At 07:58 PM 12/11/96 -0500, you wrote:
PICS is the wrong approach becuase it oversimplifies the ratings of content, because it places the ratings made by the author in the payload itself, and because third-party ratings systems are cut out of the loop (effectively).
Perhaps I don't understand what you are saying. I just want to ensure that you understand that the PICS labels can be distributed in multiple ways. (document, server, label bureau.) I suspect you do, and what you are objecting to is that documnet-embedded labels will have a greater weight than those distributed by third parties:
agencies, and laws. But once set, the "binding" has been made. Later reviews or reviews by other entities cannot affect the binding, at least not for this distributed instance.
And consequently authors have a greater responsibility/liability than you would like:
More importantly, the "payload" does not carry some particular set of fairly-arbitrary PICS evluations. Binding by the censors instead of by the originator, which is as it should be.
In which case, I disagree. I think accurate, consistent, "objective" (I know this is an argument on the other thread, I think one can get relatively "objective ratings" see my RSAC case study for a break down on the qualities of rating systems on my ecommerce page (home page below)) well branded and reputable agents will have a greater weight, and will have a market motivation for accuracy exceeding regulatory pressure. (Plus, there is nothing preventing thresh-hold tolerances for use with multiple ratings.) _______________________ Regards, Restlessness and discontent are the first necessities of progress. -Thomas A. Edison Joseph Reagle http://rpcp.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle@mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E