What internet content label do you think should be the standard and promoted as such?

[Greenguy]

Posted here on behalf of grandmascrotum - http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/showpost.php?p=251248&postcount=104

:)

[Ms Naughty]

Thanks Greenguy :)
I voted for the simple meta tag. It's easy and gets straight to the point. While I like the idea of refined labelling, I've been won over by the arguments that simple and easy is best. Easier to present to the public and easy to defend as well.

I'm thinking if refinement is what you're after, we could have the option of using the ICRA one as an extra tag, or as an alternative one.

[Toby]

I'm not sure the "vchip" option is even technically feasable. It would require filtering data at the operating system level. TV's are a different situation, they're essentially a channel browser, running just one application.

[Mr. Blue]

Personally I like the meta tag...its just easy to use.

[MrMaryLou]

I really like the idea of a hardwired V-Chip that would keep them honest :)

[Useless]

I voted for the simple adult meta tag. Like Toby, I'm unsure of the feasibility of hardwiring adult filtering. It would make life better for us, that's for certain. But I don't see it as realistic at this time.

[anasporn]

I've been using a <META NAME="Rating" CONTENT="Mature"> on my pages for about 2 years now. That's all that's needed for some net filters as is.

[RawAlex]

Simple tags are the best. No need to go back and retro fit millions of computers with some sort of chip. No need for a third party registry. Simple software can block it, and we can all do it in a very short amount of time.

Support the simple solution.

Alex

[Greenguy]

Well, they didn't refit millions of TV's with the V-Chip once it was invented & approved :)

The V-Chip thing is just something that most people can understand & grasp, since everyone has a TV with it installed. It really is just another version of a program/script that blocks access if it's told to do so (just like the V-Chip)

Even if it's not a V-Chip, some sort of easy to manage pre-installed software on new computers that the user has the option of turning on & that software uses some sort of universal rating system (like the meta tags) would be perfect.

[RawAlex]

GG, the problem with the V-chip idea is that it works if you have time... we don't have time. Internet time and real world time are different, and I think we are looking for a solution that could be implemented in a shorter period of time, rather than over the lifecycle of computers. You admitted yourself on the radio show that it took a long time for the V-chip thing to finally come into it's own, and that was mostly because it took 5 - 7 years to get more new TV's into people's hands with the option on it. Most people keep and run a computer for 2 - 4 years. Can we really wait for 4 years?

Simple meta tag filtering can be implemented by nothing more serious than a windows update. If 75% of the people do the update, then you have 75% penetration on the first go. All new computers going forward would have the software installed, so it wouldn't be long to get to 80% or 90%. Installing a chip and waiting for a turnover in computers would lead to probably less than 25% penetration in the first year, which is way to slow a pace to really show change. To make that work today, we would have had to start putting them in PCs in maybe 2002 or 2003.

With windows update and other automated updating tools, putting a simple filter system in place is a piece of cake if you can get Microsoft, mozilla, and Apple on board, and there is little or no reason for them NOT to be on board.

Alex

[MrYum]

Another vote for the simple meta here |thumb

This shouldn't have to be rocket science...the technology is there...just needs implementation across the board. Like Ana, I've been using the tag for a long time...assuming some filters already respond to it.

[cd34]

I voted for the ICRA tag/other established method. I think ICRA is a bit complex, but, it is a standard that has been out there for 6 years. I don't think a simple 'adult' tag works well because some of the blogs have grey areas, etc. Some of the blogs written by teens would need the adult tag.

I also don't think the meta tag is the best method as hotlinked images, images referred to in emails, images passed around in instant messaging, etc aren't subject to it. I think rather than tagging the pages, there needs to be a way to have a robots.txt type file on the domain root that contains that info. That way, when an image is requested remotely, the browser or email client or whatever can quickly go to the root of the domain in question (or subdomain) and fetch an adult policy file. I don't support doing this in server headers as most people don't have the ability to change their headers.

In any case, any method is a good start as long as there is some solidarity among site owners.

http://www.w3.org/PICS/ is sanctioned by the www consortium and has been around since 98
http://www.icra.org/ is somewhat independent and has been around since 2000.

To make it work, there needs to be a concensus among one method that enough webmasters create a critical mass. If the adult industry starts self labelling pages, and linklists set a date where submissions after a certain date require whatever type of labelling, eventually you'll have enough that it will work.

perhaps even a resource list of where to go to register urls for some of the competing surfing tools along with a section to educate parents. There is a PICS compatible extension to firefox which is free. It only takes a few minutes to register a new domain with the few that still maintain domain name registries of 'adult' content.

http://www.safesurf.com/classify/ (they use PICS as their policy editor)

Whatever is decided, it needs to be easy to implement and implemented on a rather large scale. I've emailed a guy at google to see what they use to determine that content needs to be filtered by safesearch. If Google has a preferred method, obviously helping them make their job easier will go a long way.

I also don't want to see webmasters having to flex and support 14 different standards which is why I think that even though PICS is a little complex, it is probably the wiser choice since it has been around since 98, it can be very granular if you want it to be, or, you can have a simple 'adult' policy. Its supported by multiple caching & safe surfing software already and you're set.

There are 3 places that need to be checked with any system that is devised:

Browser Manufacturers (What does IE, Firefox, Mozilla/Netscape, AOL, Safari have in the way of plugins or support for content ratings)
Search Engines/safesurf (What do the search engines,proxy engines,surf protection software companies look at to determine the rating of a particular site)
Webpage Design Software (What formats are supported by popular webpage editors so that its not too complex)

If we knew how each of those 3 already handled content ratings and adapted to make sure that whatever method was chosen was already supported, it wouldn't require an infrastructure change on their parts and would just work.

[cd34]

<meta http-equiv="pics-label" content='(pics-1.1
"http://www.icra.org/ratingsv02.html" l
gen true for "http://www.example.org"
r (nz 0 vz 0 lz 0 oz 0 cz 0))'>

Where www.example.org is your domain.

This is a generic PICS record that says that content may be present -- IRCA's system requires explicit classification of the content presented. Safesurf also uses PICS but has different ratings which are somewhat more generic, although, neither has a policy that states, hey, just mark it as adult. Both are a bit too granular to be simple, but, somewhat well supported.

I think the answer is rather evident. All of the safesearch filtering that I can find all use PICS. All we need is 1 location to host a simple policy file that can be defined or utilize an existing bureau's definitions. So, perhaps the rating=mature which is somewhat widely supported and the PICS tag with a bureau that makes it easy to generically tag pages.

