Any examples of mandatory content rating?
There are several swirling proposals for "rating" of Internet packets, Usenet articles, Web pages, and perhaps other computer-communicated items. There are also things like the "V-Chip," included as part of the Telecommunications Act. (The V-Chip is ostensibly a "voluntary self-rating" scheme, with an included mandate that government will give industry a year or so to come up with a plan.) I foresee major legal challenges to mandatory ratings of content. Issues involving prior restrain, censorship, and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I'm interested in hearing about any _actual_ examples where a government body in the United States has mandated that intellectual property (roughly, written words, magazines, motion pictures, CDs, etc.) be "rated" or "age-labelled." Before anyone out there fires up his "Reply" and tells us about movie ratings, magazine warning labels, and the like, read on. To forestall a couple of likely examples some will cite, let me discuss a few oft-cited cases: 1. Movie ratings. The familiar "G," "PG," "R," and "NC-17." (Used to have "M" for "Mature," and "X" for, well, X-rated stuff.) In actuality, these ratings are _not_ mandated by law, and are done by the MPAA, the Motion Picture [something] Association. There may be serious legal charges brought if, say, a 10-year-old child was let into a showing of "Debbie Does Fort Meade," but this would be after the fact and would presumably involve negligence charges of some sort (contributing to the delinquency of a minor, child abuse, etc.). (A parallel to this is ordinary speech to a child. While speech is not required to be rated, there might well be various sanctions applied to an adult who spoke to a child in various indecent or obscene or "patently offensive" ways. I'm not saying whether I endorse this, and it would depend on just what was said, but the point is that there is no "rating" system for speech imposed, nor would the Constitution admit one.) We may speculate that had the movie industry not adopted "voluntary ratings" in the 1960s, government may have tried to impose ratings, but the fact is that government did NOT impose content ratings. (The important point being that we cannot look to how the movie situation evolved for hints about how Internet packets or articles might be rated.) Note also that the MPAA ratings are not "self-ratings," but are done by a panel of MPAA representative. Many film directors have been very angry over the MPAA ratings they received, and would not have rated their films as the MPAA panel did. There are then local ordinances about allowing children in to see "R" or "NC-17"-rated movies, but this is a case where the government piggybacks on the "private" ratings service (which could raise some important constitutional issues if it was ever seriously challenged, which seems unlikely). This MPAA situation is an important example because it is neither "self-rating" nor "government" rating, but is, instead, something else. This model would be extremely hard to apply to the Internet, as there is no similar body to the MPAA, nor is there the same economic incentive for any such body to form and then to try to cope with tens of thousands (at least) of articles and pages per day.... 1A. A special case of this system is _television and radio broadcast_ of indecent material, a la the FCC's regulations about content broadcast over the airwaves at various times of the day. Cable is not regulated in the same way, though most cable systems I have seen have "adult" material in the evening hours (though definitely not confined to late evening). Lots of wrinkles here, and the FCC is attempting some regulation of some cable..."The Playboy Channel" is involved in a dispute where they are being told they can only send their channel out after certain hours...details should be accessible on the Web. I think this special case of FCC involvement covers a different set of issues than the "content" issue per se. Though this may help to explain some of the rumors about the FCC seeking a broader mandate to regulate "cyberspace," as this gives them a foot in the door to regulate content on the same basis they regulate content of broadcasts. Moving on.... 2. Magazines, as in "For Adults Only!" emblazoned on the covers. In doing my "research" for this article, I consulted my "reference materials," and discovered that such warnings are less common than I remembered them as being. Neither "Penthouse" nor "Playboy" issues that I have at hand contain any such warnings, though some other mags do. So far as I know, there is no government requirement for labelling. Again, there may be sanctions imposed for, say, selling such a magazine to a minor. I can't say as I've ever heard of a court case along these lines. Importantly, there appears to be no "ratings board" run by the government that rates such materials a priori. ("Obscenity" is not the same as pornography or nudity, as we all must know by now.) I conclude that magazines need not be labelled, voluntarily or otherwise, though there may be sanctions if children are exposed to certain materials (though this is unlikely). More to the point, it seems likely that the laws which exclude children from entering bars and strip joints are the one which would apply to keeping children out of "adult bookstores." An important point was made recently by someone on the Cypherpunks list, that some libraries make a point of providing access to _all_ materials, by _all_ patrons, including back issues of "Penthouse." So far as I know, no librarians have gone to jail for this. Moving on... 3. "Explicit Lyrics" labels on CDs and music. This one is more iffy. I