some more information on PICS for the interested. I am a strong advocate of this system because even though it involves ratings, I see it as expressly and vehemently anti-censorship. this will be difficult to understand for some people who equate ratings with censorship, and it will require some major education to help people see why this is not the case with PICS (platform independent content selection). why is PICS *not* censorship? because of its key design goals: 1) people are free to choose what ratings they use. whoever sets up the system decides. i.e. parents might pick a particular rating agency for their family. people might even use a combination of ratings. i.e. weigh the Christian Zealots 50%, and the People for the Improvement of Cyberspace 50%, etc 2) ratings are not merely for blacking out pages. they can be for finding "neat" pages (Point Communications 5%, etc), or "child friendly" or whatever 3) ratings can be created by anyone, including gov't agencies, individuals, foreign governments, religious fanatics, etc., and moreover they can be in any form whatsoever, they are merely seen as information-- the market will decide which ones are useful and which ones are worthless, and whether to create standards in various specific categories. regarding the CyberAngels, I think it would be an excellent project to have them while away their lifetimes going through the web and applying their official "cyberangel rating" to every page they encounter. it would be a valuable public service, and they'd probably get a real kick out of it (hmmm, perhaps "control-freak-ecstasy"?). it gives them a chance to put their brains and hands where their mouths are, so to speak. next time you hear someone rant about pornography in cyberspace, or censorship, or whatever, (whether it is Gore's wife or some nobody on an obscure mailing list), tell them to set up their own PICS rating service and shut up. if you hear someone whine that no one is listening to their rating service or using their ratings, tell them that it's an excellent existence proof that no one truly cares what they think, and for them to jam it down anyone's throat (via legislation or whatever) only proves how manipulative, desperate, and out-of-touch-with-reality they are. truly, I hope that some day the universal and accepted response to seeing something you don't like on the internet will be to start or join a rating service, and NOT to try to pass a bill in congress that attempts to regulate cyberspace (@#$%^&*). will there ever be a day in the future in which, e.g., the Iranian governments of the world decide to start a Moslem Cyberspace Blacklisting Service instead of the less-efficient and less-effective method of Lucrative Blasphemer Assassination Grants? help support this proposal and perhaps it will happen. <g> ------- Forwarded Message Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 10:54:56 -0400 To: pics-info@... From: Paul Resnick <presnick@research.att.com> Subject: vac-wg Announcing PICS 1.1! Version 1.1 of the PICS technical specifications are now available from the PICS web page (http://w3.org/PICS). The direct URLs for the two documents are: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/PICS/services.html http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/PICS/labels.html We plan to submit them as informational RFCs in the near future. These documents are now frozen. If significant new features are specified in the future, there will be a higher version number. Three cheers! - ------------------------------------------------------------ Paul Resnick AT&T Research Public Policy Research Room 2C-430B 908-582-5370 (voice) 600 Mountain Avenue 908-582-4113 (fax) P.O. Box 636 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636