Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Internet Rating System Plans to Globalize

Posted by michael on from the give-in-to-the-power-of-the-dark-side dept.

The New York Times ran a great article about the upcoming Global Rating System, coming to a country near you sometime next year. Stephen Balkam, the characteristically disingenuous defender of rating systems, is described as saying that so far no governments have mandated that content providers use online rating systems. Okay, that's true - because it hasn't been passed yet. Australia's states are in the process of implementing model legislation which would criminalize failing to rate or mis-rating a site - even accidentally. Similar legislation has also been proposed in Great Britain and the U.S. -- michael

22 of 111 comments (clear)

  1. Bias and Ambiguity in Rating System by antizeus · · Score: 2
    This rating system has four valuations; for sex, nudity, violence, and language.

    This will fail to satisfy, for example, a hard-core materialist that doesn't want his kids viewing content with supernatural overtones, or a vegetarian extremist who wants to filter out content which glorifies the eating of animal flesh.

    Furthermore, whatever the "language" rating/component will be, I have no doubt that it will be ridiculous in some way. Recently I saw Star Trek IV on the SF channel, and while they let "hell" get through, they censored "dumbass" (i.e. "double dumbass on you!!!"). This serves as an example of how stupid language valuations always turn out to be. Another example of this is the fact that for every "evil" word one finds in a language valuation, there's another word (often with more syllables) which means the same thing but isn't regarded as "evil". Does anyone have specific information on how the "Language" rating will work?

    I suppose what it comes down to is that these four areas (sex, nudity, violence, language) represent the neuroses of segments of the population that are large enough to form a voting block that must be pandered to.

    --
    -- $SIGNATURE
  2. Definitions by schporto · · Score: 2

    I have some problems with this and it all depends on your definition of certain things. Really when does art become porn. There is little doubt that some things are definately one or the other, but the middle ground is the problem area. I mean the Adam touching God picture shows Adam negid. Is that illegal? What about the Venus birth (her negid coming out of clam shell)? Ok not many people are gonna buy that those are porn, but what about more modern art. Just look at the stuff with the museum in Broklyn and the problems they're having right now.
    And I'm only presenting the artwork problem with a rating system. What about medical sites? Try learning about breast cancer without encountering words that are normally filtered. Try learning sex ed without getting filtered.
    I just fail to see where this rating system will actually work and succeed at what its trying to do without causing a lot of problems.
    -cpd

  3. Top Ten by Signal+11 · · Score: 2
    Since our politicians seem oblivious to the warnings the technical community has provided them on this issue... I hereby present Top Sex Ways to Defeat Censorsh*t:

    sed -e 's/sex/xes/g' -e 's/fuck/fsck/g'

    Filtering proxies (to filter content ratings, or replace them with erroneous data).

    if(remote_is_a_bot()) show_safe_page() else show_sexy_page();

    Relocate your servers to a censorsh*t-free zone.

    Digital underground!!! e-mail me at hotsexybabes@somecorp.com and I'll send you jpegs of *insert name of hot sexy babe here*.

    IRC. Need I say more?

    You can filter, but you can't hide! This system is doomed to fail... as it should. There is no substitute, technical or other, for parental supervision. Until the world figures that out, these botched attempts to "save the children!" will continue indefinately.

    --

  4. Deja? by ajs · · Score: 4

    What about services like search-engines and Deja that display other people's content? Will Deja have to rate all of USENET? Will Google have to rate all of their cached pages?

    This just can't work. Not on the Net.

  5. International? Yeah, right. by rde · · Score: 4

    I notice that the noble censors (pardon, raters) are planning on getting together a bunch of advisors from around the world to help with such things as national and ethnic considerations.
    Twelve people.
    Do not take the following as an 'I hate Americans' statement
    The problem is that as far as the US is concerned, everyone else is secondary. To a certain extent this is admirable; no government can succeed unless the needs of its people are paramount. But when that nation is as powerful as America, and that nation perceives international web sites as a threat to its moral purity ("for the children!!!") then by gosh the world better fall in line with the US.
    This wouldn't be so much of a problem if the Americans could come up with a reasonable and fair system of rating. Unfortunately, there ain't no such animal. So we're likely to be stuck with a shitty rating system that pays lip service to the problem of American Children Seeing Breasts and proves to be (at least) an inconvenience to the majority of surfers around the world.

