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Do we just ignore the fact that these lists are outdated within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the list will still be outdated by days or weeks.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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~