[cd34]

In rereading irca, they do now support ircaPlus which does allow inclusion through a header and additionally has specified a bit more granular control over things. It may be a bit more complex than is desired, but, it is in place today, its ready today, the software is free for surfers.

[Halfdeck]

though PICS is a little complex, it is probably the wiser choice since it has been around since 98, it can be very granular if you want it to be, or, you can have a simple 'adult' policy.

Good point.

[Beaver Bob]

I voted for the second option. Its simple but I think its enough to accomplish what we want to do.

[DJilla]

My Vote: Adult Meta Tag

Many agree that the IRCA label is a good “stop gap” measure for WM’s to use who want to do something now to filter content. There are many reasons why you as a WM might find it inadequate.

The most important reason which has been repeated often is that the simplest answer is already right there ("meta rating = "ADULT") and its use doesn’t give any “third party” authority or control that it doesn’t deserve and shouldn’t have. Keeping quasi regulatory bodies OUT of our internet is one of the more serious goals in these discussions (use the music industry as a success example).

Also, the meta tag is valid HTML, a complete, ready made solution NOW. Its simple to use, simple to code, simple to implement, simple to explain, simple for the general public to understand, simple for the press to convey, simple for browsers to incorporate, simple for filters to catch, simple to identify violators, its even simple enough for politicians to grasp without argument.

IMHO it should be adopted wholeheartedly for its many advantages unless one comes along that exceeds the above “simple” test. Any solution that solves these many, several problems is the logical choice. For the record I’m not sure the FSC is pushing its own label in favor of the generic meta tag… something to check on.

[docholly]

I voted for "nothing" because I firmly believe parents should be held accountable and have a conversation with their children..

Bad things are out there, just like the truth.

[cd34]

"meta rating = "ADULT"

however, the RFC says mature rather than adult :)


"14 Years", "General", "Mature", "Restricted", "Safe for Kids" are the tags defined by w3c. Restricted is considered X-Rated, Mature is considered R Rated.

[sue-fl]

I voted for "nothing" because I firmly believe parents should be held accountable and have a conversation with their children..

Bad things are out there, just like the truth.


I agree with docholly. I did vote for the simple meta tag though, as keeping things simple is what I like. The same as keeping children off adults sites as that is simple also. Ton's of software and ways to block your pc from your children when your not around to supervise them.

[virgohippy]

I voted for a more complicated meta tag.

Seeing as the web is a world-wide phenomena I think it's important we not single out what could be considered "adult" based on the values of just one society/culture. A tier-leveled rating system would be essential in allowing different communities to determine exactly what is safe and for whom.

As for having a third party verification system? If there's anything I've learned from reading all those sci-fi novels on my shelves it's this: Don't let any one organization have absolute power and control! EVER!!! |angry|

[walrus]

I agree with cd34 in the short-term but I personally would like to see the tags evolve into something that is inclusive as well as exclusive. In other words, relevant for SERP. If it is made such, it makes it much more likely that those who do operate sites just south of mature would also see the benifit of using such a tag.

Also, webmasters in area's not under US controls would be more apt to use the tag.

[quest]

I voted for number 2, the simplest to use.

Though, I already use the <META NAME="RATING" CONTENT="Mature">
I would use whatever the accepted version of "rating" should be to shout the mouths of anti porn activist.


Ben

[Bill]

however, the RFC says mature rather than adult :)


"14 Years", "General", "Mature", "Restricted", "Safe for Kids" are the tags defined by w3c. Restricted is considered X-Rated, Mature is considered R Rated.


"Restricted" is equivalent to x-rated? Holy shit, I'd never heard that before.

I've been using content="mature" since 2000. I just started added content="adult" last year.

I should have been adding content="restricted". I'll start doing so.

[Preacher]

"14 Years", "General", "Mature", "Restricted", "Safe for Kids" are the tags defined by w3c. Restricted is considered X-Rated, Mature is considered R Rated.



"Restricted" is equivalent to x-rated? Holy shit, I'd never heard that before.

I've been using content="mature" since 2000. I just started added content="adult" last year.

I should have been adding content="restricted". I'll start doing so.
I am so glad you brought this up, because I was contemplating replacing "restriced" tags with "mature". |banghead|

[cd34]

http://www.html-reference.com/META_name_rating.htm

I cannot find the actual w3c reference even though I have searched a number of their pages. I saw it this morning when I posted this, but, even looking through my history I have about 55 pages from them and I have glanced through each and don't see the source recommendation.

But, the above url is confirmed with a number of other sites.

[Jim]

See, here is my problem. When parents started complaining about these problems on TV, the gov stepped in and said by a certain year, all tvs would have a v-chip. I don't know why they are not doing that with doing that with PCs.
http://www.fcc.gov/vchip/

[Bill]

The thing is, Jim, all a vchip is, is a little dedicated computer that reads a kind of software tag attached to the television program.

Every computer today made is already a million times more powerful than a vchip.

You don't need to insert a vchip into a computer - just tell the computer with a snippet of instruction, ideally put into the browser software, to read the ratings tags we already put on our pages. (hell, this already exists, it's just that parents don't know how to set their computers to safe surfing. Solution? Every computer can be sold _already set_ to kidsafe surfing, and the adult has to turn on adult surfing.)

The reason the old style TVs needed a chip put in is that they had no brains, no processing power. We already have all the processing power we need to do a vchips job in every computer.

[odysseus]

My vote was also for the meta tag. I've been using the meta tag "mature" as well as the ICRA tag on my sites since I heard about them early last year just to cover bases. But, I think simplicity is the key.

Honestly, as a parent, I can say that most parents are retarded. I'm not kidding, they are really stupid and would barely put the effort forth to shout "STOP" if they saw their kids about to drink a jug of antifreeze. Unfortunately, if it's not simple, nobody will do it. If browsers are shipped by default to block out mature and restricted meta tags, then dad will be forced to figure out how to work the filters, because we all know that surfers let nothing come between them and their free porn. Once dad is empowered with this divine knowlege, if the kids see porn, I say tar and feather the lazy parent, then pour antifreeze down his throat.

I like what walrus said about finding a way to get SE benefit as well. That would be kick ass!

[Jim]

The thing is, Jim, all a vchip is, is a little dedicated computer that reads a kind of software tag attached to the television program.