    Yes, I know Bertelsmann's report hailed from Germany. I never said the Americans had a copyright on stupidity.

    1. Re:International? Yeah, right. by Hobbex · · Score: 2

      This wouldn't be so much of a problem if the Americans could come up with a reasonable and fair system of rating. Unfortunately, there ain't no such animal.

      Unfortunately? What?? First you call the people trying to rate the web (who with no doubt believe they ARE trying to create a reasonable and fair system) censors, and then you admit you think it is unfortunate that the system is doomed to be unreasonable and unfair.

      The fact that there is no fair, reasonable, managable, or even remotely feasible way to rate the Internet is the most fortunate thing about this whole affair. The most frightening thing I can imagine is censorship that actually works and doesn't make people angry.

      Don't confuse this with an issue of practical problems: it is not. This is a human rights issue.

      -
      /. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.

  6. Bastard Child of the MPAA by $nyper · · Score: 2

    "All the lawmakers have to do is pass a law saying that if you run a website with x% naked people you have to get a .xxx (or whatever) domain name. "

    My god, please tell me he is not actually suggesting an MPAA type of rating system for the Internet. Oh yes, I can see it now. You can have all the violence you want in a .com site. But as soon as you use the "F" word three times or you start showing to much sexual content you get and Internet equivilent of an NC-17 or XXX rating roled into a .xxx suffix? Laddies and Gentleman of the jury I would like you to say it with me now... PLEASE!!!!

    --
    "Help me Obi-/.-Kenobi,your my only hope!" -$
  7. larger issue by [Zappo] · · Score: 2

    The whole (real or perceived) problem of filtering inappropriate content is really a special case.

    The more general problem is, "how should we index the web?". It's the digital library problem, really.

    What we really want is a way to look up exactly the information that we want, getting pointers to all relevant sources and to no irrelevant sources.

    For the censorship people, what they want has to do with the keyword 'smut' (and friends). If I look up smut, I should get all and only smut. If I look up something else, I should get no smut.

    If the larger problem gets solved, the "censorship" problem is much simpler, and also shouldn't bother those who don't consider it an issue.

  8. Do it yourself censorship. by Pagan[CyC] · · Score: 2
    Parents are wise to be concerned about what their children have access to, and it is not reasonable to expect a parent to be watching constantly while a child is online.

    But there is a fairer solution than forcing everyone else to rate all pages and posts. Why not have a setting in browsers that will require the presence of a certain meta tag (like meta name="rugrat-level" content="kidsafe" or whatever) before displaying the page?

    Those who don't want to limit themselves to kiddie content wouldn't have to. Content providers who don't want to exclude kids wouldn't have to. Browser writers wouldn't be forced to modify their browsers, if there is a big enough market for one, someone will write it.

    Unless a reasonable alternative is presented we are going to get stuck with an RSACi type system. This is one alternative, let's hear some others.

  9. Wow, Big differnce there... by Hobbex · · Score: 2


    And, how, exactly, is forcing sites to register under certian domain names any different from forcing sites to carry meta-tags for filtering services?

    The point here is not that people don't like meta-tags. Its that we don't like censorship. Period.

    -
    /. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.

  10. How to prevent this. by Amphigory · · Score: 5

    I think just about everyone who reads slashdot would radically dislike a rating system enforced by the government. Unfortunately, there is a very real and substantial problem with the Internet for many people right now: namely, there is no way for me to protect my children from the most disgustingly vile content imaginable short of cutting off the Internet entirely.

