EAS: now that you quote the PICS standard instead of CyberAngels in referring to PICS, I think we are getting somewhere.

... PICS specifies three ways to distribute labels. The first is to embed labels in HTML documents. This method will be helpful for those who wish to label content they have created.

right. as I said, I think this will be the less important area of the PICS proposal. in fact, I think it is a bit misleading to say, "the first is..", because the other methods are really what PICS was trying to achieve, in my opinion (this is just my perception, I don't know if the writer would agree. these kinds of issues are still being worked out). one useful idea related to "self-rating" is to allow the user to create a sort of "abstract" or "keywords" that could be incorporated into the rating system. such an idea is not prohibited by the existing proposal and in fact fits into it nicely imho. but again, I believe that the "self-rating" concept of PICS 1) is not the key design goal of PICS, and 2) will not be a major use of the service in the long run in comparison to "rating services", and 3) because it requires action on the part of the page designer, it is less desirable for this reason, and in fact another major aspect of PICS insists that no action on the part of the page designer should be possible (that which is relative to URLS) 4) the designers intended that self-rating be voluntary. hence any coercion of requiring people embed certain kinds of labels is wholly rejected by the proposal. 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?)

In other words, the CyberAngels want to eliminate any pages that contain material they think minors shouldn't see that aren't self-rated with a PICS self-rating (the first of the three types) intended to block minors from seeing it.

this is only how a bonehead would view cyberspace. it's an old view of how information should be regulated. it's taking the metaphor, "records should have a little sticky sticker that tells whether it has explicit content". for someone who think that cyberspace is made out of atoms, not bits, it seems eminently sensible. but it is wholly ridiculous and unnecessary. the cyberangels should clarify their position. who decides what is rated what? it is amazing how many people who are favor of some kind of censorship scheme evade the issue of SUBJECTIVITY, as if a government organization can precisely determine what is acceptable to children. it reminds of how those in law enforcement talk about CRIMINALS when often they are actually referring to SUSPECTS. the distinction is absolutely critical in civilized society. imagine what effect a politician's speech would be if he said, "we have to CRACK DOWN ON CRIMINALS!!!" vs. "we have to CRACK DOWN ON ALL THE CRIME SUSPECTS!!" I highly recommend that everyone make this mental substitution whenever you hear someone ranting about "criminals" and see what a different tone their words take!!

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.

it's impossible to fully get rid of ignorance. all that can be done is for proposals to be written as clearly as possible. 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.

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.

right. again, that's why I think the "self-rating" idea should be minimized in the PICS proposal as the last one listed, and the market-oriented ones listed first. I also would like to see terminology that the proposal is expressly against mandatory kinds of practices such as requiring page writers to include certain tags based on some agency's opinion etc. it seems so ridiculous at times that people are on such different wavelengths that the proposals have to reject all this explicitly, but of course that's the same idea behind the Bill of Rights. 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.