Mandatory Voluntary Self-Ratings

At 9:31 PM 5/7/96, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. wrote:

>thought police, or concerned but ignorant parents/congressmen. If
>self-labeling worked (which I see few cases in which it wouldn't) I can't
>see the concerned but ignorant being unhappy. Rather they'd be a bit better

Regarding this "(which I see few cases in which it wouldn't)" point, I have
a different view.

Should "voluntary self-criticism" become widespread, I expect to rate all
of my posts as suitable for children of all ages, suitable for
hypersensitive feminists, suitable for Jews and Gentiles alike, and so on.
Regardless of whether I'm advocating post-birth abortions or forced
encheferation of Muslim girls.

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 believe the whole debate about PICs-type ratings and other "voluntary
self-labeling" has taken us astray.

I don't see calls for authors to voluntarily self-rate their print works,
nor do I see calls for newspapers to have articles rated. Nor speech in
general. However, the drumbeat of "V-Chip" advocacy is now spilling over
into cyberspace.

I say it's a waste of our time to even be thinking or worrying about how to
implement an infrastructure for ratings. In fact, building such an
infrastructure could make later imposition of "mandatory voluntary ratings"
(Orwell would be unsurprised) a greater likelihood.


--Tim May

THE X-ON CONGRESS:  INDECENT COMMENT ON AN INDECENT SUBJECT, by Steve
Russell, American Reporter Correspondent....You motherfuckers in Congress
have dropped over the edge of the earth this time... "the sorriest bunch
of cocksuckers ever to sell out the First Amendment" or suggesting that
"the only reason to run for Congress these days is to suck the lobbyists'
dicks and fuck the people who sent you there," ....any more than I care
for the language you shitheads have forced me to use in this
essay...Let's talk about this fucking indecent language bullshit.

TCM
>Should "voluntary self-criticism" become widespread, I expect to rate all
>of my posts as suitable for children of all ages, suitable for
>hypersensitive feminists, suitable for Jews and Gentiles alike, and so on.
>Regardless of whether I'm advocating post-birth abortions or forced
>encheferation of Muslim girls.

heh. I had a feeling you or someone else would would say this.

as I wrote, I don't like the self-rating idea very much for the reasons
you bring up and because of the pressure on authors to rate their material
in certain ways. but I can see how self-ratings might coexist with a
market rating system.

>I believe the whole debate about PICs-type ratings and other "voluntary
>self-labeling" has taken us astray.

whoa, keep in mind that PICS involves "market ratings" as well. in my
mind this is the key part of the proposal and most important element
as I have been writing.  although others have suggested they saw 
it exactly the opposite. we will see what happens in practice.

>I don't see calls for authors to voluntarily self-rate their print works,
>nor do I see calls for newspapers to have articles rated.

in a sense this happens at the beginning of works. recall in Huck Finn
how Mark Twain warned against what people should not read the book.
columnists will sometimes say, "this is about [x], don't read it if
you don't like [x]". but I agree it is somewhat silly at times for authors
to rate their articles. but keep in mind we are using the word
"ratings" in a very general sense. it makes total sense for authors
to decide the "keywords" for their articles, for example-- and in 
the PICS rating system, such a use is possible.

>I say it's a waste of our time to even be thinking or worrying about how to
>implement an infrastructure for ratings.

hmmmmmmmm, I seem to recall earlier letters in which you advocated 
a market-type rating system in which services could rate things,
in the way that stocks are now rated, doctors/lawyers
could be rated, etc.-- let a thousand ratings services bloom.
(or maybe we were talking about reputations. in my mind, they are
mostly interchangeable--hence my interest in "rating" systems).

perhaps in the future people should be very careful to distinguish their
opinions on "self-ratings" vs. "market ratings" because people seem
to be conflating the two and have widely divergent opinions. also I 
want the reader to keep in mind that PICS supports both (and therefore
to criticize it on the ground of one alone is not wholly sensible).

I point out that market ratings exist and are everywhere around us.
a credit rating is in fact a kind of "market rating" in the sense I 
am using the word-- rating of some "thing" or "person" by another 
entity.

 In fact, building such an
>infrastructure could make later imposition of "mandatory voluntary ratings"
>(Orwell would be unsurprised) a greater likelihood.

my fear too. hopefully, designers can try to oppose it in their
writings ala the Bill of Rights. but it is always the case that powerful
technology capable of great good can be twisted into great evil
by the evilminded.

if the system is always championed as voluntary by definition, I can't
see too many sinister scenarios taking place. the problem would be
if people gradually lost this understanding over time. unfortunately
there is ample precedent for that kind of thing again in our government,
where the concept of "of, by, and for the people" seems to have become
blurry, to say the least.

The  one I like is the FCC regulation which makes it mandatory for radio 
stations to preface their EBS test with the phrase, "This station, in 
VOLUNTARY compliance with...."