    I can't keep them from accessing it, even by sitting over the shoulder the whole time, because pornographic sites deliberately misrepresent themselves as appropriate sites. And many (most?) of these sites deliberately include images on their front pages which are inappropriate for children (and me for that matter). Do you really want your seven year old daughter seeing pictures of a man peeing on a woman, even for a second as you make a dive for the monitor power switch? If you think this isn't a problem, you are either a fool or have never been a parent. For examples, take a look www.whitehouse.com sometime.

    And the fact is that you can't watch your kids all the time. You have to sleep sometime. Don't even get me started on page jacking -- your kids don't even have to be doing something wrong to get sent to some of the worst smut on the Internet.

    To make matters worse, anyone without Internet access is rapidly being marginalized by our society. So, my choice is to (a) have my children be marginalized or (b) have them grow up thinking that normal sexuality is whips, chains, and defecating on each other. Or milder, but just as bad, have them grow up thinking that pornography is harmless and a normal expression of sexuality (its not -- pornography treats people as objects. I though that was something geeks were against?).

    As I see it, ratings systems are a good thing because if they aren't setup, the government will find a way to outlaw porn all together. At least outside the united states. In the US, they will come up with some way to worm around the 1st ammendment and water it down just as they have the second.

    What is desperately needed (now) is an organization and appropriate technologies to construct a publically, freely available list of offensive sites. You want to resist censorship? Help construct this list. Believe me, it is far better to exercise responsibility voluntarily than with the government making you.

    --
    -- Slashdot sucks.
    1. Re:How to prevent this. by vyesue · · Score: 3

      someday, parents are going to have to grow up and realize that it's a big, bad world out there.

      teach your children what filth is. tell them that your value system doesnt support men peeing on women or girls fucking snakes. if you raise them correctly, seeing this garbage isnt going to permanently scar their minds. and if you think it's going to, keep your damned kids off the internet.

      I, for one, refuse to label my web pages. and I suspect that a huge number of people will make the same choice that I will if this passes, and there will be waaay too many of us to arrest.

    2. Re:How to prevent this. by Psion · · Score: 2
      Amphigory,

      What is desperately needed (now) is an organization and appropriate technologies to construct a publically, freely available list of offensive sites.

      Pardon me, but what constitutes an offensive site? I have no problem at all viewing someone without clothes, but you might draw the line at viewing a woman's breasts and a Muslim might not want to see a woman's face! You might think that a "voluntary" system lets a browser choose what to view, but how does the creator of a webpage know that her descriptions of safe sex practices would offend you?

      Further, you have already conceded that the very sites you're trying to protect the kids from are the ones who "deliberately misrepresent themselves as appropriate sites." So what, under a voluntary system stops them from continuing to do this?

      Finally, there's that old refrain that "pornography treats people as objects," whatever that means. First, define pornography. Then explain to me how an image of a man and woman (or man, or two women, or whatever!) engaged in sex suddenly reduces the participants to simple objects in a way that is any different from any other form of entertainment or instruction.

      The fundamental flaw in this approach is the effort to shield children from the realities of the world rather than teaching them basic, realistic ways of coping with them. Rather than desperately diving for the monitor's power switch when you and junior get an eyeful of a man peeing on a woman, maybe you should just let it linger for a moment and then turn to Junior and simply say, "Eeew! That's gross!"

      Educate. Don't legislate!

    3. Re:How to prevent this. by Amphigory · · Score: 2
      Finally, there's that old refrain that "pornography treats people as objects," whatever that means. First, define pornography. Then explain to me how an image of a man and woman (or man, or two women, or whatever!) engaged in sex suddenly reduces the participants to simple objects in a way that is any different from any other form of entertainment or instruction.


      Pornography is imagery and other materials designed for the soul purpose of sexual titillation. Spare me your lawyers jargon. You know very well the difference between porn and legitimate art. Also, I'm interested in constructing a list (more a list of ratings, not a list of banned sites) of sites from the perspective of western culture: if the muslims want one that bans faces (which is a very foolish example btw) they can build one.

