Re: Mandatory Voluntary Self-Ratings
From: IN%"vznuri@netcom.com" "Vladimir Z. Nuri" 9-MAY-1996 21:07:58.36
From: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@MIT.EDU>
I've figured out where my differences between myself and others lay. The _only_ system and service that I am aware of that is distributing PICS labels is RSAC. (http://www.rsac.org) They are what one could call an objective and non-arbitrary content rating system rather than an "appropriateness" system.
Actually, SafeSurf (of CyberAngels association - an indicator of problems right then and there) is doing so also.
now, it seems that the author might as well put the tags in his material himself instead of going through this submission process. furthermore
I think they want the ability to track who's putting their ratings into their web pages. They don't check very well, though; when I wanted to see what the questionarre was like, I simply put in a fake email address (which could have been a nym's address), a fake web page, and a pseudonym. Their user agreement asks you to achnowledge a license giving them the right to examine any web page to which you attach a rating; however, I don't see anything preventing someone from simply duplicating it without going through the system.
also, JR, you say the system does not determine "appropriateness". but in my view it does indirectly. an author can "falsify" his submission to say that his page has no sex or violence. (who is to say he is wrong? the internet ratings police?) this will implicitly determine the "appropriateness" of his page for people who screen their browswers based on the keywords that were affected.
As I've stated above, they claim that they will check to see. The SafeSurf page, as well as recruiting the CyberAngels to check, also claims that A. The "Internet community" will punish someone for fake ratings B. Anyone putting a too-low rating on a page with sexual content will be prosecuted (apparantly for "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" or some such nonsense)
if there is a market-driven RSAC rating thing going on not described in the above article, I'd like to see it. but the above excerpt does not describe a market-driven system.
No, it isn't. For a market-driven system to emerge, we're going to have to have one or both of two things: A. Raters being paid by the people who post web pages. Not likely. B. Raters being paid by the people who get the ratings. More likely. Neither the RSAC or SafeSurf systems does either of these. -Allen
[ratings]
For a market-driven system to emerge, we're going to have to have one or both of two things: A. Raters being paid by the people who post web pages. Not likely. B. Raters being paid by the people who get the ratings. More likely. Neither the RSAC or SafeSurf systems does either of these. -Allen
ug. I see that "market driven" didn't make a lot of sense the way I used it. I was not talking about money. I was using it in the sense of "third-party ratings" vs. "self-ratings". maybe the latter terminology is better. I'd like to point out that market-driven systems, in the sense you use of the economy supporting the creation of the ratings, already exist in cyberspace. examples: 1. point communications top 5%. people effectively pay this company to find the "cool web sites" by buying their book or whatever. 2. surfwatch. as I understand it they have already rated many sites out there on the internet and are using a proprietary system that mimics a rating server. people are essentially paying for them to rate web sites through the purchase price of the software. other examples probably exist.
participants (2)
-
E. ALLEN SMITH -
Vladimir Z. Nuri