So, I have been thinking about this Cambria Struggles in Senate Porn Hearings

[Jim]

It seems that at least once/day there is a commercial on TV about the Vchip. You know, those little PG13 Ratings in the corner of TV shows that the Vchip works with.

So, why have computer manufacturers not used the same technology? Wouldn't that solve all the problems. Parents could put in the PC or Mac that it can't access anything Rated R or above and the government could fine any adult site not willing to comply.

That puts the responsibility back in both the parents hands and the website owners hands.

Just an idea...

[Greenguy]

I for one would not mind a general rating system for every US hosted website - it'd be a HUGE pain in the ass to set up, but that's what search & replace it for :)

[Greenguy]

Hell, get the SE's involved - no rating text on the page, no listing - that'd encourage webmasters (mainstream & adult) to get their sites set up properly.

[MeatPounder]

A hard chip embedded into the mobo might even withstand the hacks of most if not all of the savvy youth, which a software solution thus far has been unable to do.

One problem with any type of security that depends on the adults technical savvy is sure to fail as the youth of today are so much more advanced then most of their parents and they can bypass everything available today that the parents have the ability to set.

You would be amazed at how naive most computer users are even to this day. A perfect example is that with at least 50% of my new clients, the virus protection they received with their new computer has expired and they just ignore that. they are just surfing along with out any protection at all, and most do not even realize it.

There absolutely must in my opinion, be an effort by the webmasters to somehow identify their sites as pornographic or adult, but after they do so the responsibility must then fall on the parent to filter what their children can access.

A v-chip sounds good, but would that be enabled by default on all new computers? That would cause an uproar larger then any seen before. So it would have to be shipped turned off by default, and thus would be absolutely worthless as most people would not be bothered to enable it.

[Jim]

I for one would not mind a general rating system for every US hosted website - it'd be a HUGE pain in the ass to set up, but that's what search & replace it for :)
Yeah, it really wouldn't be that difficult. That way, no parent has to buy any software, people not using IE would still have protection and all would be right with the world.

[Jim]

It could all be the setup of a new computer. When they first fire it up, like AOL, it asks if someone under 18 would be using it. Then, the adult could then have an option to pick a rating that the computer would go to. We can't do everything for the parents but we can do our part.

[RawAlex]

My feeling has always been that without a rating meta on page, browsers by nature should not open webpages. Regardless of the nature of the site, rate it from G to XXX and away you go. Use similar guidelines to those in the TV / cable industry, with the understanding that we have net ratings that are far beyond normal TV.

Most importantly, these ratings need to require nothing more than a meta tag put on a page. No registration, no forms to fill out, no bullshit. Quite simple, we rate out pages, and the browser manufactures key on that tag and work from there. Over a period of time, all pages would require to be rated, and in the end, (say end of 2006) all browsers must be compliant as distributed in the US.

If someone wants to manually write a work around, it would be no different from password trading or hacking. I am sure people do it, I am sure some people would get past the blocks, but the reality would be that our industry (and the web as a whole) would have made a good faith effort to allow parents to control their children's access to adult material online.

Sometimes the simpliest solutions are not the ones people will even grasp.

Alex

[Surfn]

I wonder how any one or any government can get the entire internet to agree on something. Take a look around at the real off line world and tell me the online world of more anonymity could work better on reaching an agreement? I hesitate to believe that it could ever happen.

Then again what do I know. Good luck in your efforts.

[F/X2.0]

why doesn't the adult industry git together and hire some programmers to create the ultimate blocking software for kids and give this software away for free?... ( just think of the PR..)
if the big boys of the industry split the cost of developing this it would be negligible and then nobody (disgruntled parents) would have an excuse for not using it since would be free easy to install and set up, works on all platforms and if you set up the development ( open source perhaps?) right it could probably be a major tax deduction and cheaper than the attorneys needed to fight with Congress/whoever...
...

have everybody put links to some place it could be downloaded from like sourceforge.net

just a stupid idea from an idiot what do you think?|waves|

[SirMoby]

Why do we need a chip? Browsers currently have the capability in them today. Unfortunately no one seems interested in using them.

I know people aren't big fans of ICRA labels but I use them and I get emails every couple of months from some one unhappy because their kid purchased a membership to my site.

Doesn't IE support rating systems using ICRA labels today?

I'm happy to use meta tags and labels. I don't care what it is but sooner or later we'll have to use them so why not start now?

[MadMax]

I've used ICRA tags from the day I learned what they were. I rate every page on every domain the same, as if it had hardcore everywhere...that way I can use a domain-wide tag and not worry about it.

The thing that really pisses me off about all of this is that filtering software DOES work...IF parents take the 5 minutes to set it up. OF COURSE filtering software doesn't protect kids from porn if it's not installed or configured, and sites hosted overseas are beyond the reasonable reach of the DOJ anyway. This is just another example of our industry getting bashed because it makes good headlines.

[MeatPounder]

Admitted, that the US govt DOES have enough pull to require all the major pc manufacturers to require them to put such a chip in every computer sold in the US.

The manufacturers would fall right in line with little hesitation.

As far as demanding the rest of the world to follow the requirement of putting a rating on their sites, that is absurd.
But If the chip once enabled (by the owners choice only) will only allow that computer to view rated sites, then it is up to webmasters in the rest of the world to decide if they want the people who have the chip enabled to visit their pages. They can either voluntarily put a rating on their sites or basically ignore the request and thus those surfers.