recall the _proposals_ to require such labels, and Tipper Gore (wife of VP) was a leader in this campaign some years back, but I don't believe any laws were formally passed. I could be wrong. And some local jurisdictions may have such laws; I recall some part of Florida mandated a labelling law, or banned sales of explicit lyrics CDs in some way. (The "2 Live Crew" issue, with "Me So Horny" and other gems.) And none of the CDs I have seen here in California with "Explicit Lyrics" or "Parental Advisory" notices mention who did the rating, whether the lyrics are "Government Censor Approved," etc. This tongue in cheek mention of "Government Censor Approved" is an important point: any hint that a government censor is to apply ratings to written or spoken or similar materials runs smack dab into the First Amendment. This is not just an academic matter. There is no provision for a "ratings board" to review content, and such a "prior restraint" (can't publish something until it's been rated or approved) is a textbook case of prior restraint, forbidden by the First Amendment. (The H-Bomb case involving "The Progressive" was ultimately decided in favor of no prior restraint, even for such a potentially serious situation.) So, if anybody's still reading this, I am interested in _any_ examples where intellectual content (as opposed to food or drug packaging, for example) is required to be labelled. Such examples might shed some light on how these various proposals for "labelling" of Net traffic might work. And absent such examples, might show just what a tough road lies ahead for those advocating such labelling. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
On Fri, 12 Apr 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
I'm interested in hearing about any _actual_ examples where a government body in the United States has mandated that intellectual property (roughly, written words, magazines, motion pictures, CDs, etc.) be "rated" or "age-labelled." Before anyone out there fires up his "Reply" and tells us about movie ratings, magazine warning labels, and the like, read on.
Well, my examples aren't all going to be in the United States, or strictly intellectual property, or 'age' based, but here: Age rated, I don't think there are many examples. General ratings exist. The best place to look for this kind of thing is e.g., FAA safety ratings on potential aircraft/aircraft part designs. While at first it may seem a bad example, these ratings are generally mandatory if you wish to market things as aircraft parts/related. They are implemented in much the way I envision mandatory Internet ratings being implemented. (e.g., executive Agency created to define standards and execute ratings system as well as enforce infractions by the removal of whatever largess the FAA provides. It might also be noticed that this is right in line with the conflict of interest trend in government of allowing the same entity define and enforce standards of conduct/manufacture/design). It might further be noticed that the FAA rating for parts increases their cost several-fold over non rated parts, even if non-FAA rated parts are literally identical.
So, if anybody's still reading this, I am interested in _any_ examples where intellectual content (as opposed to food or drug packaging, for example) is required to be labelled.
Mandatory labelling or mandator rating? I think this is an important distinction. Most of the mandatory _ratings_ I can think of (FAA stuff included) are implemented in a round-a-bout way. (i.e. "If you want to market this as X (bear a label) you must comply with Y, Z and U.") I can't think of strict examples of mandatory "Labels" (i.e. "If you want to sell X, it must say Y, Z and U.") where a product simply must bear a quality rating symbol or something. Voluntary systems are many. The green "point" is a german example. (Products wanting to market themselves as environmentally "safe" have to pass certain standards and then can bear the "green point" label. This is still in the 'voluntary' labeling class in my view. It might be noted, however, that if you are selling a food like product without the green point and you have even one compeditor who has it, you're not going to sell a single jar in germany). The other German example is the Reinheitsgebot (Beer purity law, struck down as violating Article 30 of the ECC Treaty in Commission v. Germany, Case 178/84, [1987] ECR 1227). Briefly, the word 'bier' could only be used on beverage products produced with only malted barley, hops, yeast and water. Said the court (translated from the French) "It must be added that such a system of mandatory consumer information must not entail negative assessment for beers not complying with the requirements of the Reinheitsgebot." Laws on the mandatory use of the words "Sekt," "Weinbrand," "Branntwein aus Wein," and "Shaumwein" were struck down in Commission v. Germany, Case 12/74, [1975] ECR 181. Taken as a whole, the German scheme could be viewed as a mandatory ratings system on type and quality of alcoholic beverages. (The German argument for preservation of the Reinheitsgebot was that it prevented consumers from being taken in by producers who were using additives. The Sekt, Wienbrand etc. laws were defended on similar grounds). Granted all of these shy away from Mr. May's "intellectual property" qualification, but only insofar as we ignore the fact that what is really being regulated is a production process. I suppose milk dates are "mandatory" and can be considered a "rating" in so far as they represent percieved quality/freshness. Still, governments are quite talented at making ratings schemes look voluntary when practically speaking they are not.
