Re: Just say NYET to censors

nzook@math.utexas.edu writes:

>Specifically, this is a plan to create two sorts of accounts to the net--
>adult and minor.  Adult accounts may only be obtained by persons of age
>eighteen.  Minor accounts may only be obtained as adjuncts to adult
>accounts, refered to as supervisor accounts.  Adult accounts would have
>full access to anything on the net.  News readers, telnet, ftp and like
>software being operated from a minor account would check a file in the
>adult account to allow access.  Newsreaders, in particular, would censor
>any posts crossed from a non-allowed account.  The control files in the
>supervisory accounts would default to allow-only mode, but could be
>selected to deny-only.

As a parent, I can sympathize with the desire to shield our children from
some of the raunchier material on the net.  Many parts of the net are more
"Animal House" than "Public Library", and you don't necessarily want a
nine-year-old girl learning about sex from a.s.b.

I think there are real problems with Nathan's proposal, though.  Questionable
material on the net is not tagged with an R rating.  Newsgroup categories
could be rated by the parent, but there is nothing to stop cross-posting.
Trying to put ratings on each email message, news posting, web site,
MUD (although some MUDs do have adult areas), IRC channel, etc., is just
not practical.  No censor has that much free time.

Another problem is that even the "safe havens" where minors congregate
may not stay as pure as we would like.  Believe it or not, teenagers of
below the age of 18 are actually interested in sex.  In fact, many, perhaps
even a majority, are not virgins.  It's going to be necessary to censor
the kids' posts more than any others if you want to keep them from talking
about what they want to talk about.

For a good example of these problems, see that paragon of censorship,
Prodigy.  My kids use Prodigy a lot.  They are pre-teens and I don't
worry too much about what they will see on this family-oriented service.
Still, the "Teen" BBS on Prodigy gets a little steamy sometimes, even though
each and every message is reviewed by a Prodigy censor before it can be
posted (at least, that is how it worked at one time.  They may have auto-
mated filters now.).  The "fashion" topic, for example, often degenerates
into discussions of how the girls look in their hot lingerie.  Basically,
the kids are constantly pushing the limits.  Since every parent has their
own ideas of where these limits should be, Prodigy ends up with sort of a
"least common denominator".

I'd like to turn my kids loose on the Internet, let them surf the Web and
the other resources available.  They are very computer-aware and I know
they would get a lot out of it.  But the way the net is now I don't think it
would be responsible parenting to just let them loose, at least not for a
few years.  So, as I said, I sympathize with Nathan's problem, but I don't
think a good solution is at hand.  For now I think private, family-oriented
networks are a better place for young kids.

Hal Finney

The fundemental flaw in the comparison of the various Internet and
Usenet based resources is that they are a communications exchanges
between various sources and sinks of information, not a single source.
In this they are more akin to the phone network than a TV station or a
major BBS such as CompuServe or AOL.

I'm quite sure that every parent has a long list of phone numbers s?he
would prefer h(is|er) children would not call, starting off with bars,
escort services, etc.  This is not a justification for a pre hoc
screening of every phone conversation by censors, nor is it a reason
to establish various restricted classes of service for telephones.
This is even more clear in the case of Internet/Usenet resources,
where each link is essentially a contractual relationship between the
computer owners involved.

If you want to establish a site that censors/restricts newsgroups,
limits ftp and telnet access, etc, that's just fine, but it is no
reason to restrict contractual relationships that don't involve you.
If you don't want to connect to a site that refuses to abide by your
restrictions, that's your call.  OTOH, don't expect the world to knock
down your door asking for censored newsfeeds, and don't think you have
some God-given right to insist that two sites independent of your own
abide by your restrictions.

In the case of the major backbone providers, eg uunet and psi, the
situation is a bit different.  These sites have a disproportionate
control of what passes between systems, and any attempt on their part
to restrict content would be disastorous.

	--Paul

Date: Thu, 28 Jul 94 13:33:01 EDT
    From: pstemari@bismark.cbis.com (Paul J. Ste. Marie)
    
    I'm quite sure that every parent . . .

Starting a sentence this way is a formula for disaster :-)

    . . . has a long list of phone numbers s?he would prefer h(is|er)
    children would not call . . . .

There are numbers which I would prefer that my children not call.  I'm
not at all sure that there are any numbers which I would like to
prevent my children from calling.  Doing so would represent a serious
violation of our intra-family web of trust :-)

			Rick