The question then lies...who checks to see if the webmaster put the correct rating on their site? Or for that matter which rating a site should have?
Big Brother and a taxpayer funded watchdog group? The bible Thumpers? George W himself?
Who could enforce if I put a pg rating on an anal site?

[Surfn]

Guys this isn't the isolationistic society of pre WW2 U.S. This is a global problem and has to be address as such. If one or two countries make something illegal there are plenty of other countries willing to make money from that ban because of their morals and their societal mores.

Just like drugs. Look how effective our laws are at taking drugs off the streets and out of the hands of users.


While I have no solution I certainly admire the global problem.

[SirMoby]

While I have no solution I certainly admire the global problem.
You're correct Srufn.

However, if programs that use American billing systems start requiring webmasters to use labels, Google, Yahoo and MS all support them then that would cover the vast majority of what's out there.

Sooner or later Visa will come under pressure from the administration and if no rating system is on the table then they'll have no choice to pull out of adult completely.

The rating system built into browsers works fine if us webmasters choose to use the labels and someone starts educating people on how to configure their browsers.

[Tommy]

what if we took the first step and requred labels on all submits

[RawAlex]

Madmax: ICRA tags are a waste because they require active registration. It should not be any more than a regular meta tag you just put on the site, not a registration process. Registering websites just makes another profitable non profit organization with people on the payroll making money to do nothing.

Tommy, it would be possible, but we would need to set some standards and make it easy.

Alex

[Toby]

Agreed, it should be as simple as adding <META NAME="rating" CONTENT="adult"> to the Head of every page

[Ms Naughty]

Toby, that just sounds far too easy LOL Is it really possible?

Can you just make up a html tag like META NAME="rating"? What would be required for that tag to become official?

I put ICRA labels on my sites, it's a nice way to prove I'm making an effort.

[Toby]

I didn't make up the the tag, it's completely valid HTML. However, at this point in time there is nothing built in to any of the browsers to utilize it.

[LowryBigwood]

what if we took the first step and requred labels on all submits

Hey Tommy,

That might be doable for those you who have paid reviewers, but for myself, I can't imagine the extra overhead that would create. I certainly don't have time to view source on every submission to check for a label.

There has to be another solution. |huh

[SirMoby]

Hey Tommy,

That might be doable for those you who have paid reviewers, but for myself, I can't imagine the extra overhead that would create. I certainly don't have time to view source on every submission to check for a label.

There has to be another solution. |huh
A script modification that would simply look for the label would be fine.

Perhaps our website should state clearly that there already is a way to label websites that is supported by browsers and we are using it. Unfortunately it has issues and we are willing to make a more easily used standard.

Alex, you don't actually have to register. It's a strange process that helps them send out urls to blocking software. Any ICRA tag, from any website can will actually work and I just have it on my server.

[Ms Naughty]

Toby, sorry, maybe that didn't come out right. I could see it was good html. :)

Perhaps we can ask the open source geeks at Firefox to make a plugin for their browser?

[LowryBigwood]

A script modification that would simply look for the label would be fine.



That could work, if I can convince the programmers to add that to my LL script. But, I have another worry. I might not get any submissions if I do that or very few at first. Howlong will it take the freesite, gallery submitters to jump on the bandwagon?

I guess I could always give 30-90 days notice on my webmaster submit and thank you page, stating that after that time period, no more submissions without a label will be accepted.

I'll let the big boys make the first move. |goodidea

[tickler]

Toby, that just sounds far too easy LOL Is it really possible?

Can you just make up a html tag like META NAME="rating"? What would be required for that tag to become official?

I put ICRA labels on my sites, it's a nice way to prove I'm making an effort.
Yep, you can make up any meta-tag that you want. The software(browser) just has to be programmed to actually read it.
<META NAME="politics" CONTENT="Dubya is an ass">

Before we get too far, you might want to read what the right thinks of the hearing.
http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Web_Exclusive_News&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=255628

"Jack Valenti, former chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, told the Senate committee that it's really up to parents to control what their children see on television. "

The response from the right: "Brent Bozell, president of the Parents Television Council (PTC), remarked that by placing the entire responsibility on parents does nothing to solve the real problems faced by families."

They refuse to take any responsibility as parents.|club|

[Greenguy]

what if we took the first step and requred labels on all submits...as well as legit warning pages with no nudity (and yes, I am serious)

[Toby]

The really sad part is, many of us are already doing these things, and Mr. Cambria didn't know enough to say so when given the opportunity.

[SirMoby]

The really sad part is, many of us are already doing these things, and Mr. Cambria didn't know enough to say so when given the opportunity.
Cambria is a brilliant man, studied material and spoke to what he thought were experts in the field. Unfortunately, this is a common issue with executives. They often chat among themselves and their peers and end up not having a clue what's happening in the trenches. My guess is that he has spoken with Larry Walters who is trying to patent and make a killing on his verification system so he was misinformed about what's happening in the real world.

Cambria obviously was not the guy that should be talking about technology. He was accompanied by 2 high profile executives that also do not know what's happening. It's normal for these folks to jump at the chance to speak in front of congress as it looks great on the resume and a nice story to tell.

Cambria was probably the right guy to deliver a speech.

In the world of securing large scale networks we had a solution for this. We would always pair an executive with a well spoken and well groomed tech guy.

At any rate, it seems clear that we need to educate not only the world but our legal counsel.

[RawAlex]

SirMoby, I fear that you are correct. Some people are almost certainly attempting to manipulate the system to get their product to be the prefered system, thus making a total ass load of money.