Such examples might shed some light on how these various proposals for "labelling" of Net traffic might work. And absent such examples, might show just what a tough road lies ahead for those advocating such labelling.
I think it will end up much like motion pictures. The net will be asked to regulate itself under the threat of government regulation, which might be an empty threat if the First Amendment rights are applied. Most people will comply, it being easier than making a fuss. The real concern, if you believe as I do, that some form of internet rating standards are unavoidable, is allowing the same agency to make and enforce the standards. IRS, SEC, FDA, FAA, FCC are all examples of where and how this can go wrong. For a detailed discussion of the problems of government largess in the context of conflicts of interest, See Reich, The New Property; Reich, The New Property after 25 Years. (Harvard Law Review, I forget the precise cite, but I will dig it up if anyone cares).
--Tim May
Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
--- My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li "In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti 00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com
Klaus writes:
I foresee major legal challenges to mandatory ratings of content. Issues involving prior restrain, censorship, and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
there is a big distinction to be made here. are posts required to carry a rating system by which anyone can create ratings, or are they required to carry some "official" rating from some govt agency? for example, I think it would be odious if the government mandated PICS for various providers, but I sure would like it a lot more than them mandating a rating agency. that is, are they mandating the *capability* to rate, or some "official" rating system that involves judgement?
This MPAA situation is an important example because it is neither "self-rating" nor "government" rating, but is, instead, something else. This model would be extremely hard to apply to the Internet, as there is no similar body to the MPAA, nor is there the same economic incentive for any such body to form and then to try to cope with tens of thousands (at least) of articles and pages per day....
totally disagree with you. the existence of Surfwatch etc. proves that there is *already* such a market and economic incentive. SurfWatch is in fact, in a sense, a ratings agency similar to the MPAA-- not a government body. I foresee that the "industry" of providing ratings is going to be a very significant aspect of future cyberspace. these ratings are generally always going to be advisory-- people can latch onto them for a fee if they like to determine quality. note that "good/bad" is the most simplistic rating possible. even more superior rating agencies might find "cool material". in fact in a sense, every editor of every newspaper is a sort of "rating server". he culls, filters, and selects information that the readers like. increasingly, we are going to see systems that place economic incentive on *selection* more than *copyright*. in other words, in the old system, there is a "thing" called an "article" in which one pays money to the owner whenever you copy it. in the new system, the article itself has no value-- what you pay is the system that delivers it to you (all intermediaries, editors, etc), all the way up to the author. it will take people awhile to realize, but ratings can actually be extremely liberating and useful if put into place in a robust way. I believe PICS is a very good step in the right directions. what today is limited to credit ratings etc. will expand into a system of rating everything, I suspect, and it will be done in such a way that everyone agrees it is a Good Thing and they couldn't imagine getting along without it. in the old system, censorship was accomplished by the government putting chains on, or burning, "atoms". in the future, people will just select whatever information they are interested in. censorship of bits is not only inappropriate, it is impossible. censorship can only work when you have atoms. those who are applying old "atom" ideas to "bits" will continue for some time to have sway with the public, until the general population realizes their arguments are completely specious.
On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
This MPAA situation is an important example because it is neither "self-rating" nor "government" rating, but is, instead, something else. This model would be extremely hard to apply to the Internet, as there is no similar body to the MPAA, nor is there the same economic incentive for any such body to form and then to try to cope with tens of thousands (at least) of articles and pages per day....
totally disagree with you. the existence of Surfwatch etc. proves that there is *already* such a market and economic incentive. SurfWatch is in fact, in a sense, a ratings agency similar to the MPAA-- not a government body.