Every computer today made is already a million times more powerful than a vchip.

You don't need to insert a vchip into a computer - just tell the computer with a snippet of instruction, ideally put into the browser software, to read the ratings tags we already put on our pages. (hell, this already exists, it's just that parents don't know how to set their computers to safe surfing. Solution? Every computer can be sold _already set_ to kidsafe surfing, and the adult has to turn on adult surfing.)

The reason the old style TVs needed a chip put in is that they had no brains, no processing power. We already have all the processing power we need to do a vchips job in every computer.
And yet, there is a vchip in my brand new sony grand wega. Not just special programming in the TV itself but an actual chip.

[anasporn]

You don't need to insert a vchip into a computer - just tell the computer with a snippet of instruction, ideally put into the browser software, to read the ratings tags we already put on our pages. (hell, this already exists, it's just that parents don't know how to set their computers to safe surfing. Solution? Every computer can be sold _already set_ to kidsafe surfing, and the adult has to turn on adult surfing.)

There would be a lot of unhappy parents LOL Reminds me of the time I set up my dad's AOL account and put parental controls on it as a joke...it took him a week to figure out what I had done and he was not nearly as amused as I was! But it's also the best way to teach parents how effective parental control settings can be!

[stuveltje]

since a couple of months i use ICRA label , before that i used sites with the metatag mature, i like the vchip you guys are talking about, we dont have that stuff as far as i know here in holland, i can say i am worried about the porn thing on the net for kids, well in a certain way, and i dont know if i explain it right, i have an eleven year old daughter who is very smart and always works on her laptop and find her info on the net for the topics of her scripts, now what i realy hate is the fact she looks say for snakes , find a page in google which says snakes (non adult, heay snake word can be use in adult:D), she clicks and gets porn, now i have asked her , how they deal with that at her school, the kids work in groups on their puter, say 12 kids 12 puters in one room and there is a teacher there to watch where they are surfing, but even the kids search for non adult links, most links will redirect to porn, i realy dont know if there is an solution, but i like the idea for the Vchip:)

[RawAlex]

Findpics and link2x now have simple meta tags on all pages.

Alex

[selena]

however, the RFC says mature rather than adult :)


"14 Years", "General", "Mature", "Restricted", "Safe for Kids" are the tags defined by w3c. Restricted is considered X-Rated, Mature is considered R Rated.


~raises hand~

Okay, that confused me a little. I have been (along with ICRA tags) using

<META NAME="RATING" CONTENT="Mature">

Does the above quote mean I should be using

<META NAME="RATING" CONTENT="Restricted"> instead?

[tickler]

Hmmm, I always thought the "R" in R-Rated meant restricted.
And, the "X" in X-Rated meant XXX hardcore porn.

I like the simple tag. Although you might want to add some kind of age rating to it so other "non-adult" sites could use similar tags.
Instead of Adult, use Age-18 or Age-21, etc.

[cd34]

I have always been under the impression that mature was 'less' adult than restricted and several pages that talk about that meta tag tend to agree.

The w3c replaced that simple tag with PICS ratings because a policy could be generated with your own rules if someone wanted to get sophisticated enough to write a policy. ICRA made things a bit too granular, but, are the largest 'standards' based group that I have seen and most of the 'safe surfer' technology is based on ICRA's work.

I think with a PICS rating from ICRA and the rating metatag and some enforcement, it can be said that the adult industry IS concerned with making sure people do have a method to control access if they deem it so.

Personally, I don't feel adding a new system or meta tag will be adopted by the search engines, browsers, plugins, etc anywhere near as quickly as using a system that has been defined and in place since 98.

[RawAlex]

Jim, a V-chip in the TV world works because of the way that the encoding is made. The data for the V-chip encoding is done in a similar manner to close captions or XDS encoded data. The information is broadcast on a continuous basis, not just at a single time at the start of the show (the little logo you see at the start of the show is only there to show you, technically it does nothing.

http://www.linkelectronics.com/htm/techvchp.htm

Web pages are served in a different manner, one shot there you go, all the data is in one place. Making the browser (which is the software normally used for reading web pages) check for a simple meta tag is a piece of cake job, a very few lines of code and you are off to the races.

The government needs to pass simple rules: All web pages must be rated (General to Restricted / adult / XXX ) and all browsers must support a simple system to read these tags and block unwanted websites.

Done.

Sadly, the simple answers will never be simple.

Alex

[Wazza]

So there are two valid systems available (even if those using one of them appear to have generally got it wrong).

Can we have another poll asking whether the FSC should bother trying to reinvent the wheel?

As for locking my new puter down in kiddy mode and requiring me to make it suitable for my use... fuck that for a joke! I bought the fucking thing. Dumbing things down, to mollycoddle children and the dickheads who are apparently so fucking proud of the fact that their parenting skills leave a lot to be desired that they won't stop admitting it in public, is not the answer imo.

[Bill]

Yeah, but your an aussie Wazza. Youtr people have a dram or two of common sense left.

American parents have these teeny-tiny brains, and they can't do a thing without a giant federal beauracracy to help them. If they didn't have government help to wipe their butts they couldn't even take a shit on their own.

Actually, I think the solution isn't to make computer vendors sell every computer set to kid-safe, I only suggested that because I know it's exactly how our politicians think. If we say to the politicians "go ahead, sell everything kid safe and let the idiot adults figure out how to turn on the porn", they'll fucking love the power we are giving them. Then the lobbyists will bribe them to adopt some other more practical solution.

You see, in america nothing gets done without stroking politicians egos.

[SirMoby]

I believe simple is best but I also believe the far right won’t accept something too simple. The arguments are too easy to make that if ratings are just for pornographers then why not just force pornographers to use AVS, which we all know does not work.

The w3c standard separates R rated type stuff from X rated type stuff. The R rated stuff includes the news companies that will be spreading the propaganda. If the proposal is made in a way that they also need to label content then they can’t be as harsh on just one type of content. After all, shouldn’t violence be controlled using an AVS as well?

The V-Chip was only needed in TVs because they don’t have any intelligence. Computers have an entire operating system in place so they have the intelligence to do everything the V-Chip can do.

I know that a simple tag is the easiest to use but stop thinking like a webmaster for a few minutes and start thinking like the far right. If you haven’t spent most of your life around them, don’t know the political mindset and understand how voters are manipulated start watching Fox News around 9:00 PM.

