Slashdot Mirror
Wannabe Prime Minister Andrea Leadsom Thinks Websites Should Be Rated Like Films (theregister.co.uk)
An anonymous reader quotes a report fro The Register: The UK's possible future prime minister thinks all websites should be classified with minimum age ratings, just like films. Andrea Leadsom is one of two candidates left in the race for the leadership of the Conservative Party; the winner of which will become the country's Prime Minister. Although many are concerned with the authoritarian stance taken by her rival, Theresa May, Leadsom's views on many topics -- including the internet -- have come under scrutiny following her unexpected success in the leadership election. Key among those is Leadsom's apparent belief that the best solution to troublesome content on the internet is to have film-rating organization the British Board of Film Classification rate all websites, and have any unrated websites blocked by ISPs. [Writing in the New Statesman back in 2012, she focused, initially, on the need to protect children. "There are two sound ways to ensure that children are not exposed to dangerous or disturbing content," she argued. "At the level of Internet Service Provider, individual sites can be blocked 'at source' by ISPs [...] The other way is with a move away from the standard '.co.uk' and '.com' top level domains (TLDs) for more explicit content, to separate entirely inappropriate sections of the web."] She argues: "Outside of cyberspace, we have bodies such as Ofcom and the British Board of Film Classification that continually work to ensure our children are not exposed to the wrong things. This could be implemented in some way online, whereby a website would have to have its content 'rated' before being accessible online. While it sounds like a massive leap, the majority of new websites already go through testing when they are hosted to make sure that a site is intact and that files and content are free of viruses. This would simply be adding another check to the list, and in reality it is a burden already carried by film-makers."
How about rating Prime Ministers like films? Wouldn't that help even more?
Please forgive me if I decide I don't want the government to determine what is appropriate or inappropriate for my children and then enforcing it. I think the rating idea doesn't hold water, but I wouldn't be terribly offended if they decided to rate as many websites as they like. In fact, like movie ratings I would take it under advisement. However, I certainly wouldn't want them blocking the content based on their decision to rate or not rate. I am the sole authority in deciding what is right for my children. The government gets no say in it beyond an advisory role.
Films only need to be rated if they're in theaters and even then they're not rated by the film's producer but rather by the MPAA, which isn't a free service. Home videos, as an example, pretty much never receive MPAA ratings.
If you require websites get rated by an independent third party you make it a lot more expensive to launch a website. So much so that unless you're in it for the money it probably wouldn't be cost effective to actually do it. I mean, if they wanted to create a search engine that only shows sites that have been rated, that'd be one thing, but to expect the whole of the internet to be rated is naive
And what happens if the content of the site changes? Does every wikipedia editor need to pay $100 to have their addition of a semi-colon reviewed by this hypothetical MPAA-like agency?
Ummm.... this horse has already bolted.
The Internet is built on porn. Nothing she can possibly do will change that.
"There are two sound ways to ensure that children are not exposed to dangerous or disturbing content," she argued....
I think there might actually be a third option: Take responsibility, be a parent.
No sig today...
If rating Web sites is a good idea, then why not rate books too? This is a long overdue initiative, which would put the UK right up at the top of the Fahrenheit 451 Censorship League. Of course there are some practical drawbacks, such as the unlikelihood that any government flunkey or private contractor would be willing to read the whole of any book. But it would be very amusing (not to say revealing) to see a list of books that Andrea Leadsom would consider dangerous.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
"There are two sound ways to ensure that children are not exposed to dangerous or disturbing content,"
Yep: mothers and fathers. Not, however, big brother.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Presumably she understands quite well how it works. After all, if every bit of content has to be 'rated' before publication (same as with movies), and assuming there will be a large, slow, and expensive burocracy to perform this rating (with all sorts of forms to be filled in, no doubt), it will put a certain end to anyone voicing his opinion outside of large, rich organisations. And that, I suspect, is not an accident but very much the whole point of the exercise.
Poor Brits. After succesfully escaping the totalitarian clutches of the EU, they get this kind of asshole as a potential future leader...
UK is a monarchy. Nobody elected the Queen.
Technically true but if she actually held the power then I doubt we would be in this mess and when the politicians who do are far more right wing than your hereditary monarch you know you are in trouble.
Poor Brits. After succesfully escaping the totalitarian clutches of the EU, they get this kind of asshole as a potential future leader...
Any one with any sense knew the EU were the ones holding back this tory authoritarian nightmare.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u