I still don't understand why it is "censorship" when any company can come up with any software that rates sites according to any scheme, and anyone can choose to use any package, or ignore the software altogether. there is total freedom in all of this. Declan, why is it that you are now editorializing against an editorial that asks for government standards & laws instead of free market ones? are you starting to finally figure out that private enterprise filtering systems, while having huge aspects that are not all that pleasant, are superior to the alternative? (btw, I don't like the claims of the editorial either, but that has always been my position on this issue-- that private enterprise systems are superior to government censorship) I agree that PICS was introduced in part to try to come up with a solution to the problem of offensive content that could be presented as an alternative to any government involvement. people on the net want to solve their own problems on the net, without laws, in general. everyone who continues to rant against filtering companies strike me as people who are screaming sour grapes. "we don't like the choices these companies have made!!" but just start your own!! the market is deciding what filtering company is doing the best job, mostly regardless of your ranting. and surprise!! guess what!! the market may not actually decide that it even cares whether filtering products are up front about informing what sites they filter. what, it takes a lot of work to filter sites? well, you're damn right-- doing anything of value requires a lot of work, and the filtering companies are working hard to improve their technology, no thanks to the screechings of a lot of people who feel that they have some better way of judging filtering software than the parents who use it. the net will continue to support schemes that help separate, segregate, and rate content, and those who reject such ideas as "censorship" are going to be seen as increasingly out-of-touch and clueless about how the technology works. does anyone claim it is censorship because a service interested in rating "cool sites" does not rate many sites it thinks are not cool? why then is there so much controversy when a *service* designed to rate *sites acceptable to children* does not include certain sites? can anyone tell me the difference? answer: many people wish to be the judge of what children can and cannot see. but ultimately, does anyone other than a parent have the authority to do this? in a free society, which I think we still live in, that is? if you think you are a better judge of what children should see, create your own service that includes whatever you think is being excluded. the market may support you. or, the market may thumb its nose at you. (however, postscript to all of the above, I do agree that any government laws making filtering software in some way mandatory is bogus and abhorrent.)