      I may as well dive off the deep end and speak truth (and don't waste time trying to tell me this is just my opinion). God intended sex to be a way in which two people, a man and a woman, could experience a profound and joyous union. I know that sounds pious, but its true. As it so happens, this kind of union was intended to be permanent -- hence, Christians don't approve of divorce. From a biblical perspective, there is no such thing as pre-marital sex since sex /is/ marriage.

      The problem is that porn is for the purpose of titillation: this image that you are defending takes what is intended to be a joyous union of bodies and (yes) souls, and turns it into an excuse to masturbate. The people pictured are not even known as people, they are nothing but objects -- so many pounds of protoplasm in a pleasing shape.

      Let me guess: you don't have kids, do you? If you had kids, you would know how literally impossible it is to censor everything they do. The problem is that everything that happens creates an impression on them -- and the impressions last forever. The other problem is that they lack judgement. And, I do have to sleep sometime. If you had kids, you would know that too. Somehow, I suspect that you either don't have kids or just plain don't care about your kids.

      Finally, stop your whining. You don't have to help -- you can just wait until the government takes over. It will happen, because for all the nonsense that goes around more people agree with me about this stuff than agree with you. The problem is that most of them don't agree with me about freedom of speech.

      "Educate, don't legislate" you say? You seem to suffer from the modern theory of education, which is "throw the kids in the vat with everything you wouldn't want to happen to you. The ones that make it out, we keep". Has it occurred to you that the rise of your ideology (screw freedom: just give me liberty and give it to me now) is exactly what makes our country so screwed up today?

      --
      -- Slashdot sucks.
    4. Re:How to prevent this. by Zach+Frey · · Score: 2

      someday, parents are going to have to grow up and realize that it's a big, bad world out there.

      Do you have any idea how condescending this sounds?

      What makes you think parents don't already realize this?

      Part of good parenting, IMNSHO, is the attempt to make the home a shelter, in as much as reasonably possible, from that big bad world out there. Especially for the youngest children. Right now, I don't want my children to have to deal with some of the "realities" of life (which can be pretty unreal, at times). There will be time enough for that as they mature.

      This does not mean raising kids as hothouse flowers, so delicate that they faint at the first touch of the outside air. But I do believe that kids will do better if given a chance to grow strong before exposure to the harsher elements.

      teach your children what filth is.

      No. I do not want to teach them what filth is. I want to teach them what health is, and hopefully the filth will be obvious by contrast.

      But I am of the belief that one doesn't have to wash in filth to recognize that it is filthy.

      tell them that your value system doesnt support men peeing on women or girls fucking snakes.

      What about my ability as a parent to determine when it is appropriate for my children to learn about such topics?

      To pick a non-Internet example, I know a lot of parents who were extremely unhappy with the media coverage of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, because they didn't appreciate having to explain to their seven-year olds what "oral sex" was.

      if you raise them correctly, seeing this garbage isnt going to permanently scar their minds.

      Maybe, maybe not. I would hope so.

      But what we see does affect us. Images are highly effective at implanting themselves in our brains and affecting our attitudes and behaviours. Even if we don't buy into the message at a conscious or intellectual level. This is why advertising works, and why corporations spend billions of dollars/yen/euros every year on it.

      If something wounds my kids, it's not a great consolation to know that it might not scar if we're lucky.

      and if you think it's going to, keep your damned kids off the internet.

      If my only choices are (a) keep my kids off the Internet altogether or (b) drink from the firehose of sludge trying to get the few pearls, then what do you think I'm going to need to choose?

      I'd like another choice, which is why I hope that we can come up with some sort of rating system, or at least some effective netiquette, that will allow some leeway between "all" and "nothing."