It is also clear to me that most of the major studios and larger "name" membership sites don't feel that they would be major losers if free online porn went away. In fact, I am sure that most of them feel that they would profit directly from the removal of free sites, galleries, and TGPs. These woul often be the people that Cambria would be speaking to, and their slanted view of the world can change what it is that is said in public.

Any system for filtering that requires any registration or logging of pages is an unreasonable burden. Any system that requires payment, a credit card, or other action that requires registration by the end client is a unreasonable restriction of free speech (one of the reasons COPA keeps failing).

As a free site webmaster, I am loath to have to go back and register each page I make with ICRA or to make every site into some sort of AVS site that profits a third party. I also feel that this sort of "top down" order within the US would have only the effect to move porn offshore and not limit or restrict it in the slightest. Companies and sites would move to better jurisdictions, and because the net knows few boundries, the porn would still be there, and the children would still have access and nothing will have changed. The USA law makers need to realize that the tail cannot wag the dog, even if the tail is a really big tail.

Alex

[plateman]

well here we go again.... time to worry again? does anyone think this sort of regulation will be drawn out for years or sooner?

the US GOV in there attempt to clean-up porn on the internet and keep it away from minors is a good idea... but the whole world is not gonna go along with it... and look at most adult owners with children using the pc at home most wont even maintain there system or even update to a browser that would filter out porn content...

Also what is the most likely future of our biz we built up?

[SirMoby]

well here we go again.... time to worry again? does anyone think this sort of regulation will be drawn out for years or sooner?

the US GOV in there attempt to clean-up porn on the internet and keep it away from minors is a good idea... but the whole world is not gonna go along with it... and look at most adult owners with children using the pc at home most wont even maintain there system or even update to a browser that would filter out porn content...

Also what is the most likely future of our biz we built up?
That's all very true but I don't care. I've labeled everything on all of my servers so if parents want to take the time to protect their kids they can.

I would also like to organize, motivate and get moving a solution that would allow more webmasters to more easily label sites and create a website to educate parents in blocking adult sites.

Sure some stuff will slip through but does that mean that we shouldn't accept responsibility and that we should not put forth some effort?

[LowryBigwood]

well here we go again.... time to worry again? does anyone think this sort of regulation will be drawn out for years or sooner?


Seems like the normal thing to do in this biz. Everytime I start making progress, something new comes along that threatens to wipe out my entire adult biz.



the US GOV in there attempt to clean-up porn on the internet and keep it away from minors is a good idea... but the whole world is not gonna go along with it... and look at most adult owners with children using the pc at home most wont even maintain there system or even update to a browser that would filter out porn content...


This is what gets me too. All the U.S. govt is going to succeed in doing is putting out a lot of hard working American adult webmasters. There will still be loads of free porn everywhere, thus not solving anything. I'm not sure what the government is smoking, but it's gonna be some heavy duty stuff.


Also what is the most likely future of our biz we built up?

I can't speculate on that, but suddenly mainstream seems so appealing.

[LowryBigwood]

I would also like to organize, motivate and get moving a solution that would allow more webmasters to more easily label sites and create a website to educate parents in blocking adult sites.


Quick question SirMoby.

Would all pages need a label directly within the page?

Would it be possible to submit your domain to a database or something that is setup to hold adult urls, that is checked as surfers browse sites?

For example, maybe a parent could go to the site that is setup to provide info and how to protect their children literature. If they chose to use the technology, they could download your software and install it, that then queries the database when browsing sites for possible adult domains. If it finds that it is an adult site, maybe it could permantly block it, where it would no longer query that domain if attempting to suf it, but just block it out.

I don't know too much about databases, not much at all in fact, so this could be not even possible to do. Or it may cause severe slowdown when browsing.

If this could work, once you submitted the root level domain, it could automaticaly assume any subdomains or directories on that domain are therefore adult as well.

This probably is the dumbest idea yet. But, If I hadn't of ran out of |potleaf| yesterday, I could of probably been a lot more creative. |loony|

[walrus]

Interesting were having this debate when in the court rooms pedophiles are getting almost no punishment.

In Wisconson (http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48402)

In Vermont (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1500859)

In Mass. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48397)

[LowryBigwood]

Interesting were having this debate when in the court rooms pedophiles are getting almost no punishment.

In Wisconson (http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48402)

In Vermont (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1500859)

In Mass. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48397)

That is sickening. Wtf is wrong with these judges? |club|

[SirMoby]

Quick question SirMoby.

Would all pages need a label directly within the page?

Would it be possible to submit your domain to a database or something that is setup to hold adult urls, that is checked as surfers browse sites?
|loony|
Right now it's not difficult to use ICRA labels across your entire server or domain. When it's server based you register 1 url and then add it can be added to all domains on the same server.

There's no need to download any software if they're using IE because it's built in. I think if it requires additional software then it's too difficult for parents to use and someone has to maintain that software.

As pointed out by a few others meta tags would be best but I think we need to start educating people on ICRA labels and present a better alternative fast.

[Bill]

I don't see why ICRA is in any way preferable to using meta tags. If we are going to invest energy into something why not pick the better technology first?

I'm not familiar with how the current blocking softwares work - but many of us already put metas on every page to help blocking softwares. How do we find out wether the blocking softwares are reacting to these common metas?

[SirMoby]

I don't see why ICRA is in any way preferable to using meta tags. If we are going to invest energy into something why not pick the better technology first?

ICRA labels are not a preferred method but 95% of the computers in homes today support the ICRA labels. Meta tags are far easier and a preferred method but I don't think IE supports them out of the box.