I foresee that the "industry" of providing ratings is going to be a very significant aspect of future cyberspace.
I tend to disagree. Ratings are generally consumed by parents and otherwise custodial entities. The largest and richest market anywhere has always been the 18-25 range, or 18-30 depending on who you talk to. I don't have figures, but I think that internet users probably prodominantely fall into 18-25/18-30. This age group generally could care less. It's much easier to search by subject or key word than by paying attention to ratings in any event. There is no real market for ratings. If there were a strong market incentive for it, there would be no need for government intervention, which there clearly is. Sure some schools will purchase the services, maybe some parents, but this is a long leap from major market and industry making entities.
these ratings are generally always going to be advisory-- people can latch onto them for a fee if they like to determine quality.
And like any ratings system, it relies on the raters subjective judgement. Not a very market stable or market wise system. Tell me who would pay extra for a movie that had a rating on it. No reason to bother. People don't like the movie, they can leave. Instead they pay for the newspaper that has the review of the movies subject matter. No one much cares about the motion picture rating in any event. Parents perhaps, and children, to the extent that 'R' and 'NC-17' films are mystified and thus interesting. I can't even think of what the rating of the last film I saw was. I simply don't care. Does anyone honestly think that you're going to walk to a movie booth and drop $7.50 instead of $7.00 to get a look at the film's rating before you go in? Put two box offices side by side with and without this policy and tell me where the line is going to form.
note that "good/bad" is the most simplistic rating possible. even more superior rating agencies might find "cool material".
Like the "hot sites" on Netscape's home page, or Alta Vistas? Or the "site of the day" stuff? Note that all this is free today. Again, they all rely on the ratings judgement of the rater. Given that most of these services are funded by advertizing sales rather than user cost, I think it's fairly clear that users wouldn't bother to pay for them. They might pay in increased costs for products because of advertizing expenses, but actually paying someone is too much trouble. I might add that Yahoo is about to go public despite the fact that it charges end users nothing.
in fact in a sense, every editor of every newspaper is a sort of "rating server". he culls, filters, and selects information that the readers like.
That's a far cry from rating. That's simple exclusion. There is no discussion of the reasons and rationale for excluding, merely the exclusion. This is the cypherpunks lite example. Will there be a place for content/subject based news review, yes. But it will be much more interactive than ratings made by a central authority. It will, I hope, consist of software agents which allow each user to personalize his or her tastes (WOW!, that new compuserve deal is selling custom news selection I believe). Given the option of that kind of control, who the hell wants a centralized rating system? I can perhaps see that there may be serach fields which include ratings on content, much like there are search fields in library databases that permit you to find all the books over 200 pages on the planet, but that these of themselves are going to be significant I very much doubt.
increasingly, we are going to see systems that place economic incentive on *selection* more than *copyright*. in other words, in the old system, there is a "thing" called an "article" in which one pays money to the owner whenever you copy it. in the new system, the article itself has no value-- what you pay is the system that delivers it to you (all intermediaries, editors, etc), all the way up to the author.
I believe this wrong. Neither copyright or selection are going to be viable businesses without advertizing. I don't know where copyright is going to go precisely, aside perhaps from shareware (which is what it is now essentially, as the only people who pay for intellectual property are those who want to). Particularly so in the context of audio, textual (Information Liberation Front) and software piracy markets. Copyright will or will not eventually be saved by trade secret style withholding. Creators of intellectual property will just have to be paid larger up front purchase fees for release as royalities become impossible to collect. There will certainly still be collections of articles, information, software which will be paid for by people who need it NOW, but those who are willing to wait will just be patient as the material filters down through the underground markets. Creators will be paid by compliers, who will be paid by advertizers who are banking on the readers who purchase compilations (magizines, software packages, etc.) because they are looking for undefined new material in a known area and specific searching will not be effective in giving it to them. Given that agents will be software as well, even these will be paid for only by those who bother to obey the law out of charity. There has been much talk lately about a move back to the centralized computing model. Put the software on the server and let users buy dumb terminals and share the software. The personal computer market was made overnight because this is exactly the opposite of what people want. People want individual control. People want to customize the software they run, and they want to have it at their disposal immediately, not by the graces of a provider. This is literally carved in the philisophy of all the personal computer producers marketing tactics. "Macintosh: The power to be your best." "Radius: How the best get better." "Dayna: No bounderies, no limits." "Word Perfect for Macintosh: The power to express yourself." I think you can even show that those marketers who have failed to account for user customization have failed horridly and their products are the legends of failure. Who is going to bother with centralized ratings when customized ratings are a few keystrokes away. The basic premise that people will prefer to have material selected for them rather than select it themselves is, in my view, fatally flawed.
