From: IN%"vznuri@netcom.com" "Vladimir Z. Nuri" 6-MAY-1996 18:53:10.45

but OK, I see that the CyberAngels have focused on a part of the PICS proposal that can be twisted into their own unique interpretation. I see you/they have a semi-valid concept here. frankly, it only suggests to me how dangerous the "self-rating" concept is, and perhaps that it should be downplayed in the PICS proposal imho. (any PICS designers out there listening?)

The simplest cure for this, and one that would be effective - unlike implorings by the PICS designers - would simply be to not have inclusion of a rating in a page as part of the protocol. In other words, if you want a rating, get it from an agency.

...

Yes, this is an abuse of the market oriented variety of PICS; they obviously don't know and/or don't care. If you want to convince them otherwise, start cc:ing your messages (and forwarding mine, on this I give you permission) on PICS and the CyberAngels to angels@wavenet.com.

since you are so interested and brought it up, I think you ought to do it. I am doing all that I care to do in posting to this group. you have given me reason to write on the issue.

As I have previously stated, I irritated Mr. Hatcher by trying to get the CyberAngels to concentrate on spamming and other actual dangers to the Net, as opposed to their censorship efforts. (I count acting as an informant for governmental censorship a variety of censorship). Consequently, I have been asked not to mail to them.

Incidentally, their pressure (especially the legal variety - acting as informants) could also include against an ISP that doesn't do the second for material the CyberAngels don't like.

I do hope the CyberAngels seize on the other aspects of PICS that would effectively let them put CyberAngel stickers on every single page in cyberspace, if they have the attention span to actually pull this off.

Quite. Anything that both the CyberAngels and, say, the Christian Coalition rate as unsuitable for minors is likely to be interesting. -Allen