My suggestion is that we make the FSC and the Senate aware that ICRA labels exist but are not a good long term solution and promose the meta tags. Until then, we should support the use of ICRA labels as a temporary solution that needs to be updated.

[RawAlex]

I would not place my faith in a third party solution. What happens if ICRA folds, gets sued into the ground, or otherwise disappears?

Simple solutions are better than complicated ones.

Alex

[Bill]

I also don't like the idea of relying on a third party. There are already way to many thrid partys involved in this problem - varying browsers, varying blocking softwares with proprietary lists, etc.

But, the core idea of somehow getting the FSC , Senate, and others* to start talking about these kinds of solutions, sounds right to me.

The problem being that we have no access to the senate and almost none realistically to the FSC. The FSC has no internet department or experts, or so it seems.

So, does it seem then like the first step is to somehow get the FSC's attention?

What are your thoughts on how to inform the FSC and senate?

* the others being presumably microsoft, apple, and the browser manufacturers.

[Toby]

There's one person on the board at FSC that may be approachable on the topic, Conner Young from YNOT

[bDok]

I've used ICRA tags from the day I learned what they were. I rate every page on every domain the same, as if it had hardcore everywhere...that way I can use a domain-wide tag and not worry about it.


exactly. I just use the hardcore labels. Just would rather say i'm over labeling then under.

Cheers,
B

[walrus]

I would not place my faith in a third party solution. What happens if ICRA folds, gets sued into the ground, or otherwise disappears?

Simple solutions are better than complicated ones.

Alex
Alex,

Your not, ICRA and a few other ratings services as well as IE uses the W3C consortium Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) and you can study the documentation and put together your meta-tag without using a rating service but to be quite honest it is much easier to let a rating service, like ICRA, generate the tag for you. But if you want to learn more about it and figure out its complex structure http://www.w3.org/PICS/. They also have links to other rating services if ICRA is your problem.

[Bill]

Really? Well, what's the code then? If it's a simple universal code why isn't it as commonly known as <meta name="rating" content="Adult"> or it's variations?

If it's a universal code there must be some script somewhere to generate it. I wonder where that script would be?

On a related note, contacting Connor Young sounds good, but we had better have a coherent message, and we'd better be able to speak more loudly than in the past, because so far we haven't managed to get much attention.

[SirMoby]

It's really very simple. ICRA is a poor long term solution but it is available today. It would be better to tell Senate that we're using this poor system today but everyone would be better off with a better system such as ......

[walrus]

Really? Well, what's the code then? If it's a simple universal code why isn't it as commonly known as <meta name="rating" content="Adult"> or it's variations?

If it's a universal code there must be some script somewhere to generate it. I wonder where that script would be?

Before I got a bit sarcastic, I personally would have followed the link I provided and looked through the document there. All the information you asked for is contained right there.

I never said it was a simple tag, I did say the documentation was there for someone to read and the instructions are available if you want to do them yourself. If you don't, you have a choice of more than 1 place to go to have the tag generated for you.

[PR_Tom]

I checked out the PICS format for a bit, and it seems to me that ICRA is (basically) a high-level implementation of PICS guidelines which seems to only make use of the third-best method. (the meta tag method)

Best method according to the specs is for the server to send the headers with each request. This would seem to be the simplest solution for Adult servers to use, wouldnt it?

cd34 or some server guru should check out that link, as I'm pretty sure Apache could probably be set up to send those headers for every single request sent to a server.

[MeatPounder]

LOL, I know from my server stats that I always hit peaks of traffic during US business hrs, that implies that an awful lot of of US workers are browsing porn on the job ;)

The use of ICRA labels will sure cut that down...LMAO

[Bill]

Well, sorry Walrus, I do feel a bit sarcastic about it, because we've had this conversation more than a few times, and each time that page comes up, and each time I'm left with the conclusion that PICS page is utterly impenetrable, and each time it turns out there isn't any simple way to write one's own simple PICS code.

I could be wrong, but I defy anyone here, except maybe cd34, to go to that page and come away with an understanding of how to write a PICS code for their own pages within less than two hours. Hell, within less than a day.

Have you read it? I have, and I still don't have the slightest idea what the fuck they are talking about.

An impenetrable standard is just as bad as no standard at all. Actually, it's worse than no standard.

If it's a simple matter to set servers to send PICS responses to requests, why isn't everyone doing this already? Why isn't this the default setting offered by adult hosts?

However, I personally don't think this conversation should be about ICRA, or even about forcing computer manufacturers to put a nonexistent v-chip into all computers.

It should be about figuring out a better way to give webmasters a political voice.

[Bill]

So, talking about the political voice aspect of this, here are some of the issues that I'm seeing in this problem...

It's probably not practical to think about organizing webmasters - it's been tried before and has failed every time.

But, if we want a voice, we would need some type of organization.

It seems to me that the most practical thing would be to try to get the FSC to establish a genuinely effective "Internet Department". To ally ourselves with that older established organization, but to _make_ them institute some organizational changes so that our concerns and issues get put on the political table alongside the concerns of the video manufacturers and bookstore owners.

This means something like witholding this years membershio fees unless they establish a real internet department, with someone like Connor Young in charge, a department that listens to us and which brings the FSC into the 21st century.

So, thats my suggestion, a letter writing campaign in which we say we will withold membership unless an internet department is established.

There should be a carrot, too - that is, we should commit to doubling our contribution when an internet department is established.

