Re: Rating Problems
The recent CDA decision pointed out some of the problems involved in rating Net content. For example, the court spent a lot of time talking about Cyber Patrol software and the CyberNOT list "containing approximately 7000 sites
Do we just ignore the fact that these lists are outdated within seconds of release? Even if they can be automatically distributed via the net (maybe by forcing your Web browser to use their page as your home page and automagically downloading to you a new update), the list will still be outdated by days or weeks. This is one of the big problems with all of these types of filters.
Violence/Profanity: Extreme cruelty, physical or emotional acts against any animal or person which are primarily intended to hurt or inflict pain. Obscene words, phrases, and profanity defined as text that uses George Carlin's seven censored words more often than once every fifty messages or pages.
Gee, is this real or simulated violence? I don't suppose I can go surfing over to the Mortal Kombat website now...
Satanic/Cult: Worship of the devil; affinity for evil, wickedness. Sects or groups that potentially coerce individuals to grow, and keep, membership.
Does that include evangelicals? They're not Satanic but they certainly encourage membership growth. Some evangelicals can be quite coercive.
And
why Satanists? Don't we have freedom of religion in this country? Remember, the Supremes *did* throw out the Hialeah Sanitaria Animal Sacrifice Ordinance.
What about Co$? They might be a cult, depending upon who you ask. And, what about us harmless, life-affirming Witches? The name alone will probably trigger a lot of filters. I think the point of all this is that unless/until a "smart" filter can be devised, there can't / won't be a good filtering package that will please everyone, or even a majority of someones. Good luck. dave ----- David E. Smith, dsmith@prairienet.org PO Box 324 Cape Girardeau MO USA 63702-0324 http://www.prairienet.org/~dsmith/dave.html "fighting ultimage cosmic evil... ... one bean burrito at a time."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Mon, 17 Jun 1996, David E. Smith wrote:
Do we just ignore the fact that these lists [Cyber Patrol, etc.] are outdated within seconds of release?
Yes, because they are still largely effective for their intended purpose. Just as crypto is ultimately economics, so to is blocking software. Parents who wish to make the Internet "safer" for their children will be happy with a 95% solution. That's the way it is with X-rated videos and magazines. While it's not impossible for kids to get their hands on them, it isn't easy. And that's good enough.
I think the point of all this is that unless/until a "smart" filter can be devised, there can't / won't be a good filtering package that will please everyone, or even a majority of someones.
I disagree. I'm sure almost every parent will find a filter that's "good enough" for them. As evidence, look at the current situation. Many (most?) parents object to some of the content on broadcast television. Though they could put a lock on the set or remove it entirely, few do. It's just too much trouble. Instead, they forbid their kids to watch certain shows or otherwise limit the time and topics they allow their kids to watch. Not perfect, but good enough. It will be the same with filters. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
participants (2)
-
David E. Smith -
Sandy Sandfort