---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 19:33:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org> Cc: mnorton@cavern.uark.edu, jellicle@inch.com, fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Third party rating systems are good for society On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Stanton McCandlish wrote:

[Lest more people send hatemail, please keep in mind that the description of third party ratings as "good things" here means a proliferation of third party reviews of content, goods and services just like we have in the real world. It does not mean Milburn imposing his morality on the

I'm still wrestling with how to think about third party rating systems in general and clunky, pejorative systems like RSACi in particular. How to differentiate the two in principle? Time to reread the ALA's statements again. For I think in general, third party rating systems are boons to society. Think of the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, Underwriter Labs, and kosher rating agencies. These are socially useful devices, each one of them. (I'd be interested to hear what similar systems have sprouted in other countries.) Or, to put it in cypherpunkly terms, marks allow the redistribution of reputation capital. The Time logo and the Netly News URL on my business card may boost my reputation when presented to someone who doesn't know me. An Intel Inside logo may (or may not!) do the same. Even SATs and GMATs are rating systems of a sort, for they tell a prospective employer or college something about me. Then there's TRUSTe. Third party rating systems are nothing more than the formalization of gossip, which has lubricated the social wheels of every society that has ever existed. So I suggest one should not oppose third party rating systems in general but instantiations of these systems in particular. RSACi is certainly one of those. -Declan