[chadknowslaw]

What would really work? Something that is simple and easy to implement but makes it more difficult for kids to access porn [nothing will ever be foolproof. Check out any popular bar to see underage people drinking, even after they have given a real live bouncer an "ID" ].
If the industry is pro-active and presents a solution that we can work with, we will be better off than a stupid solution that the government will most certainly conjure up. Look at what they did with the 2257 law! If that had been in place, Traci Lords would still have appeared in all those videos. I don't mean to be on a soapbox, but that stupid law does not require the producer to log the date the image was made--which is absolutely necessary to determine if it is CP or not. |banghead|

[Bill]

This page talks about an interesting article about 'trustmarks', ICRA, browsers, and search engines...

http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/003204.html

---------------
From the interview:

"Do you think that the search engines will start actively looking for trustmarks? Might this impact on search results, rendering trustmarks obligatory? "

Paul's response:

"They will actively look for trustmarks. As I said earlier, browsers are falling over themselves to be the first to support content rating and quality labelling.

We’re also meeting with the leading search engines in the US this week. "
------------------

I personally don't like ICRA, but it's possible it will become more significant.

I still think a simple meta tag, that could be put on every page, that didn't require a third party, that told every browser this was adults only porn page and that redirected requests from all non adult browsers, is the best solution.

[Halfdeck]

All it takes is a few of the biggest LLs/TGPs announcing a new rule requiring ICRA/meta tags -- the rest will follow suit.

After skimming a few PICS docs, I'm not sure which part is so complicated.|huh

((PICS-version 1.1)
(rating-system "http://www.link-o-rama.com/child-idiot-safe/")
(rating-service "http://adultrating.link-o-rama.com/")
(name "Greenguy's Rating Service")
(description "Running a professional business means we go the distance to protect kids from being accidentally exposed to porn. Copyright 2006. All Rights Reserved.")

(category (transmit-as "h") (name "Hardcore Rating")
(label
(name "Gentle kissing and caressing")
(value 0))
(label
(name "french kissing, nipple sucking, rubbing pussy")
(value 1))
(label
(name "Face slapping, choking, ass fingering")
(value 2))
(label
(name "repeated facial cumshots while fucking a roomful of strangers")
(value 3))
(label
(name "Cleo's avatar")
(value 10))

What am I missing?

[Bill]

The funny thing is, it is so fucking arcane I didn't realize you were joking til I was almost done reading, halfdeck. ;-}

Here's a real ICRA tag from one of my crappy old-as-shit domains:

<meta http-equiv="PICS-Label" content='(PICS-1.1 "&lt;http://www.rsac.org/ratingsv01.html&gt;" l gen true comment "RSACi North America Server" for "&lt;http://www.maidenheads.com&gt;" on "1999.10.05T02:09-0800" r (n 4 s 4 v 0 l 4))'>

Just look at all the junk in that tag. Does anybody see anything at all that looks like a browser command telling kids to stay off?

Why can't it be simplified to something like:

<meta http-equiv="PICS-Label" content="Adult">

Even "PICS-Label" is obtuse. It doesn't mean what it appears to mean. What ordinary person would have the vaguest idea what "PICS" means? This is stuff that was invented by the geekiest ubergeeks of the early internet, people who couldn't speak plain english if their lives depended on it.

We need a rating system that is crystal clear, obvious to even the most dimwitted parent and politician, universally understandable, ideally even to non english speakers, and quick and easy to use.

[PR_Tom]

LOL yep! Arcane as all hell.. It *SHOULD* be amazingly simple! All a filtering software needs to be able to do is get the data, and all we need to do is insert the data. Thats it! Overcoming any technical difficulties is what we should have had done years ago.

I think the hosts should be able to simply add a Reply sent back to ANY Request sent. It's fundamental to how the internet functions. We need something *that* low level IMHO. Idiotproof!

So, we need to know the most popular and common "kid-safe" browser filters on the market today, and we need a server tech to see how they function, and then install on a server the auto-reply info to test it.

I'm going to phone my server tech on monday and see what he has to say I think. It sounds so ridiculously simple..

[RawAlex]

Halfdeck, rating a site with ICRA isn't hard on a single case basis. If you own a single site, and want to register that single site and make all the pages compliant, it isn't difficult, but can be a little involved (plus it adds just a ton of crap onto the page that is not in the slightest SE friendly).

Now, let's say you produce 10 new sites each day, 100 new galleries each week, and manage hundreds of domains.

ICRA is just an added nightmare that, like cross referenced 2257 documents, wastes time and generates little return compared to simpler and more direct solutions.

<meta http-equiv="PICS-Label" content="Adult">

What could be simpler? No third parties... no junk tags... no huge multi line piece of shit tag wasting bandwidth and adding little to the solution. Why the heck use the DIFFICULT solution when an easy one is right at hand?

When you put a third party in the middle of your transactions, your business is controlled by someone else. Live free or die, right? Why the fuck let someone else get in the middle of your business?

Alex

[Halfdeck]

Here's a real ICRA tag from one of my crappy old-as-shit domains:

<meta http-equiv="PICS-Label" content='(PICS-1.1 "&lt;http://www.rsac.org/ratingsv01.html&gt;" l gen true comment "RSACi North America Server" for "&lt;http://www.maidenheads.com&gt;" on "1999.10.05T02:09-0800" r (n 4 s 4 v 0 l 4))'>

Just look at all the junk in that tag.

Bill, I repeatedly see this obsolete ICRA code on websites. The current tag looks like this:

<link rel="meta" href="/labels.rdf" type="application/rdf+xml" />

which isn't much longer than:

<meta http-equiv="PICS-Label" content="Adult">

Alex, your point regarding third parties is well taken, though personally that doesn't bother me.