Remember that many of them grew up thinking a one legged pregnant black woman carrying a baby didn’t have the right to sit down if a healthy white man was standing. Here’s what runs through the minds even if it’s not running through the mouth.

“Pornographers are sinners and they’re not like us. The Constitution and Bill Of Rights doesn’t include sinners. They’re lucky that we don’t hang them. We need to make it impossible for pornography to be seen. This rating system is only designed for pornography so there’s no need to make it easy.”

A tag that’s too simple and only includes pornography will quickly be turned into an AVS requirement and probably the only acceptable technology for this will be patented by a law firm in Florida that happens to be governed by the 2012/2016 Presidential candidate.

Only when a proposal is made to rate content other then pornography do we stand a chance of freely rating content.

[RawAlex]

SirMoby, the idea isn't for a tag that applies to porn only. Think bigger, but in a small way:

The tag is a requirement of ALL websites. ALL types. They have to rank them like TV - from G to X (or whatever it is). Make it a legal requirement for websites, and more importantly,make it a legal requirement of a browser to handle those tags (and to not display any page that isn't coded).

It wouldn't be an adult only solution at all... and it would put the net on a more even footing with cable TV / pay per view.

Alex

[Wazza]

Well Bill - we're not quite that bright :D

[Wazza]

And just to nail my colours to the mast - .kid and a small levy on all other domain buyers (to finance the administration and promotion thereof) - is my silver bullet solution to all of this rubbish.

[docholly]

“Pornographers are sinners and they’re not like us. The Constitution and Bill Of Rights doesn’t include sinners. They’re lucky that we don’t hang them. We need to make it impossible for pornography to be seen. This rating system is only designed for pornography so there’s no need to make it easy.”


I was once told by the Governor of Alabama (Fob James, who the fuck has a name like "Fob"???) that the Constitution of the United States does NOT apply to the state of Alabama on the subject of prayer in school. I guess he was implying that it was written for NYC liberals. LMAO.

That's the mentality we need to think like.

[SirMoby]

SirMoby, the idea isn't for a tag that applies to porn only. Think bigger, but in a small way:
I understand this perfectly. Most adult webmasters will understand this and in the perfect world it could work. Are you thinking past the proposal stage and how the opponents are going to react?

The issue is not a matter of whether you and I understand it but a matter of how congress, the media and voters understand it. They will see the word "adult" and forget all about violence, hate and other types of adult material and only think about sex.

Unless the label specifically says "Adult Violence", "Adult Hate", "Adult Drugs", "Adult Etc...." the media will make out the label "Adult" to just be for sexual material. It makes for a much more interesting story and it also keeps them from having to label any content on their own websites.

I know it's for labeling many things but they will make it out to be for just sex and that means they don't have to label anything and the label for us won't go far enough.

Is anyone here thinking past the technology and into the negotiation stage of this proposal?

[RawAlex]

At the end of the day Moby, the idea is to keep children away from adult things. "adult hate" and "adult drugs" and "adult pony rides" are all adult. If you are over 18, you can drink, you can die in a war, you can look at hate material, and you can enjoy porn.

Adult is adult is adult, I think.

The idea is everyone has to label. Not just adult sites... ALL sites. If you have a website, you have to label, the same way all TV shows have to rate, even if they are childrens shows. It isn't to great a ghetto of adult sites and nothing else. If you don't do this sort of thing, people will just build adult sites without the rating and say "fuck it". Everyone has to forced in, and then it is all good.

Alex

[SirMoby]

At the end of the day Moby, the idea is to keep children away from adult things. "adult hate" and "adult drugs" and "adult pony rides" are all adult. If you are over 18, you can drink, you can die in a war, you can look at hate material, and you can enjoy porn.

Adult is adult is adult, I think.

The idea is everyone has to label. Not just adult sites... ALL sites. If you have a website, you have to label, the same way all TV shows have to rate, even if they are childrens shows. It isn't to great a ghetto of adult sites and nothing else. If you don't do this sort of thing, people will just build adult sites without the rating and say "fuck it". Everyone has to forced in, and then it is all good.

Alex
Why are you debating me on a point where we both agree?

Think past this arguement and onto the stage of pushing it through congress. Why shouldn't they simply say that "Adult" is only about sexual material? If they do then it makes for a great news story, keeps them from ever having to label their own sites and gets the support of voters.

Stop arguing with me on the issue of all sites. It's a waste of energy since we both agree.

Please start thinking about the politicians, the media and Hollywood. They will all push for the rating system to only be used for sexual material so none of them have to label anything.

[odysseus]

As for locking my new puter down in kiddy mode and requiring me to make it suitable for my use... fuck that for a joke! I bought the fucking thing. Dumbing things down, to mollycoddle children and the dickheads who are apparently so fucking proud of the fact that their parenting skills leave a lot to be desired that they won't stop admitting it in public, is not the answer imo.

While I agree that dumbing down and mollycoddling isn't cool, the sad fact is that people are stupid, and to teach them how to do something for themselves isn't always as easy as you would expect. I could be wrong, I'm pretty jaded and cynical. The fact also remains that computers aren't all purchased by adults for themselves. Perhaps have an option for the parents to add a "kid safe default" when they are selecting all the gizmos to add to their computer they are buying at dell.com or something. That way if grandma technophobe wanted to buy little jimmy a computer for his birthday, it would be easy. It would already be kid safe. But, you are right. If you bought it you should have say.

Still, I'm not arguing with you, I don't like things being dumbed down. For instance, I don't think wearing seatbelts should be a law. And I also think that your insurance company shouldn't be responsible for injuries received from not wearing one. Same goes for motorcyle helmets, but that's just an example. I'm big on accountability for ones self, and for those you are responsible for. So, we are on the same page, to a degree.

But, as Sir Moby and Raw Alex are pointing out, the political nonsense that would surround establishing a standard is mind boggling. Considering the political climate in the US right now, nothing seems simple, straight forward, and sensible. It's very frustrating.

[RawAlex]

No, I think that the TV industry and movie industry have already blazed the path and set the standards. Hollywood and the other media also understand and have long since accepted (grudgingly, with issues) the current rating system. I would rather be part of that big whole, rather than being the oddballs on the corner.