it will take people awhile to realize, but ratings can actually be extremely liberating and useful if put into place in a robust way. I believe PICS is a very good step in the right directions. what today is limited to credit ratings etc. will expand into a system of rating everything, I suspect, and it will be done in such a way that everyone agrees it is a Good Thing and they couldn't imagine getting along without it.
You really think central authority rating a la TRW is a "good thing"? I submit you've never had to deal with TRW. You are also ignoring the fact that if such an industry ever does exist, there will be a free market of raters. Those that don't end up fitting users wants will be discarded. You can't please all of the people all of the time. Custom agents can. A centralized and standardized ratings system is going to be an economic flop.
in the old system, censorship was accomplished by the government putting chains on, or burning, "atoms". in the future, people will just select whatever information they are interested in.
In the future? They do that now. What do you think Alta Vista is? Alta Vista in its purest form, cataloging, is by no stretch of the imagination a ratings system. It's also free. So much a for massive retail ratings industry.
censorship of bits is not only inappropriate, it is impossible. censorship can only work when you have atoms. those who are applying old "atom" ideas to "bits" will continue for some time to have sway with the public, until the general population realizes their arguments are completely specious.
Its interesting to me that you can be both so freedom of information oriented, and central authority obsessed at the same time. I said interesting, not surprising. --- My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li "In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti 00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com
On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:
And like any ratings system, it relies on the raters subjective judgement. Not a very market stable or market wise system. Tell me who
Since somebody else brought up SurfWatch, remember that it was SurfWatch that declared whitehouse.org to be off-limits for obscene content. A mistake on their part --- or at least that is their claim. << This was just before CDA passed, btw. >> << I personally thought it was a great way to demonstrate the absurdity of CDA. >> xan jonathon grafolog@netcom.com ********************************************************************** * * * Opinions expressed don't necessarily reflect my own views. * * * * There is no way that they can be construed to represent * * any organization's views. * * * ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ * ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/gr/graphology/home.html * * * ***********************************************************************
On Sun, 14 Apr 1996, Jonathon Blake wrote:
Since somebody else brought up SurfWatch, remember that it was SurfWatch that declared whitehouse.org to be off-limits for obscene content. A mistake on their part --- or at least that is their claim. << This was just before CDA passed, btw. >> << I personally thought it was a great way to demonstrate the absurdity of CDA. >>
Alas I suspect this will be used by the CDA supporters to claim that ballyhooed technology to 'protect' children does not work, and that legal restrictions are necessary... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jay Holovacs <holovacs@ios.com> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- PGP Key fingerprint = AC 29 C8 7A E4 2D 07 27 AE CA 99 4A F6 59 87 90
Unicorn takes time off from his busy schedule of smearing and ridiculing me with sniping pot shots to write up a more comprehensive attack:
I foresee that the "industry" of providing ratings is going to be a very significant aspect of future cyberspace.