[Surfn]

Now as I see it this thread has turned into |skyfall| :D

[Bill]

Halfdeck, I'd have to be the first to admit then that my knowledge of ICRA tagging is obsolete.

I've already admitted I have a personal antipathy towards ICRA. Back then, at least, the website said you had to generate a new tag for every page of every domain. Every page had to be entered and rated.

So, perhaps you can appreciate the source of my disdain for ICRA.

Apparently now you can generate one tag per domain which can be used on every page- tho I have yet to test it.

This tag, tho:

<link rel="meta" href="/labels.rdf" type="application/rdf+xml" />

Still looks like it does and says absolutely nothing. It certainly doesn't look like a "Kids keep the fuck off this is porn and your parents will fucking kill you if they catch you looking at this page!" browser control tag.

I gather it points to a labeling file you have to upload to the server. And the labeling file contains the meaningless crap you used to have to put on your page.

Could you write a scriptlet that quickly produces a universal "THIS IS PORN" PICS tag? What would such a tag look like?

[Bill]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Oh my fucking god!

That ICRA site is ridiculous.

This is their list of "XXX" depictions, automatically selected when you click the "XXX" button...

Exposed breasts
Bare buttocks
Visible genitals
Passionate kissing
Obscured or implied sexual acts
Visible sexual touching
Explicit sexual language
Erections/explicit sexual acts
Erotica
No violence
Profanity or swearing
Mild expletives
No potentially harmful activities
User generated content may be, but is not known to be, present

That's what they rate for.

Where's the entry for...

Hardcore Fucking
Ass Slamming
Midget Anal
Gay Cumshots
Facial Cumshot

I guess all we have to check is...

Erections/explicit sexual acts

Since even broadcast TV has...

Exposed breasts
Bare buttocks
Passionate kissing
Obscured or implied sexual acts

I guess everything is XXX nowadays.

[Bill]

I guess this is the current form of the ICRA label:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
xmlns:label="http://www.w3.org/2004/12/q/contentlabel#"
xmlns:icra="http://www.icra.org/rdfs/vocabularyv03#">

<rdf:Description rdf:about="">
<dc:creator rdf:resource="http://www.icra.org" />
<dcterms:issued>2006-1-29</dcterms:issued>
<label:authorityFor>http://www.icra.org/rdfs/vocabularyv03#</label:authorityFor>
</rdf:Description>

<label:Ruleset>
<label:hasHostRestrictions>
<label:Hosts>
<label:hostRestriction>hot-latina-ass.net</label:hostRestriction>
</label:Hosts>
</label:hasHostRestrictions>
<label:hasDefaultLabel rdf:resource="#label_1" />
</label:Ruleset>

<label:ContentLabel rdf:ID="label_1">
<rdfs:comment>Label for all/most of website</rdfs:comment>
<icra:na>1</icra:na>
<icra:nb>1</icra:nb>
<icra:nc>1</icra:nc>
<icra:sa>1</icra:sa>
<icra:sb>1</icra:sb>
<icra:sc>1</icra:sc>
<icra:sd>1</icra:sd>
<icra:se>1</icra:se>
<icra:sf>1</icra:sf>
<icra:vz>1</icra:vz>
<icra:lb>1</icra:lb>
<icra:lc>1</icra:lc>
<icra:oz>1</icra:oz>
<icra:cz>0</icra:cz>
<rdfs:label>Exposed breasts; Bare buttocks; Visible genitals; Passionate kissing; Obscured or implied sexual acts; Visible sexual touching; Explicit sexual language; Erections/explicit sexual acts; Erotica; No violence; Profanity or swearing; Mild expletives; No potentially harmful activities; User generated content may be, but is not known to be, present; </rdfs:label>
</label:ContentLabel>

</rdf:RDF>

[RawAlex]

Bill, I repeatedly see this obsolete ICRA code on websites. The current tag looks like this:

<link rel="meta" href="/labels.rdf" type="application/rdf+xml" />

which isn't much longer than:

<meta http-equiv="PICS-Label" content="Adult">

Alex, your point regarding third parties is well taken, though personally that doesn't bother me.

Halfdeck, just taking the content out of the meta tag and sticking it into a file that has to be loaded really doesn't change the workload very much. It doesn't change the amount of crap being loaded on my pages.

It is like putting style sheets into a .css file as opposed to having the code on your page. It is neater, I agree, but the amount of code is still there. As Bill has just shown, the actual content of the tag is huge and long... and really, not much of it will actually stop children from visiting the site.

I don't want to give a detailed list of everything on my site, I just want to keep the kiddies out. My site is for adults. Adults can handle creast fondling, erections, and other things, I don't feel the need or the desire to list them out on each domain.

Worse, as I build subfolder sites, I would be required to add new tags each time to handle whatever the latest new folder site contains. It would be pointless.

Alex

[Halfdeck]

Lol, Bill, no one said ICRA tag is perfect -- then again, what is? The question is what better alternative do we have in our little box of tools to keep kids off our sites?

When faced with a choice between two evils -- A. an imperfect solution that keeps X% of minors off my sites and B. Doing nothing about the problem because I don't like my options --- I'd have to go with A, the lesser of two evils.


It is like putting style sheets into a .css file as opposed to having the code on your page. It is neater, I agree, but the amount of code is still there.

One advantage of creating a .css file is it doesn't load every time you visit a new page on the same domain. For free sites, one css file will cover multiple pages in one folder; for bigger sites, one css file will take care of an entire domain.


Worse, as I build subfolder sites, I would be required to add new tags each time to handle whatever the latest new folder site contains.