Alex

[walrus]

No, I think that the TV industry and movie industry have already blazed the path and set the standards.
Alex

Careful, remember the movie and the TV industry ARE NOT self rating. All movies and TV shows must be submitted to a "ratings board" where the rating is assigned to them. I'm sure no one wants to submit every page of HTML they create to a ratings board, and wait for that board to come back with the appropriate tag to be inserted into their code. Also news programming and sports on TV are not rated (because of the real time issue) which creates some more interesting scenerio's with the V-chip and rating system. Things like children can watch a boxing match where the violence is real but they can not watch a movie like "Raging Bull" where the violence is staged.|crazy|

The even bigger issue that we havent even begun to address is compliance. There is no way to force compliance without an international agreement and you think we all have a hard time agreeing.

I personally can see the headlines now....US outlaws all porn production and sales....In an unrelated story, Canadian immigration levels at record high....6 months later. US send cruise missiles in to destroy Canadian data centers. Most porn found in US coming from Canadian sources.:D

[RawAlex]

Walrus, if the requirement in law is "page must be rated, browsers may not display a page unless rated" compliance is about 100% by default. If no page can be seen without a rating, every page will have a rating. Pretty simple.

Yes, I know some people will be out there with ratings disabled browsers and whatnot, but the reality is MOST of the people we target for this sort of thing (parents with children surfing) would be the ones using it, only a few l33ts would bother to go around it, and that is pretty much unavoidable.

US cannot outlaw porn production, even the current AG has admitted that much of the current porn is protected free speech, it would be pretty hard to move back away from such a statement.

Alex

[stuveltje]

Careful, remember the movie and the TV industry ARE NOT self rating. All movies and TV shows must be submitted to a "ratings board" where the rating is assigned to them. I'm sure no one wants to submit every page of HTML they create to a ratings board, and wait for that board to come back with the appropriate tag to be inserted into their code. Also news programming and sports on TV are not rated (because of the real time issue) which creates some more interesting scenerio's with the V-chip and rating system. Things like children can watch a boxing match where the violence is real but they can not watch a movie like "Raging Bull" where the violence is staged.|crazy|

The even bigger issue that we havent even begun to address is compliance. There is no way to force compliance without an international agreement and you think we all have a hard time agreeing.

I personally can see the headlines now....US outlaws all porn production and sales....In an unrelated story, Canadian immigration levels at record high....6 months later. US send cruise missiles in to destroy Canadian data centers. Most porn found in US coming from Canadian sources.:D
well thats very funny you say that about the rating, because thats how it works in holland, we dont have an Vchip in the telly, easy thinking we have porn on every channel at some time, what the netherlands did was getting an rating system for the movies for porn, violence, they put an age on every program and movie, only it are the parents who have to watch that, so if a movie is getting on telly we will see an mesage before what age is right to watch the movie, so all the responsability is at the parents, what i dont like is, that they say age 6 and i see sex scenes which are not for small people age of 6, holland use rating, all ages, 6 , 12 and 16 years old i believe,. damn a Vchip will never work here.

[walrus]

US cannot outlaw porn production, even the current AG has admitted that much of the current porn is protected free speech, it would be pretty hard to move back away from such a statement. AlexThat was meant tongue in cheek to hopefully get a little laugh...and here I thought I was funny!

As far as compliance, the assumption you seem to be under is that the US is a large enough market and that the market will in fact force compliance. Perhaps it is.

In my mind, compliance is more along the lines of you rate your page as R when it is in fact X rated, technically if it is just a US law, there aint shit that can be done and I hear you LL owners bitch almost daily about submitters who cant seem to find the right category. Who's to agree, that what you think is adult, I think is restricted or vice versa. A self rating systems will never be acceptable to the US govt., IMHO. Especially since it actually works to industries benifit. With the system you all describe, we only get qualified traffic.

[DJilla]

Despite how commonsensical (that's a word right?) a V-Chip may seem IMHO here's a few reasons why you just might as well take a deep breath and move on.

Some of you are old enough to remember just how long it took to get the V-Chip into hardware. It or some version of it was bandied about FOREVER (at least a decade). Hardware is made for an international market now. Imagine a government calling for an inclusion of the ability to have a V-Chip also block political material. Software solutions are always preferred to hardware ones. They're also quicker to implement. The biggest reason though is because everything wants to be smaller now. There is no room that any manuf. wants to give up to the space of a v-chip on their boards. They will fight it to their last dying breathe.

[DJilla]

The government needs to pass simple rules: All web pages must be rated (General to Restricted / adult / XXX ) and all browsers must support a simple system to read these tags and block unwanted websites.

Alex

Get ahead of the curve and I’m thinking self regulated is better. By agreeing to a term of meta tag performance and definition one can give the government(s) a smaller target to narrow upon.

[Ms Naughty]

You know, after reading cd34's comments, I'm wondering why this has to be an either/or proposition.

What's wrong with a meta tag AND ICRA label? Double your money. We can say: Hey! Look how good we are. We've even got TWO different methods of keeping kids off our site. One's simple a simple big red flag, and the other is for people who want to be more specific about what content they're offering.

Because the PR aspect is MORE important than the actual action we take.

[MadMax]

My opinion:

If we could get the SEs (primarily Google) to stop displaying results for keywords like "porn" that didn't have a "Restricted" Meta rating tag most of the world would fall into line in the space of a few months, and G would have even more ground to stand on when telling the DOJ to shove their subpeona up their asses. It would then be up to the browsers to start supporting filtering via the tag, and they'd start looking pretty bad since any move like this from Google would generate worldwide media attention.

Simple and clean.

If we're worried about kids finding porn on the internet, I'd be willing to bet that 99% of underage surfers looking for porn look to the SEs for it.

[odysseus]

My opinion:

If we could get the SEs (primarily Google) to stop displaying results for keywords like "porn" that didn't have a "Restricted" Meta rating tag most of the world would fall into line in the space of a few months, and G would have even more ground to stand on when telling the DOJ to shove their subpeona up their asses. It would then be up to the browsers to start supporting filtering via the tag, and they'd start looking pretty bad since any move like this from Google would generate worldwide media attention.

Hmmm, and I wonder if a Jerry Falwell rant about the dangers of porn would be blocked out by such a filter as well. If someone is searching for the 700 club view on porn, and porn is a keyword, and the meta isn't restricted... Ahhh, one can only dream, right?

[MadMax]

Hmmm, and I wonder if a Jerry Falwell rant about the dangers of porn would be blocked out by such a filter as well.

