Eric Murray wrote:
Declan McCullagh writes:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 14:16:47 -0500 From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@epic.org> To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: The Real Plan: Making the Net Safe for Censorship
That should be Making the Net Safe for SafeSurf.
The proposal is a classic example of "if you can't beat 'em in the marketplace, beat 'em in the legislature". It would require a rating system while locking out new competition from the net censorshipratings field. SafeSurf operates a ratings system. Can you say "conflict of interest"?
Note provision 3, which stipuates that a rating must be "issued by a ratings service that has a minimum of 5,000 documented individuals usin its system to mark their data."
That'd kind of make it hard to start a competing ratings system, wouldn't it?
It like some unions I know. You can't work unless you belong to the union, but you can't join the union unless you are working. -Doug