Alex, all you need to do is generate one catch-all ICRA file/tag and install it on your domain root. There's no need to visit ICRA 200+ times to generate a unique tag for every domain / subfolder you own.

I do agree that labels.rdf file is way bigger than it has to be. I'd also like to see things like "ass slamming" in the tag instead of "Erections/explicit sexual acts", but then I'd have to tag every page on my site with a unique tag, which would be a serious pain in the ass.

[RawAlex]

Halfdeck the choices should not be between a flawed and overdone system or nothing. Supporting option A is to make half ass and burdensome third party work the gold standard. That truly would be sad.

There are other choices. Our industry could easily go back to PICS and whatnot and say, look, we want to use:

<meta http-equiv="PICS-Label" content="Adult">

Simple and short. Make sure the browser companies can handle this going forward. Put it in their next update, next release. End discussion. We can toss a simple tag in, and the children get blocked.

Supporting a flawed system means we would have to live with the flaws. That isn't a very good choice.

Alex

[Halfdeck]

<meta http-equiv="PICS-Label" content="Adult">

Short, simple, and clean. If that tag actually worked, I'd love to use it. But from what I read regarding PICS, it requires a certain structure to work. Content='adult' seems to lie completely outside of valid PICS syntax.

As I understand it, a PICS-Label tag should declare the pics version (1.1), rating-service (where the PICS rule set and vocabulary is defined [similar to RSS files, or sitemaps where references are made to an exterior file which defines the structure of the sitemap]), and category values.

As an example, here's a tag off link-o-rama.com/ index page:

<META HTTP-EQUIV="PICS-Label" CONTENT='(PICS-1.1 "http://www.rsac.org/ratingsv01.html" l gen true comment "RSACi North America Server" for "http://www.link-o-rama.com/" on "1998.09.02T10:11-0800" r (n 4 s 4 v 0 l 3))'>

Where "(n 4 s 4 v 0 l 3)" are the category values "nudity=4, sex=4 violence=0 or 3(?)", the PIC version is 1.1 and the rule set used to be found at "http://www.rsac.org/ratingsv01.html"

For any PICS-label tag, there needs to be a file that defines the rule set, and your PICS tag uses values defined in that file to tell browsers what type of content is on that page.

In other words, if you want a "simple and short" solution, I don't see a way to do it without redefining the syntax of PICS, or as I pointed out, link off to an external file.

BTW Bill, the labels.rdf file seems to be a PICS rule set rewritten in RDF/XML -- that is why its so huge. It also refers to an XML file at "http://www.icra.org/rdfs/vocabularyv03" which defines what "na", "nb", "nc" all mean.

For example, "vj" is spelled out as "Torture ou mise à mort de personnages imaginaires (dont personnages d'animation)" in French :)

Modify those files, host them on your own server, and you should be able to cut out the middle man.

P.S. If all of this sound like technical mambo jumbo to you, and it is...like Walrus said, there are places besides icra.org where you can have all this code generated for you. Besides,the option not to use any tags is always there.

[Toby]

The problem with PICS is that it's trying to define multiple levels of adult content. That's overkill when the goal at this point is to simply keep kids out.

Keep it simple, or it will never get widely implemented.

[Jim]

Now as I see it this thread has turned into |skyfall| :D
Normally I would agree but with this law already on the books and the only thing stopping it from being enforced is a decision from a non-liberal Supreme Court, you are 100% wrong.

[Surfn]

Normally I would agree but with this law already on the books and the only thing stopping it from being enforced is a decision from a non-liberal Supreme Court, you are 100% wrong.
Time will tell :D

[walrus]

The problem with PICS is that it's trying to define multiple levels of adult content. That's overkill when the goal at this point is to simply keep kids out.

Keep it simple, or it will never get widely implemented.

I agree except what w3c tried to do was come up with a standard that not only was used to filter people away from your site but also one that could be picked up and used at the SE level to help promote your site.

[SirMoby]

The problem with PICS is that it's trying to define multiple levels of adult content. That's overkill when the goal at this point is to simply keep kids out.

Keep it simple, or it will never get widely implemented.
I don't agree as I think there should be many rating levels for "Adult Content". There are many levels of sexuality, hate, religeon, violence, etc.... that all need to be addressed.

We need to make a strong front and start asking news agencies why they aren't using labels when we are. We have a chance to do something good here.

[SirMoby]

Now as I see it this thread has turned into |skyfall| :DThat may be the case but shouldn't we be working on a rating system any way? At the core it's a good idea so why shouldn't we make up a working proposal?

[Toby]

I don't agree as I think there should be many rating levels for "Adult Content". There are many levels of sexuality, hate, religeon, violence, etc.... that all need to be addressed.

We need to make a strong front and start asking news agencies why they aren't using labels when we are. We have a chance to do something good here.What purpose will a multi-level system serve if it will never get implemented widely enough to be useful. And just who is going to determine these various ratings and how they're blocked? Just way too complicated to ever be effective.

Keep it simple. One rating, "adult", to define content not suitable for minors. Adult content filtering either ON or OFF. That has a far better chance to get implemented.

[SirMoby]

Have you looked at the different levels that are already supported by browsers? You can't possibly think they're complicated.

Also with only one rating then it's real easy for an ISP under pressure from the crazies to just block all adult or for new laws to be placed that require all adult to use AVS.

By breaking out different ratings then perhaps the courts can fight over extreme hardcore material without pulling simple nudity into the mix. Without different levels showing a nipple is labled the same way as bukake.