Casualties of war :D

[Bill]

What's wrong with a meta tag AND ICRA label? Double your money. We can say: Hey! Look how good we are. We've even got TWO different methods of keeping kids off our site. One's simple a simple big red flag, and the other is for people who want to be more specific about what content they're offering.

Because the PR aspect is MORE important than the actual action we take.

This is where I tend to believe we will end up, that is, using both.

The PICS/icra tag without the simple and obvious meta tag is too weak, because parents and politicians can't make any sense of the PICS tag.

We need the simple and obvious meta tag for political credibility.

If people want to add the PICS/icra tag too, what could be the harm?

Me? Well, folks, I make X-Rated porn pages, there is no ambiguity there, for me it's a simple ON/OFF proposition. No kids should ever be on my pages, and adults should only be on my pages if they want to see hard pornography.

So, I don't see any need to put the weaker PICS tag (PICS is the standard that the ICRA website uses to generate the code in it's registration process.) on my websites.

But if other people do want to make pages that qualify for the weaker PICS/icra ratings more power to them.

[DJilla]

If we're worried about kids finding porn on the internet, I'd be willing to bet that 99% of underage surfers looking for porn look to the SEs for it.

No doubt!

[DJilla]

BULLETIN!

Hope you're not all getting wore out talking about this but here's something that might affect the dicussion.

I've found out that the official position of the FSC is to be against and fight ANY mandatory tagging standards.

WHY? Because mandatory tags could somewhere down the line allow the blocking of materials at the ISP level. Can you imagine a "Christian" or "Parents Network" ISP company starting up to address this perceived market need based on mandatory tagging?

Initially I was a bit skeptical of this but in the last twenty four hours I've completely changed my mind to be in agreement.

WHY? I know you've all heard on the news today that cable and phone companies are floating the idea of making Google/Yahoo et al pay for access to the subscribers. This is outrageous of course but take the possibilities to their logical conclusion and its not a pretty picture.

Things that make you go Hmmmmm!

[SirMoby]

BULLETIN!

Hope you're not all getting wore out talking about this but here's something that might affect the dicussion.

I've found out that the official position of the FSC is to be against and fight ANY mandatory tagging standards.

WHY? Because mandatory tags could somewhere down the line allow the blocking of materials at the ISP level. Can you imagine a "Christian" or "Parents Network" ISP company starting up to address this perceived market need based on mandatory tagging?

Initially I was a bit skeptical of this but in the last twenty four hours I've completely changed my mind to be in agreement.

WHY? I know you've all heard on the news today that cable and phone companies are floating the idea of making Google/Yahoo et al pay for access to the subscribers. This is outrageous of course but take the possibilities to their logical conclusion and its not a pretty picture.

Things that make you go Hmmmmm!
This is kind of old news. Many Christian groups have been pushing cable for years to offer teired programing packages that include only family style programs. I think it was MSNBC that had one of their 10 minutes chats about extending this to ISPs a couple weeks ago.

The FSC expressed interest in promoting AVS. Anyone with 1/2 a brain can easily understand that AVS is not possible until all governments issue some type ID that's computer readable. Law forms with ties to free speech are trying to patent AVS technologies that won't work but they're telling congress they will.

If all content has to be labeled then I'm fine with it. Parents want to signup with a Christian ISP that blocks all adult content then I'm OK with that. If they don't want want adult material in their homes then I don't really want them on my sites any way. It will cut down on free loaders and not have a huge impact on sales.

60% of my sales come from over seas and that won't be effected at all.

States and cities won't be allowed to block all adult content as it is an infringment on Free Speech. If parent or school wishes to do that then that's their choice and I want to help them. They're not buying any way.

[RawAlex]

All moves to AVS systems will fail because nobody wants to be the regulating body of who is adult and who is not. The credit card companies have already said "it's not our job".

AVS systems that require burdensome paperwork or restictions that cannot be easily used by all. You cannot restrict it to require a driver's license, example, because there are adults without a drivers license. You cannot restrict it by SSN, as you can get an SSN number before you are 18.

Requiring an enabling action by a third party (asking your ISP to permit you access to adult material) would have the effect of limiting the permitted free speech (adult material) because many people would not ask to have it turned on because of embarrassment. It is the very heart of the reason why online porn is preferred by many over video rental places.

The whole AVS thing is a ruse that misleads the government into giving a long period of time for a system to be developed and implemented, and with the inherent legal battles that would come with it, is unlikely to come around the bend any time soon, IMHO.

AVS systems would also fail the "US versus the world" test, which would have the effect of moving porn offshore, where the AVS would not apply. The amount of free porn would not drop, just the country of origin. It doesn't come close to meeting the governments primary objective.

Alex

[SirMoby]

If AVS will actually keep minors out is not really the issue at hand.

The FSC has members that are pushing for an AVS. They made comments to the Senate about AVS. A very well respected free speech law firm is patenting an AVS technology.

http://birthdateverifier.com/
http://www.firstamendment.com/protecting_banner.php3

Currently only 2 technologies exist to keep minors away from porn. Labeling and AVS. We know that AVS will never work but we know that there's a huge amount of money in technology patents.

DJilla posted some concern about labeling. I was expressing that I'm OK with labeling and if we don't purpose something soon we may end up with an AVS because there will be big bucks in it.

We can argue about the issues with AVS all day long. While we're doing that we're not pushing a labeling system that will work and others are pushing forward with their AVS proposals.

[RawAlex]

No argument from me at all. However, if we feel that AVS isn't the best solution or that FSC is pushing a solution that we don't think is right, is it not our job to stand up and say "NO"?

Alex

[Toby]

...is it not our job to stand up and say "NO"?and to yell, scream and stomp our feet if necessary. |thumb

[walrus]

BULLETIN!
I've found out that the official position of the FSC is to be against and fight ANY mandatory tagging standards.

WHY? Because mandatory tags could somewhere down the line allow the blocking of materials at the ISP level. Can you imagine a "Christian" or "Parents Network" ISP company starting up to address this perceived market need based on mandatory tagging? ...and that would be a bad thing? Why? As long as there is an available ISP in an area that does carry all content, I personally see no problem. That's what a free market is all about.

Second, this is a very bad sign and shows just how out of touch the FSC really is. They are trying to push us into a direction that I don't think anyone of us wants to go and thats with an AVS system.

Finally, let me say that I have lost all faith in the FSC as being someone to help us with this. According to Tom Hymes, he was going to ask for our input before anything went public.