      Now most modern freedom is at root fear. It is not so much that we are too bold to endure rules; it is rather that we are too timid to endure responsibilities.
      -- G. K. Chesterton, What's Wrong With The World
    5. Re:How to prevent this. by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 2
      Pornography is imagery and other materials designed for the soul purpose of sexual titillation.
      You said "tit." This titillated me. Therefore you are a pornographer.
      Spare me your lawyers jargon.
      If I can get thrown in jail for disagreeing with you on what is or is not pornography, I'll damned well have a lawyer spewing all the jargon I can afford.
      You know very well the difference between porn and legitimate art.
      The lighting?
      I may as well dive off the deep end and speak truth (and don't waste time trying to tell me this is just my opinion).
      I guess mentioning that we descended from monkeys is out of the question...
      God intended sex to be a way in which two people, a man and a woman, could experience a profound and joyous union.
      And all I want want to do is share in the experience vicariously by videotaping it.
      The problem is that porn is for the purpose of titillation:
      You said it again!
      [T]his image that you are defending takes what is intended to be a joyous union of bodies and (yes) souls, and turns it into an excuse to masturbate.
      Boy does it ever!
      The people pictured are not even known as people, they are nothing but objects -- so many pounds of protoplasm in a pleasing shape.
      I hereby declare "pounding the protoplasm" the be the best sexual euphemism of the year.

      --
      --
      This is not my sandwich.
    6. Re:How to prevent this. by Q*bert · · Score: 2
      Or milder, but just as bad, have them grow up thinking that pornography is harmless and a normal expression of sexuality

      Funny, I've always thought that, and I'm a well-adjusted, pacifistic honors college graduate with a good programming job and loving, stable relationships with his parents and his girlfriend. Maybe it takes another ten years or so for the depraving influence of porn to kick in, eh?

      And the fact is that you can't watch your kids all the time. You have to sleep sometime.

      Bingo. No matter what you do, they will find a way around it. Worse yet, they will be more inclined to seek out those things you forbid, because of normal childhood contrariness. The only solution is to teach them to think for themselves, and to tell them that BDSM and coprophilia aren't normal sex (not that there's anything wrong with either, or with being other than normal). Yes, that's right, you'll have to talk honestly and openly with your kids about sex. If you can't deal with that, you should never have had them in the first place. You'll also have to accept that you don't have complete control over your kids' lives--nor should you. They must grow up with control over their own thoughts, so that they can become responsible and self-directed adults.

      pornography treats people as objects. I though that was something geeks were against?

      Jokes about object-orientation aside, I think this is wrong. Pornography does not absolutely objectify people. It casts people in a certain role, the role of providing you, the voyeur, with erotic thrills. This is no more objectification than basketball with its roles of providing you, the fan, with the thrill of the game. Do we consider it objectification to think of Michael Jordan first and foremost as a basketball player? No? Then why should we condemn people for thinking of porn stars in primarily sexual contexts?

      I think the whole, tired "object" argument is used only by people who think, deep down, that there's something dirty or degrading about sex. If that's your opinion, it's your right to maintain it, but don't go expecting me or anyone else to buy it.

      Beer recipe: free! #Source
      Cold pints: $2 #Product

    7. Re:How to prevent this. by Absimiliard · · Score: 2

      > God intended sex to be a way in which two
      > people, a man and a woman, could experience a
      > profound and joyous union

      Okay, I'm going to go off-topic here. Feel free to moderate me down folks. But just whose God are you talking about? Are you speaking about the Christian God, the Hindu God (which one), the Muslim God (arguably the Christian God), the Confucian God (again, which one), or the 'I don't believe in the supernatural I am a secular humanist God' (In which case I would really like to know exactly who you think that is.)

      Obviously I am taking a poke at you because you seem to believe that you have the right to impose your religious views on me. I don't for a minute think that kids should see everything on the internet, in fact I don't know anyone who does. However I do strongly object to using any religion's beliefs on anything to regulate a multi-national, and thus multi-religion, medium like the internet.

      Not to too strongly offend you, but take your Christian belief system and go take a long walk off a short pier. I am not Christian, none of my friends are, and most of the world is not. Keep your moral code out of our lives. In return I will agree to leave your children alone. They can have my pity for being raised Christian, but they are yours to raise, not mine.

      -Absimiliard

      Who doesn't have time to make a sig while he rants at Christians.

    8. Re:How to prevent this. by Eccles · · Score: 2

      (its not -- pornography treats people as objects. I though that was something geeks were against?).

