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."
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.
...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? That's called "raising" a child, and it's generally accepted in most places that parents have that right.Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
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.
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?
The alternative? You want the government to raise them?
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?
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.
What a pile of horseshit. Very, very few parents see it as having the joy of control over another person. If a parent has a set of values, they attempt to bring their child up to respect those.
To continue your bad analogy: If a child doesn't want to go to school, go wear clothes, to eat vegetables, etc.
Allowing an undeveloped person -- both in mind and body -- to control their life is not parenting, it's the abdication thereof.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
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.