Initially I was a bit skeptical of this but in the last twenty four hours I've completely changed my mind to be in agreement.

WHY? I know you've all heard on the news today that cable and phone companies are floating the idea of making Google/Yahoo et al pay for access to the subscribers. This is outrageous of course but take the possibilities to their logical conclusion and its not a pretty picture.

Things that make you go Hmmmmm!Never going to happen. In fact, if the cable and phone companies push it, it could go just the opposite direction on them.

[Halfdeck]

I've found out that the official position of the FSC is to be against and fight ANY mandatory tagging standards.

I'd like to hear that from the horses' mouth, though if it's true, then I'd be weary of backing the FSC on the site-labeling issue. If they prize freedom of speech above protecting kids, then they are way too liberal for my taste.

[DJilla]

Finally, let me say that I have lost all faith in the FSC as being someone to help us with this.

IMHO FSC is the only org that HAS been helping us and is our best bet for the future. I'm willing to check out other links to groups that are suggested though.

According to Tom Hymes, he was going to ask for our input before anything went public.

Absolutely true, still going to happen. My update post was based on merely historical research I've been doing on past positions and activity.

Never going to happen. In fact, if the cable and phone companies push it, it could go just the opposite direction on them.

Actually this is what I thought re: Public funded WiFi networks too. But its happened all over the USA. If you don't know what I'm talking about:

http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2005/062005johnson.html?prl

I use tags and I do like the elegance of the solution (I'm not too scared by all the AVS hyperbole probably should be though) tags are still a great idea for filters and responsible WM's should use them. I think the position is more clearly stated that the government should not use ADULT as a platform for restricting speech. Let mom and dad do it.

I'm truly interested in this fight from a libertarian point of view not just because I happen to peddle porn. I am loathe to give governments the easy ability to filter expression. I am very admiring of Chinese dissidents who are doing hard time for posting a msg about political corruption. The web has to be free and protected from encroachment by power brokers and I can only be proud that "adult" is on the leading edge of this fight. All you WM's are REALLY important to this an should be proud too. No matter what country your from I'm thinking you have a better chance with a free internet than one which will be modified real time by politics or religion.

[walrus]

IMHO FSC is the only org that HAS been helping us and is our best bet for the future. I'm willing to check out other links to groups that are suggested though.Personally, I'd like to see this go somewhere back to where it started with Tommy's thread. What I had hoped would be the start of a "grass roots" movement. I'd like to see "us" do many of the things that I think we're looking toward the FSC to do.

I've seen in Tommy's thread people volunteer domain names and hosting. I'd take that a step further and I'd volunteer to setup a CMS and get it looking good. Also, setup RSS feeds for the blog and news sections and make sure they get submitted to all the news services and regularly pinged. But, I'm graphicly challenged so someone would need to volunteer to develop a logo and some banners.

The question is are there people willing to post their stories on the blog? Are there people willing to create articles for the news sections? Are there people willing to rebutt things like this http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/showthread.php?t=28891 and the CNN report that came out saying don't surf porn when it was an e-mail attachment that spread the virus? Are there people willing to research where senators and congressmen in their home state stand on matters of importance to US and do write-ups that can be posted? Who's going to reach out on the other boards to get others involved? Is there someone who we trust to set up a fund for donations not only from webmasters but from surfers because in the end money is power?

I think we can go a long way to combatting a lot of the porn myth's if we are simply more visible. Put a human face to the "porn monger".

If we do some, or all of these things, then yes, we have some power. Otherwise, we can sit silent or help further the ambitions of the FSC who's stance to date, publicly is not in our best interest. I think we have the best chance of helping us!

But what the fuck do I know.

[RawAlex]

I will say that as mention here or elsewhere, it would be great to get PICS to support a short / limited tag "content = adult" or "content = restricted" or similar, along with their longer, more detailed tags. That would certainly give them a leg up on being the system of choice.

Finding a way to force the responsibility back onto the people providing access (illegally, I might add) to porn is important. Those people are the parents and other adults who allow children to access the net unmonitored and unfiltered. It is no different from buying penthouse magazines and then leaving them in your kid's lunchbox.

We as an industry can only do so much - the enablers need to take their responsilbity.

Alex

[Bill]

walrus, attempts to organize webmasters have always failed in the past. Perhaps it could happen now but that has yet to be proved.

There are advantages in allying with an existing organization.

The problem with trying to 'do it ourselves' is the same problem that, for the moment, delays the creation of a position document.

It's the problem of "Who Bell's The Cat?".

A position document is only as valuable as the number of people who can find it, read it, remember it, and take it seriously.

A position document hosted by unkown webmasters won't be found, read, remembered, and taken seriously. It would probably be excellent practice, tho, and we need all the practice we can get.

But, if you can figure out ways to get around that problem, who knows what might happen.

[cd34]

You're confusing PICS with ICRA.

PICS is merely a framework that is implemented with a policy definition language. ICRA is the one with the gazillion tags that uses the PICS framework.

Go to this page, create a label, they need an email address, so, make sure you have one that doesn't bounce. With that email, they send you an RDF file that includes your definitions.

http://www.icra.org/label/generator/

Then, in each page of HTML put:

<link rel="meta" href="http://domain.com/labels.rdf" type="application/rdf+xml" title="ICRA labels" />
<meta name="rating" content="restricted">

If you have access to setting mod_headers, the following will tag ANY file requested from your site -- graphics, videos, etc even if they are hotlinked.

http://www.icra.org/systemspecification/

If you don't want to go through the pain of defining your own ICRA tags, I have attached labels.txt. Edit the one location that says domain.com and rename it labels.rdf and put it at the root of your website.

With those two changes, I believe that you can honestly say that you have made a best effort attempt to clearly label your sites as adult content.

It works now, its probably supported by the search engines, it is supported by the safesearch tools today. Pretty much a done issue.

Now we just have to get the word out.

[Halfdeck]

It works now, its probably supported by the search engines, it is supported by the safesearch tools today. Pretty much a done issue.

I agree completely, though I'd expect the following response, and this has been discussed elsewhere:

1. We don't want to give control to a third party. ANSWER: Modify the rdf files and you can rid of any dependence on ICRA.org.
2. rdf file / label is too big. ANSWER: The meta tag is no longer than a keyword tag and the rdf file is no bigger than a 50x50 thumbnail image.
3. We don't want to register 10000 times to label our sites. ANSWER: One time registration, one RDF file.
4. We want a simple tag. ANSWER: Push for a simpler tag; in the meantime, use what already works.
5. Using what "already works" is an endorsement of a faulty labeling system and giving over control to a third-party organization

In other words, what Paul Cambria said recently before a US Senate committee is accurate.

