"A new battle over keeping the Net clean," by J.Weber/LATimes

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 10:49:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
To: fight-censorship-announce@vorlon.mit.edu
Subject: "A new battle over keeping the Net clean," by J.Weber/LATimes


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 09:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jonathan Weber <Jonathan.Weber@latimes.com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: ratings story


Innovation/ Jonathan Weber 
 
A New Battle   Over Keeping   the Web Clean   

WASHINGTON

   When Congress passed the Internet  censorship law known as the  
Communications Decency Act early last year, the many companies, advocacy 
groups and individuals with a stake in the Internet rose up as one to 
challenge the measure in court. 
   But now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the CDA 
unconstitutional, the victorious coalition is fracturing, and a bitter 
battle is being joined over the Clinton-backed effort to develop a rating 
and labeling system for the Internet.  
   On one side are the big, mainstream Internet and computer companies, 
led by America Online and Microsoft, which proclaim their eagerness to 
make cyberspace "safe for families.'' Lining up against them are 
free-speech advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union and 
the American Library Assn., which see ratings systems as censorship 
tools. 
   It's not exactly a fair fight: Ratings proponents have popular 
opinion, the economic interests of the industry and the power of the 
presidency on their side. But here's a prediction: The free-speech forces 
will lose the battle, but they'll ultimately win the war. And with a 
little luck there won't be too much damage done in the interim. 
   The debate over ratings begins with a technology called PICS, which 
stands for "platform for Internet content selection.'' PICS is a 
mechanism for labeling Web pages according to their content. The labels 
can then be read by a software program, which in turn can block access to 
sites that have specific types of content. 
 
PICS itself is not a ratings system, but rather a     method for 
implementing a ratings system. The theory is that once PICS is in place 
throughout the Internet, a multiplicity of ratings systems would emerge. 
A Christian Coalition ratings system might block access to anything with 
any sexual content as well as certain political sites, for example, while 
another system might block only hard-core porn. Parents and others could 
easily choose. 
   So far, so good. There would be no law requiring Web sites to use PICS 
labels; the Clinton administration has stressed that any ratings plan 
would be voluntary. But parents and others would get a new toolone more 
robust and effective than existing software programs, such as 
CyberPatrol, that block out sites deemed unsuitable for kids. 
   The free speech purists have a philosophical objection even to this. 
""Ratings systems are developed to enable one individual to exercise 
control over what another person sees,'' says Marc Rotenberg, director of 
the Electronic Privacy Information Center. That might be OK for parents 
and their children, he allows, but such a tool will inevitably be used by 
public institutions and governmentsif not here then abroadto restrict 
speech. 
   An even bigger worry is that what's being sold as a voluntary system 
that will include a multiplicity of ratings systems is actually going to 
be an all-but-mandatory system that offers very few choices. 
   Consider, first of all, what happens to Web sites that decline to rate 
their pages. Any PICS-based filter would have to block all unrated pages. 
Already, ratings proponents are calling on the major search services, 
such as Yahoo, not to index unrated sites. Overseas Web services would 
face the choice of adopting a U.S. labeling system or forgoing access to 
any U.S. readers. Web publishers that didn't want to participate might 
suddenly find themselves in a deserted backwater of the network. 
   There's also the question of how disputes over ratings would be 
arbitrated. Sites would be self-rated, and in fact the vast majority of 
sites would have no incentive to misrepresent themselves. But what 
happens when some do anyway? Would it be a crime for a porn site to 
proclaim itself suitable for children? 
   At the moment, moreover, it doesn't appear that there are a variety of 
ratings systems under development representing different values. In fact, 
a system being created by the Recreational Software Advisory Council, a 
Microsoft-led industry group, is quickly emerging as a de facto standard. 
   The battles over how RSAC handles certain kinds of sites have only 
just begun, but to see the inevitable problems one need look no further 
than the ongoing discussion about news. 
 
