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."
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.
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?
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.
You already have that feature - it's called a "Channel Lock".
Or his Kentucky cousin, "Vice Grips"!
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)
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!
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?
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
"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.
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.