Re: Mandatory Voluntary Self-Ratings

At 11:40 PM 5/9/96, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:
>From:   IN%"tcmay@got.net"  8-MAY-1996 16:30:16.71
>
>>Then we'll see what happens. (This is an old debate, here and on the
>>Cyberia-l list, to wit, what happens when people/perverts/libertarians
>>choose to subvert the voluntary ratings by deliberately mis-rating their
>>stuff? Or what if they genuinely believe, a la NAMBLA, that youngsters
>>should be exposed to certain things?)
>
>        I don't agree with NAMBLA, BTW, in case anyone is wondering.

No need for people to point this out, as my point was an hypothetical, to
show that there simply _is no objective standard_ in such matters.

For every proposed "ratings" system that involves value judgments about who
should see something, I can think of examples where a quite opposite view
is held.

I still think we are being led down a dangerous path in trying to architect
ratings systems. As I said, we don't rate written words (at least I don't),
we don't rate newspapers, etc.

If a system gets built into the WWW, as with proposals for PICS, it _will_
be used by those who want to control content. We should think twice before
helping in any way.

(No, I'm not _against_ private ratings services...but this has little to do
with _me_, and I won't participate. More importantly, I won't have my
content have any kind of tag attached! Thus, the PICS thing looks intrusive
to me, and not at all what I think of as a "private ratings service." I'll
elaborate if my point is unclear.)

--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,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

>For every proposed "ratings" system that involves value judgments about who
>should see something, I can think of examples where a quite opposite view
>is held.

true. hence you use a service whose opinions you agree with. there is
no canonical, ultimate, "true" ratings service. hence my dislike
of self-ratings that seem to presume the opposite is true. (i.e.
rate the page "what it actually is")

>I still think we are being led down a dangerous path in trying to architect
>ratings systems. As I said, we don't rate written words (at least I don't),
>we don't rate newspapers, etc.

all kinds of things are now rated in the world. stocks are rated.
movies are rated. books are rated. they are rated in various other
books, such as "top books on [x]".

>If a system gets built into the WWW, as with proposals for PICS, it _will_
>be used by those who want to control content. We should think twice before
>helping in any way.

I agree with your hesitation totally. I can easily see how the system
would be twisted in unspeakable ways. but I can see a lot of very
powerful positive uses too. as long as the best attempts are made to
discourage the former and encourage the latter...  again, there is a
question that the future might turn out to be more orwellian if no
action is taken by internet designers whatsoever. I tend to believe
that view.

>(No, I'm not _against_ private ratings services...but this has little to do
>with _me_, and I won't participate. More importantly, I won't have my
>content have any kind of tag attached!

notice that what you demand is wholly irrelevant. if you put something
out in the public, in a world of free speech, anyone is free to
rate your posting, or your opinions, etc.-- they just set a system
that refers to the message-id of your posts or something.

if what you are instead saying is that you will never insert your
own tags into your content, well that is something you have control
over. but you have absolutely no control over what people "attach"
to your posts in a "virtual" sense.  anyone could set up the
TCMay Rating Service and register ratings on everything you post in
public.

> Thus, the PICS thing looks intrusive
>to me, and not at all what I think of as a "private ratings service." I'll
>elaborate if my point is unclear.)

I would definitely be interested in an elaboration, although you don't
have to quote me if it makes you retch <g>. the only thing I 
see intrusive about PICS is the self-rating scheme. the third-party
rating scheme seems pretty "unintrusive" and invisible in my view.