I tend to disagree. Ratings are generally consumed by parents and otherwise custodial entities. The largest and richest market anywhere has always been the 18-25 range, or 18-30 depending on who you talk to.
you seem to not address the more liberal concept of "rating" that I am using, which does give me an opportunity to elaborate. in my view, anyone who exercises judgement is in fact applying a process of "rating". the results of that rating may be "explicit" in the form of things like measurements, (MPAA ratings being discussed) or they may be implicit, such as the selection of content for a magazine by an editor. however, at the root these are the same activities-- taking a subjective human judgement, and creating some objective "product" or "conclusion" from these judgements. ratings abound in our society. we have SAT tests for students. every test is a kind of a "rating" by a "trusted rating agency". we have the Better Business Bureau. we have credit ratings. we have "referral services". all of these someday are going to be seen for what they are: services that measure the "quality" or "value" of various other services or information pieces. as we move into an information society, people will begin to understand the commonalities between all these seemingly diverse areas. they will tend to become more unified and diverse at the same time. most people are applying the concept of ratings far too narrowly in my view, like you do above. I tried to expand your horizons, but you lept into the trap of seeing ratings only of value to parents. ratings in general are extremely valuable to everyone who lives on the planet. imagine some of the following ratings services: 1. quality of internet providers around the country 2. lists of people who spam internet mailboxes 3. best hi tech companies to work for based on packages etc. ad infinitum all of these have audiences, and would be economically viable to maintain in my view. we will let the market decide. but when the future of our economy is "information", you are going to see some very radical new industries emerge. ratings are one of them.
And like any ratings system, it relies on the raters subjective judgement. Not a very market stable or market wise system.
false. subjective judgement is relied on all the time by everyone. it is not perfect, but because it is not perfect does not mean it is worthless. you are relying on the subjective judgements of zillions of people by living on the planet, who made subjective decisions like: how do I best build a house? how do I build a computer? how do I plan this city? these are all subjective situations. Tell me who
would pay extra for a movie that had a rating on it.
completely incorrect concept. people pay a lot of money for TV guide, for movie rating books, the advertisers pay Siskel and Ebert (a rating service), etc. (btw, it was Klaus who first gave the Siskel and Ebert example, and because he is so sensitive to being properly credited for his visionary ideas, well I am crediting him <g>) No reason to
bother. People don't like the movie, they can leave.
oh brother. surely you see how weak your argument is. they paid $7 to leave at the beginning? and you think there is no market for a movie rating service? such services already exist. Instead they pay
for the newspaper that has the review of the movies subject matter.
right. a rating service. you will see more and more in the future as information is recognized to have value in our economy.
No one much cares about the motion picture rating in any event. Parents perhaps, and children, to the extent that 'R' and 'NC-17' films are mystified and thus interesting. I can't even think of what the rating of the last film I saw was. I simply don't care.
you have gone off on a strange tangent that was not in any way justified by what I wrote, although you have a pretty good argument against *something*, I'm not sure what <g> -- I didn't claim that MPAA ratings were the best example of a rating service. in fact it is a very primitive kind of rating system in my view.
note that "good/bad" is the most simplistic rating possible. even more superior rating agencies might find "cool material".
Like the "hot sites" on Netscape's home page, or Alta Vistas? Or the "site of the day" stuff? Note that all this is free today.
false. they get paid by their advertisers to maintain that. just because you don't pay doesn't mean that no money is involved. furthermore there is a great example of an internet web site rating service called "point communications top 5%"-- another economically viable venture. these people do nothing but surf and rate sites, essentially, and now they have a marketed book out on the subject. it's a rating service.
Again, they all rely on the ratings judgement of the rater. Given that most of these services are funded by advertizing sales rather than user cost, I think it's fairly clear that users wouldn't bother to pay for them.
that doesn't mean, as I repeat, that rating services will not increase and thrive. there are many ways for an economy to run outside of direct fees.
in fact in a sense, every editor of every newspaper is a sort of "rating server". he culls, filters, and selects information that the readers like.
That's a far cry from rating. That's simple exclusion. There is no discussion of the reasons and rationale for excluding, merely the exclusion.
no, frequently you will see editors write columns about what kind of information they are excluding etc. the whole concept of how much space they dedicate to an article, the size of the headlines, the placement of the articles, all are an "implicit" rating of the material. as I said, some ratings are explicit, some are implicit. but the whole field is going to become increasingly blurry in the future.