I also think the a proposal should consider all adult material and that includes hate and violence presented by the same news agencies that want us banned.

[Toby]

Have you looked at the different levels that are already supported by browsers? You can't possibly think they're complicated.But do they work to block adult content? No, not very well because most sites don't include any coding and get blocked by default when it's not adult at all, so people just turn it off.

Also with only one rating then it's real easy for an ISP under pressure from the crazies to just block all adult or for new laws to be placed that require all adult to use AVS.

By breaking out different ratings then perhaps the courts can fight over extreme hardcore material without pulling simple nudity into the mix. Without different levels showing a nipple is labled the same way as bukake.This is a reality regardless of the rating system and is an entirely different issue.

I also think the a proposal should consider all adult material and that includes hate and violence presented by the same news agencies that want us banned.This is a whole other can of worms. If news sites want to use a rating="violence" tag, more power to them, but that's a different political agenda. I'm only concerned with an effective way to keep kids out of porn sites.

[walrus]

Keep it simple. One rating, "adult", to define content not suitable for minors. Adult content filtering either ON or OFF. That has a far better chance to get implemented.
|huh You have a content filtering system that is defined by w3c and implemented by IE....and it takes just little more time to go somewhere, check a couple checkbox's, get the code and then cut and paste that into your pages that you cant use it but...if it were a simplier tag that you could cut and paste into all your pages, that somehow would be easier?

[Toby]

I currently use the PICS system, because it's the best thing currently available. But like I said, if parents crank the filtering up, and a site has no rating at all, then they still get blocked even if not adult and the parent has to go in and enter the pass code over and over. Eventually filtering just gets turned off because it becomes too much of a hassle. Been there, done that, in a computer lab full of 2nd graders just trying to get to Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon.

Give me a simplified PICS tag, that I can insert into any adult content page, and then fix the filters so the parent can choose whether or not to block unrated sites.

[walrus]

Unfortunately, the world isn't black or white.

On the other end of the spectrum...I, as a parent, don't mind if my 16 year old son comes across some basic softcore stuff (I personally think it's not only normal but heallthy) or runs across the word cocksucker now and then but definately don't want him running across the extreme hardcore.

On the other hand, my 6 year old daughter doesn't need to see either. A very basic rating system takes that control out of my hands as there is only 2 classes.

[Toby]

Unfortunately, the world isn't black or white.

On the other end of the spectrum...I, as a parent, don't mind if my 16 year old son comes across some basic softcore stuff (I personally think it's not only normal but heallthy) or runs across the word cocksucker now and then but definately don't want him running across the extreme hardcore.

On the other hand, my 6 year old daughter doesn't need to see either. A very basic rating system takes that control out of my hands as there is only 2 classes.Yes, but that assumes that the sites are rated correctly for the content they contain. I'll guarantee you many that include the PICS tag won't be rated correctly.

[walrus]

No disagreement there but I would also bet $$$ that given a simplified Adult / non-Adult tag there would still be many sites untagged or mis-identified wheter deliberately or by those not knowing better. Which brings us back to where we are...a vastly unused, inefficient system.

[DJilla]

Why can't it be simplified to something like:

<meta http-equiv="PICS-Label" content="Adult">


IMHO I agree... this is the answer... just that simple. Self regulation is always more desirable. AND the big SE's could step up and easily enforce it by stating a policy that any porn sites without the meta tag won't get indexed. Just as spam is now reported on a voluntary basis so could adult sites be reported that got through filters, etc. because the meta tag was missing.

[LowryBigwood]

No disagreement there but I would also bet $$$ that given a simplified Adult / non-Adult tag there would still be many sites untagged or mis-identified wheter deliberately or by those not knowing better. Which brings us back to where we are...a vastly unused, inefficient system.

I agree with Walrus here, even with a simple tag that could be applied to all your adult pages, there would still be tons of adult content readily accessible to minors. Although this may allow you to somewhat cover your ass, rate your pages, etc.., but would do little as far as the governments goal of keeping kis from accessing porn.

Is it our responsibility or the parents to keep minors out? Both? Government? Browser companies? All of the above?

|huh What gives? I'm confused as hell after reading this thread, I must admit.

[Wenchy]

IMHO, the responsibility lies with each individual webmaster to make a concerted, good-faith effort to "do the right thing". The adult WM community cannot control whether or not X, Y, and Z browser have the ability to read tags (ICRA, PICS, or otherwise)... not our companies, not our problem. BUT, when the solid waste hits the rotary oscillator, do you want to be able to show your tags and say that you at least tried, or will you claim it was too complicated, too much trouble?

Additionally, and this is just food for thought, there is the fact that many things that started in adult have carried over to the broader Net market... if enough webmasters started using tags of some sort, wouldn't the browser companies feel compelled to bring themselves up to speed? It's happened before (think "consoles" and "pop-up blockers") and there's no reason to think it can't/won't happen again.

I keep hearing people screaming for someone to represent adult WMs beyond what the FSC is currently capable of. I say give 'em something to work with right out of the box... use the tags!! Whatever you prefer or, better yet (and I'm dreaming here) something all adult WMs can get behind and implement as a regular business practice. It's just a little time and effort now to potentially give yourself a leg to stand on later.

Better self-labeling now than forced censorship down the road.

[RawAlex]

Walrus, in the same manner that programs don't allow the use of certain keywords (and visa / MC has a whole list of things that they won't process), the solution is clear:

The major programs have to say "your pages need to have this tag".

When the people that control the money decide or are forced to take action, then the rest of the business will move with them. Until then we are all pissing up a rope.

Alex