N   ews sites, reasonably enough, don't want to rate     themselves. At 
the very least it would be impractical to label every page of a big news 
site every day to warn of violent or tasteless or otherwise disturbing 
content. And labeling news just doesn't seem very consistent with freedom 
of the press. 
   So the news organizations want to have a special news rating. Who 
qualifies for a news rating? Well, a committeeoperating under the 
auspices of the Internet Content Coalition, which represents a number of 
major publishers (including The Times)would decide. News organizations 
get together to decide who is and who isn't a news organization. Hmm. 
   In the face of these objections, the Clinton administration and the 
companies backing the ratings effort say that, first of all, something 
has to be done to stave off new legislation. If industry doesn't act, 
Congress will come up with "son of CDA,'' and this time it might hold up 
in court. 
   There are other motives too, though, namely a desire to expand the 
market. "Nothing is as important as making this medium 
family-friendly,'' America Online Chairman Steve Case declared here last 
week. 
   That's funny coming from him, because AOL owes much of its success to 
its decidedly un-family-friendly sex-chat rooms, but he's obviously 
decided that a clean image is important to further growth. The online 
giant is spearheading a two-day meeting here in October, where the 
ratings battle is likely to come to a head. 
   The administration and the big companies both want to bring the 
Internet into the mainstream. If some of its wilder and woollier aspects 
are marginalized in the process, well, good. 
   And that is the nightmare of free-speech advocates: that a medium that 
the Supreme Court declared ought to be treated at least as liberally as 
print (ever heard of ratings for books?) will nonetheless be driven into 
TV-like conformity. 
This is a legitimate fear. Personally, though, I don't     think the 
worst will happen. The Internet is simply too big, too diverse and too 
fast-changing to be tamed by even a semi-voluntary ratings mechanism. The 
business interests, moreover, cut both ways: Family-friendly might look 
like a way to expand the market today, but pornography and gambling and 
even radical politics are sure to remain a big part of the online 
landscape. 
   AOL's Case says that online service providers competing on the basis 
of who is more family-friendly would be akin to airlines competing based 
on their safety records. That's a ridiculous analogy: Everyone thinks 
plane crashes are bad, but not everyone feels the same way about controls 
on Internet content. 
   In my ideal world, Internet providers should be competing based on 
values, not trying to impose some kind of bogus consensus. 
   Esther Dyson, one of the industry's most respected thinkers, favors 
the development of PICS as a tool but stresses the importance of 
choicesand of people taking responsibility for their actions. In the 
wired world, she says, power is constantly shifting and devolving away 
from central authorities, and that requires individuals to be less 
passive: "I want local control,'' she says. "I don't want no control.'' 
   PICS and RSAC have powerful forces behind them and stand a good chance 
of establishing themselves as part of the mainstream Internet. But 
there's a natural tendency toward diversity in cyberspace, and it's hard 
to see how they would become ubiquitous. 
   If individuals and organizations are vigilant about how ratings are 
usedi.e., not by governments and not by public institutions such as 
librariesthere's a chance that they'll remain what they were originally 
intended to be: one of many means for people to manage the often 
unmanageable Internet. 
 
   Jonathan Weber (Jonathan.Weber@latimes.com) is editor of The Cutting 
Edge. 


**********************************************************************

Jonathan Weber
Jonathan.Weber@latimes.com
Technology Editor
Los Angeles Times

DM, JW, *please* get more info on PICS. in the early stages of its
development, many people were interested in using the rating
system to rate *cool* pages. that is, the same system could be
used to point to neat content and help people navigate. therefore,
your examples always involving censorious groups like the
"christian coalitian" is highly misleading. have you heard
of the "point communications" awards, surely? such a system
would benefit immensely from the standardization of ratings that
PICS is trying to achieve..


I urge all rabid libertarians to get a clue about what the
rating systems are actually trying to accomplish.



>From: Jonathan Weber <Jonathan.Weber@latimes.com>
>To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
>Subject: ratings story
>
>
>Innovation/ Jonathan Weber 
> 
>A New Battle   Over Keeping   the Web Clean   
>
>   On one side are the big, mainstream Internet and computer companies, 
>led by America Online and Microsoft, which proclaim their eagerness to 
>make cyberspace "safe for families.'' Lining up against them are 
>free-speech advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union and 
>the American Library Assn., which see ratings systems as censorship 
>tools. 

this is a silly us vs. them characterization for simpleminds of a much
more complex issue. there are no clearly defined sides and it's not
a war.

>""Ratings systems are developed to enable one individual to exercise 
>control over what another person sees,'' says Marc Rotenberg, director of 
>the Electronic Privacy Information Center. That might be OK for parents 
>and their children, he allows, but such a tool will inevitably be used by 
>public institutions and governmentsif not here then abroadto restrict 
>speech. 

not if the constitution is valid in our own country. let's cross that
bridge when the government comes to it. no reason to spread fear,
uncertainty, and doubt over something that's not happened.