      Feh. How many people did you treat as objects today? I dealt with multiple cashier objects, sales clerk objects, and hundreds of Slashdot poster objects, including you. I watched a number of actor objects, who I might have "cared" about, but if so it was about their screen persona, not themselves. Do you really care about me or the person you responded to? Don't be ridiculous, your sole contact and concern is with what we've said, which is a microscopic detail in the entirety of our lives.

      We all treat many people as "objects", few as anything more. Claiming otherwise, or that this is only objectionable when it comes to sex, is specious.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  11. Let me guess - you are christian -- right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Don't get hysterical about the fact that children see pornography. In my opinion it is just good that they learn early about the facts of human sexuality. That doesn't turn them perverts (which seems to be your reasoning for cencoring pornography) or anything like that, but it makes them grow more tolerant (unlike for example gay bashers) to those persons that aren't having 100 % puritan sex. In my opinion sex aducation should also be started with young age. That way children learn early enough about contraceptives and can avoid STDs and teen pregnancies. In my opinion the difference between Europe and USA might be explained at least partly with the fact that europeans inform they child about these kind of things early in life. That is why teen pregnancies, AIDS and gay bashing are much lower in Europe. If I would cencor something it would brobably be intolerant opinions -- which often includes christianity. But I am more like Noam Chomsky and hold the opinion that freedom of speach belongs also to those people I disagree with.

  12. OT: Religion in the public square, and even in /. by Zach+Frey · · Score: 2

    I highly recommend that you find and read The Culture of Disbelief by Stephen Carter on the attempted exclusion of faith-based views from American politics and law, and then contemplate a "freedom of religion" that actually celebrated people freely and unapologetically following their religions, or a "multi-culturalism" that didn't mind people propagating their own cultures.

    But just whose God are you talking about? Are you speaking about the Christian God, the Hindu God (which one), the Muslim God (arguably the Christian God) ...

    Oh, please. Amphigory is obviously a Christian, and is arguing as such. So clearly he believes that the Christian view of God is the correct one. Why should he pretend otherwise?

    News flash: most Christians are aware that not everybody is a Christian, and that other views of God exist. But it would be incredibly tedious to have to mention that fact every time the word "God" is used, so most of us don't.

    Obviously I am taking a poke at you because you seem to believe that you have the right to impose your religious views on me.

    This is not about "imposing" religious views. No one is trying to forcibly convert you to Christianity.

    Oh, but you mean that his viewpoint is religiously motivated, and you disagree with him, and therefore he's trying to "impose his religious view" on you? To that I have to say, "get over it." If you disagree, do so on the real grounds that you disagree. But, if Amphigory were advocating exactly the same position, not out of Christian theology but out of some secular existentialist "I-have-chosen-this-side-in-the-debate-to-actualiz e-myself" philosophy, what would you say then? I guess you have to meet the issue face on, since you couldn't dodge behind illusions of religious persecution.

    Not to too strongly offend you, but take your Christian belief system and go take a long walk off a short pier.

    Nice to see you not imposing your irreligion on anyone.

    Keep your moral code out of our lives.

    So, if I see you getting mugged someday, I should just walk on by? After all, robbery, assault, and murder are against my religion, but you wouldn't want me to go around imposing my religious views on anybody, would you?

    In return I will agree to leave your children alone.

    I thought the debate was precisely about how to accomplish just that.

    ... no man ought to write at all, or even to speak at all, unless he thinks that he is in truth and the other man in error.
    -- G. K. Chesterton, Heretics

  13. Re:Who are your pages for? by vyesue · · Score: 2

    I'll give you a possible objection to labeling my pages:

    I DO NOT SUPPORT CENSORSHIP IN ANY FORM. I WILL SAY WHAT I WANT WHERE I WANT WHEN I WANT AND YOU CANT SHUT ME UP JUST BECAUSE I HAPPENED TO SAY FUCK. EOF.

    I refuse to support a world in which major access providers are capable of not routing my page because it has some objectionable stuff on it.