This is the cypherpunks lite example. Will there be a place for content/subject based news review, yes. But it will be much more interactive than ratings made by a central authority.
notice you seem to equate "ratings" with "central authority". PICS is a good example of how this is a fallacious line of thinking. indeed what I and Klaus have openly advocated is a distributed rating system in which there are no "official rating agencies" other than those that simply choose to be rating systems. you let the information market decide. PICS does support such a system, and is designed with that as a key design goal. repeatedly in your message you try to extrapolate on the future based on some very primitive and rudimentary systems in the present, which I think is not going to give you a very realistic view. it would be like the prediction made in popular mechanics, "computers will some day become as small as a room". your notes on copyright I don't really want to respond to, as I have written essays here on my thoughts on the subject before that cover it.
There has been much talk lately about a move back to the centralized computing model.
not by me. but note that the concepts of "centralized" vs. "distributed" can become blurry in various situations, and I believe this blurring will continue.
Who is going to bother with centralized ratings when customized ratings are a few keystrokes away.
nowhere in my article did I say that ratings would be centralized. it is true they will be "centralized" in the sense that each agency decides what ratings they have and how to store them etc.-- but the agencies themselves are decentralized. their systems may in fact also be decentralized (e.g. rely on many different reviewers). The basic premise that people will prefer to
have material selected for them rather than select it themselves is, in my view, fatally flawed.
hmm, that's strange then that magazines and newspapers exist, or mailing lists with moderators, etc. maybe we don't live on the same planet or something.
You really think central authority rating a la TRW is a "good thing"? I submit you've never had to deal with TRW.
imagine a rating service that rated the quality of companies. such a company would be the consumer's complementary tool. the companies rate their customers, and the customers rate their companies. indeed a rating service designed for one audience (such as companies) is going to be mostly worthless and perhaps even opposed by other audiences (such as consumers). but once everyone has ratings that they use, perhaps they will "live and let live".
You are also ignoring the fact that if such an industry ever does exist, there will be a free market of raters. ... A centralized and standardized ratings system is going to be an economic flop.
you seem to want to argue with me no matter what I say, so you read all kinds of things into my essay I didn't write. I advise you to stick to what I wrote if you are going to attribute things to me, although your fiery passion against debunking the nonexistent is amusing and I wouldn't want to squelch all future emanations of it. a major point of the post I wrote was that ratings is a system that involves a free market. nowhere did I argue for "a centralized and standardized rating system" in the sense of one authority making all the subjective decisions. what I *do* favor is a unified *framework* wherein such decisions can be collected and traded within, with PICS a very nice early attempt at this important capability.
in the old system, censorship was accomplished by the government putting chains on, or burning, "atoms". in the future, people will just select whatever information they are interested in.
In the future? They do that now. What do you think Alta Vista is? Alta Vista in its purest form, cataloging, is by no stretch of the imagination a ratings system.
no, I consider it a ratings system. the ratings are "implicit" vs. "explicit". they are making subjective decisions about how to organize/ present the material etc similar to what an editor does, which again I suggest is a "rater of information", although his judgements are reflected implicitly, not explicitly, in his end product.
It's also free. So much a for massive retail ratings industry.
again, I never said that individual consumers would pay for every rating they consume. systems whereby advertisers effectively pay for these ratings will be very useful as well. you seem to be "hot and bothered" by something I wrote, but I can't pinpoint exactly what I said that got you so torqued up.
Its interesting to me that you can be both so freedom of information oriented, and central authority obsessed at the same time.
your idea that I am interested in a central authority as far as "one unified rating agency" is totally incorrect and not supported by anything that I wrote in my post, and in fact I think outrightly contradicted by serveral statements in it. again, what I do advocate is a unified technical standard by which multiple rating agencies can all coexist. I am expressly against coercion of consumers or retailers to follow particular rating guides for any purposes. the entire system must be voluntary in most aspects. however, an individual retailer should be free to screen his merchandise or selection based on his own judgement, which may or may not be based on ratings. if a large group of retailers agree to ban various material based on their voluntary decision to follow particular ratings, so be it. the consumer is free to choose a different retailer that better suits their needs. a consumer cannot demand a particular kind of service however in my view if the retailer is not interested in providing it.
participants (5)
-
Black Unicorn -
Jay Holovacs -
Jonathon Blake -
tcmay＠got.net -
Vladimir Z. Nuri