>   An even bigger worry is that what's being sold as a voluntary system 
>that will include a multiplicity of ratings systems is actually going to 
>be an all-but-mandatory system that offers very few choices. 

worry, worry, fear, fear. same as with CDA. just as baseless in
the long run.

>   Consider, first of all, what happens to Web sites that decline to rate 
>their pages. Any PICS-based filter would have to block all unrated pages. 

bzzzzzzzzzzzzt. those that use the filters are free to configure them
how they want. virtually all the filtering software allows different
levels of security. one can often treat the bad rating as merely an
advisory warning.

>Already, ratings proponents are calling on the major search services, 
>such as Yahoo, not to index unrated sites.

who is calling for this? PICS was designed with the idea that many
ratings would be by third-parties. I don't think self-ratings are 
going to be that common on the net, and its really absurd for anyone
to pretend there is going to be a major pressure on anyone to
"rate" their sites.   who are these nameless advocates? where is
the data? this article is about nothing but baseless speculation.

 Overseas Web services would 
>face the choice of adopting a U.S. labeling system or forgoing access to 
>any U.S. readers. Web publishers that didn't want to participate might 
>suddenly find themselves in a deserted backwater of the network. 

yes, one can create all kinds of scary scenarios when you have a teeny
brain that is overcome with fright over the slightest new situation in
life. 

>   There's also the question of how disputes over ratings would be 
>arbitrated. Sites would be self-rated, and in fact the vast majority of 
>sites would have no incentive to misrepresent themselves. But what 
>happens when some do anyway? Would it be a crime for a porn site to 
>proclaim itself suitable for children? 

SELF RATINGS are not the main use of ratings. ratings mostly make
sense with THIRD PARTIES doing the rating. there is no such thing
as "misrepresentation". who is it that thinks everything is going
to be "self rated"? whoever does is missing the essential
THIRD PARTY ASPECT that is designed into the core of PICS.

>   At the moment, moreover, it doesn't appear that there are a variety of 
>ratings systems under development representing different values. In fact, 
>a system being created by the Recreational Software Advisory Council, a 
>Microsoft-led industry group, is quickly emerging as a de facto standard. 

so what?

>   The battles over how RSAC handles certain kinds of sites have only 
>just begun, but to see the inevitable problems one need look no further 
>than the ongoing discussion about news. 

"battles, fights"-- the mentality of the person who wrote this is clear.
where is this fighting going on ? who are the people? I haven't seen
any fights except a lot of fearmongering in cyberspace over completely
hypothetical situations.

>N   ews sites, reasonably enough, don't want to rate     themselves. At 
>the very least it would be impractical to label every page of a big news 
>site every day to warn of violent or tasteless or otherwise disturbing 
>content. And labeling news just doesn't seem very consistent with freedom 
>of the press. 

SELF RATING is not going to be a major use of ratings. existing 
filtering software rarely works through SELF RATING. whoever focuses
on SELF RATING relative to the rating systems doesn't have a clue about
the major use of the technology.

>   So the news organizations want to have a special news rating. Who 
>qualifies for a news rating? Well, a committeeoperating under the 
>auspices of the Internet Content Coalition, which represents a number of 
>major publishers (including The Times)would decide. News organizations 
>get together to decide who is and who isn't a news organization. Hmm. 

bzzzzzzzzzzzt. anyone is free to rate anything. this coalition can get
together and rate anything they want right now. PICS does not change
that. it only gives a way for users who CHOOSE TO to access those
ratings and integrate them with their browsers.

>   In the face of these objections, the Clinton administration and the 
>companies backing the ratings effort say that, first of all, something 
>has to be done to stave off new legislation. If industry doesn't act, 
>Congress will come up with "son of CDA,'' and this time it might hold up 
>in court. 

the earth might stop rotating tomorrow, too. why is it that we have
a constitution but we don't believe in it? that those who scream the
loudest about constitutional violations are those that are least likely
to believe in it?

>   And that is the nightmare of free-speech advocates: that a medium that 
>the Supreme Court declared ought to be treated at least as liberally as 
>print (ever heard of ratings for books?) will nonetheless be driven into 
>TV-like conformity. 

absurd.

>This is a legitimate fear.

especially if you like to engage in fearmongering.

>   PICS and RSAC have powerful forces behind them and stand a good chance 
>of establishing themselves as part of the mainstream Internet.

they represent DECENTRALIZED control at the heart, as anyone with half
a brain can recognize..