Surf-filter lists
Vlad: How can consumers make an informed decision as to which filter they wish to purchase, if they are not told exactly what information each product is filtering out? Meeks et al may be guilty of flamboyant, emotionalistic prose, but I find the concept that the public is expected to buy various filters without knowing what they filter...frankly, ridiculous. -- "Your wish is my command, if you know what's good for you, bitch." - William Shakespeare (Or perhaps it was his brother Fred who said that.)
At 10:41 PM -0700 7/15/96, Damaged Justice wrote:
Vlad: How can consumers make an informed decision as to which filter they wish to purchase, if they are not told exactly what information each product is filtering out?
Meeks et al may be guilty of flamboyant, emotionalistic prose, but I find the concept that the public is expected to buy various filters without knowing what they filter...frankly, ridiculous.
YOU and I may find it so, but you simply don't understand the mentality of those who will buy such filters without question. Vast numbers of people take the word of their minister, government, morality "guide", guru, or teacher without question. Why do you think Scientology has gone as far as it has? You don't think all those people who used the various blacklists circulated during the McCarthy era demanded original source documents, do you? I'm not comparing those who desire a "clean" computer environment in their homes with McCarthyites--I'm referring to the mental process of accepting certain kinds of "authority" without question--especially when it wraps itself in righteousness. We try to teach people (at least in the better schools) to question, and find out for themselves, but a lamentably small proportion do. David
Vlad: How can consumers make an informed decision as to which filter they wish to purchase, if they are not told exactly what information each product is filtering out?
Meeks et al may be guilty of flamboyant, emotionalistic prose, but I find the concept that the public is expected to buy various filters without knowing what they filter...frankly, ridiculous.
there's significant ambiguity in your language. what actually constitutes knowing or not knowing what is being filtered? Meeks discussed a case where the software clearly gave *categories* of what it filtered, and I think he focused on a case where it was clear that it was borderline (the monkey with the eye poked out). in other words, it did appear to me that the software &raters were working exactly as they were supposed to, and he was hilighting a borderline case. moreover, the categories were clear: "gratuitous depictions of violence" or whatever. for *some* consumers, knowledge of these *categories* is going to be enough. other consumers are going to be more wary and want to make sure that the actual sites blocked correspond to the categories stated. in general, though, I think many consumers do not want to know in exact detail what specific web sites are being blocked. that's what they're paying the company for: to hide that information from them in a sense so they don't have to deal with the complexity of it. my position could be misconstrued. it is: let the consumer *decide*. this is already happening. they are putting their money where they think superior services are. what Meeks has discovered is a new criteria that customers *may* want to pay more attention to: how well what the companies "say" they are doing matches what they are actually blocking. but then again, consumers are always going to have to place some amount of trust in these companies. the market is in the process of deciding right now. Meeks seems to have the opinion, "the site-blocking software is not legitimate unless they fully publicize their lists". this is a decision the market will make. I fully expect that both types of services will flourish in the future (open and closed lists), and each have their particular roles and areas of specialty.
Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 16-Jul-96 Re: Surf-filter lists by "Vladimir Z. Nuri"@netco
Meeks discussed a case where the software clearly gave *categories* of what it filtered, and I think he focused on a case where it was clear that it was borderline (the monkey with the eye poked out). in other words, it did appear to me that the software &raters were working exactly as they were supposed to, and he was hilighting a borderline case. moreover, the categories were clear: "gratuitous depictions of violence" or whatever. for *some* consumers, knowledge of these *categories* is going to be enough. other consumers are going to be more wary and want to make sure that the actual sites blocked correspond to the categories stated.
L.D. fails to say why NOW and gay history sites and gun rights sites and EFF and LPF and SAFE @ MIT and HotWired should be blocked. He also fails to understand that Brock and I both wrote the article. He finally fails to understand that CyberPatrol's categories are anything but clear. -Declan
L.D. fails to say why NOW and gay history sites and gun rights sites and EFF and LPF and SAFE @ MIT and HotWired should be blocked.
absolutely no reason is necessary. when a parent says to their child, "because I said so", what recourse does that child have? the service is doing the equivalent of this, and will be appropriate for and appeal to the many parents who raise their children in this authoritarian manner. a company does not have to give reasons. as TCM just wrote, people will vote with their cash. the ultimate determinant is if the company is profitable under a capitalist system. they could have ex-nazi's doing the filtering, and if they are making money even when their customers know about it, what's the problem? now, Meeks is doing a valuable public service in *informing* the public of criteria customers may be interested in they may not have been previously aware of (to the minor extent that he did so in an objective way). however, they are the ones to make the decision. they may decide that they like the whole idea of secrecy. the market is deciding as we speak. the article is in a sense part of this decision-making process. your own opinion is not irrelevant-- I have never said that. it's a nice additional perspective. I'm only saying its a small factor and you're awfully presumptuous to think everyone (esp. those that use the services) feels the same way about a lot of subjective material as you do. McCullagh, have you thought out your position at all on this? all the responses I have gotten from you show you haven't put much thought into the matter and are quite caught off guard by my fairly basic points. let me ask you: Yahoo *routinely* rejects zillions of URLs submitted to them. an equally emotional article could be written that highlights their editorial decisions in borderline cases. "Yahoo rejected a link to [x]!!! that's censorship!!!". please figure out what you are and are not opposed to, and have a clearcut stand. don't you see the amazing similarity between rating services and Yahoo? what, in principle, is the difference? your own arbitrary opinions? He also fails
to understand that Brock and I both wrote the article.
the article is ambiguous about who wrote what. It's clearly Meeks writing style. I give you credit for whatever research you contributed. if I were you I would not want to be associated with that particular article however <g>
He finally fails to understand that CyberPatrol's categories are anything but clear.
I don't recall the service you were picking apart in particular, but I thought Meeks ranting over the "monkey with his eye poked out" as not necessarily "gratuitous depictions of violence" was a real big lose position for himself. the categories may be clear enough for the *customers*, i.e. parents, and that's all that matters. you can rant all you want, but if people are paying money and continue to do so in spite of your objections, where does that leave the validity of your opinion?
participants (4)
-
Damaged Justice -
David Sternlight -
Declan B. McCullagh -
Vladimir Z. Nuri