Democracy when someone is influenced by some titillating news story about a candidate wearing a Push-up bra?
It's great that people can choose what magazine they read, what group the affiliate with, and what program they want to watch. Perhaps they want to listen to the music on iTunes, that their favorite hero wants to listen to. You eventually get into a situation where it is more work to choose -- and easier just to passively subscribe.
This may not be THE issue, or THE problem -- but when do we draw the line? The whole point of public school, was that parents didn't have the right to Opt their children out of the shared experience of education. There is a curriculum on history, economics, math and reading, so that we can all have a way of communicating, and a vocabulary of what the issues are. I don't think MOST people know what the real issues are, or can do much beyond Grunt that something is Socialist or Fascist.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
I don't get the right-wing references. Bill Gates is an avowed Athiest and a moderate liberal. Have you not seen him speak at the AIDs events with Bill Clinton? This is just supply & demand people, there is a small but sizable niche of people out there who would use this sort of information and they are just looking to supply it before someone else. I don't have a political issue with that. Now as for patenting it...
It will generate less complaints by churches and other organizations because the can block out what the don't. While at the same time, it won't restrict what i want to see.
This is quite true! I speak from personal experience - I've never been home-schooled but some of my sisters have for a few years and I know friends who have through their young lives. When great parents home-school kids with average to above average results, the results are quite good. One friend, in college focused on politics/law, has amazingly good social skills and would fool many people who only think of the stereotypical "sheltered" homeschooler. But I know his parents, and they are both outgoing and invest a lot in their children's lives and education. And it shows... I know others who were homeschooled who are quite shy and seem rather sheltered, but they are intelligent. Their parents...are both quite shy as well. Hmm, there seems to be a pattern.
So...my own family. My dad used to teach science, English, and was a principal in a small private school. My mom is rather outgoing and has had nursing background. So, not a lack of education - so there was always a stress on doing our best (no matter what the grade) and learning. Our avg family SAT score was quite high, and we've all gotten scholarships to college (my sisters who were home-schooled managed to get full scholarships to their colleges). Their home-schooling netted them a head-start of one year ahead of their class in high school, and my sister at age 20 has her 4-yr teaching degree. And she's a very social person as well. Another sister at 18 is in yr 2 of college doing a degree in social work (home-schoolers do that?!?). And so there you have it...I'd say it's 90% the parents and 10% the school you attend that ultimately determines the level of education.
This sig donated to Pater. Long live
Maybe it could assist aforesaid members in avoiding undesirable content?
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
So, does this invention allow me to filter out the goat.cx trolls? If so, then it might be worth it.
un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
true story
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
Brainwashing kids into a religion should be criminal abuse. This is a tool to allow that. This is why so many people here are upset by it. In a lot of cases, the kids are smarter than the parents. I always find the the kids whose parents leave them to their own devices turn out better. The ones who had strict parents are all fucked up when they hit real life. Then again, I consider "liberal free-thinkers" to be better. If you think a born again bible thumping sheep is better, than tools like this and religious brainwashing is exactly what a good moral mother and father should be doing.
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
There is prior art out there and this shouldn't be granted. The original idea from the late 80's wasn't web based, but otherwise all the details are the same.
A participating rating organization would download the program listing into a fat client program. The ratings could then be assigned and uploaded back to the central server. The ratings would then be distributed to cable operators, who would broadcast the rating organization's ID and their disposition using one of the unused closed captioning areas. The user would put in a set-top box and program it (VCR-style) to include the boolean logic to determine which content rating organizations to use and define rating thresholds. then the set-top box would black out any show that didn't meet the selected requirements.
As far as I know the idea never got fully implemented, but prior art must be out there.
The piece Microsoft seems to have left out is the ability to define your own scales, and the ability to have your own values within those scales. So a rating organization could define a scale "immoral" with levels of "ok", "on-the-edge", and "over-the-line", but then the organization had to publish their standards for their scale. Microsoft seems to have a binary yes/no scale only. Too bad, this was a cool key feature. There were a few other features not in the MS claims such as a series default rating that could be overridden on an episode basis.
The only major difference is the web allows the participating rating organization to be a collection of individuals, where as the original concept was just bigger organizations, such as Roger and Ebert, the MPAA, the 700 club, etc. Even so, the original idea was to have multiple hands from the rating organization in the decision process, so truly nothing here is new.
... did not exist in the Paradise. See my small cartoon: http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2007/09 /the-no-sin-pate.html
Bye,
Oliver