Connor Young: What he should have explained to Senator Stevens is that most legitimate adult websites do in fact label their content, usually with the ICRA labeling system, and that if a parent makes use of existing browser controls in Internet Explorer, all of these labeled websites will be automatically blocked. Instead, and to my utter disbelief, Mr. Cambria told Senator Stevens that adult businesses do not label their websites, but that, gee whiz, perhaps they ought to start!

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:wP0QYwfdpVwJ:www.ynot.com/modules.php%3Fop%3Dmodload%26name%3DNews%26file%3Dnews_article%26sid%3D10123+%22Paul+Cambria%22+ICRA&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

[Bill]

Maybe we should write some letters and send some email to Paul Cambria?

I've always thought of Cambria as a video lawyer, but if he's gonna speak for the onliners maybe we onliners should send him something to speak about?

[RawAlex]

Halfdeck, please let me answer:

1 - RDF files are a patch on a kludge on a tack on. Doesn't matter what's in them, they are an extra step in what should be a simple system.
2 - There would be no simple system for checking (and rechecking) RFD files for every sites submitted to a link list. They could put up a "we are porn" tag today, and as soon as they are listed change it to "safe for kids". I don't think anyone wants to have to re-write bots to try to figure out what is in a seperate file.
3 - you have to re-register each domain (or modify the files) for each use. Registration is pointless if you register only one domain and never mention the rest.
4 - If you use what already works (not really) then you are endorsing it and making a simpler solution less likely.
5 - What Conner Young failed to do was look at the millions and millions of pages, galleries, free sites, paysites, and blogs out there with no tags and the thousands upon thousands of webmasters who have no intention of endorsing a system that creates hassle and extra administrion.

Some american webmasters still don't have valid 2257 information, or have the 2257 pointing to a mailboxes etc or a po box in an office building. That is with a major threat of jail and huge fines. Do you really think we can do better on a volunteer system that is just way more complicated than it needs to be?

Alex

[walrus]

walrus, attempts to organize webmasters have always failed in the past. Perhaps it could happen now but that has yet to be proved.

There are advantages in allying with an existing organization.

The problem with trying to 'do it ourselves' is the same problem that, for the moment, delays the creation of a position document.

It's the problem of "Who Bell's The Cat?".

A position document is only as valuable as the number of people who can find it, read it, remember it, and take it seriously.

A position document hosted by unkown webmasters won't be found, read, remembered, and taken seriously. It would probably be excellent practice, tho, and we need all the practice we can get.

But, if you can figure out ways to get around that problem, who knows what might happen.I know all to well the difficulties of putting a organization together of independant people/thinkers. On the otherhand, I, personally, am not going to crawl in bed (or put my hopes in) an organization that to date all public positions go against what I believe is in my best interest and I know that's a very broad statement and that the FSC does do some very good things but their public position on the things we are discussing are not in line with my views.

Also, and maybe this is just me, but back when the "big 2257" scare happened, I personally felt blackmailed by the FSC's statement that only members would be covered. Perhaps that was even legally correct but the presentation, as I recieved it felt different.

A position paper on a website alone probably wouldn't do very much good but...something that was a)informative and timely on current affairs, b)historical and factual, and c) put a human touch to us that was updated by everyone and kept fresh would be valuable as it could be extremely easy to find, interesting and educational.

Maybe I'm kidding myself, but the shear volume of adult webmasters who could incorporate the feeds in any of the news reader services and / orplaces like my yahoo and mymsn on Google and AOL would draw some interest / attention.

[cd34]

ICRA is not really difficult with their wizard. Perhaps it is too granular, but, check all the boxes and make it generic and use it across all of your sites. They have gone through the headaches and hassles to work through integration and documented things very well on their site and created a pretty easy to use wizard. The major reason I think that ICRA tags should be supported is that the 3 major kidblocker software solutions all use ICRA (and even Microsoft's IE supports ICRA tags).

Whether the system is faulty or not, it exists today. It addresses the public opinion issue today. If you introduce a new system, everyone will take time to rationalize it, decide why it is better or worse, and finally start implementing it. Lets say that you're talking 18 months to get everyone to agree and implement. What legislation could be passed in 18 months if there is no forward progress? How long do you think it would take to come up with a simple tag that everyone agreed upon, convince the search engines to use it, convince the browsers to use it, convince the parents to use it? You have that already with the rating=restricted tag and yet, a quick scan of 2000 pages tells me that about 87% of the sites are not tagging. That tag has been in use since 97 or so.

I am certainly not a fan of Cambria and his stumbles in front of the senate certainly did more harm than good. But, perhaps as a group we can put something together as a recommendation that says:

We've looked at the issue, we've developed the following 'best practices' list which we would advise all sites, FSC members or not to follow. It is what we are going to follow because we've determined it to address the issues now rather than waiting for it to be legislated.

If the FSC receives something pointed like that, which has supporting documentation, recommendations, endorsements and even preliminary adoption of a solution that works today that cuts the time to implement any future decided system dramatically, I cannot see how they wouldn't pass that along as suggestions to the rest of their members.

Perhaps the FSC isn't operating in our best interest -- perhaps they don't know they aren't. Bill has the right idea -- someone needs to step up as a liason with them and hash out the issues. But, from where I am sitting right now, I still firmly believe that using a system today that some see as faulty is better than waiting to implement until the perfect solution is available.

[Halfdeck]

Registration is pointless if you register only one domain and never mention the rest.

RawAlex, ICRA does not keep a record of domains. All it does is generate WC3-compliant PIC files...and these file are identical except one line that mentions the domain name used in *registering* with ICRA.

[RawAlex]

So why is ICRA involved in a meeting if they are just a small website tool that makes tags? Who is paying the freight?

Alex

[Bill]

Who is paying the freight?

This is _THE_ critical question that we need to answer.

Who is the money behind Cambria?

Who is paying for this press? Who are these people? And why do they appear to be selling out the online sector?

What do they want, and what are they trying to protect by offering up the onliners as the scapegoat sacrifice for the neo-cons?

I guess I've only really started to ask these critical questions myself.

Who is the Adult Freedom Foundation? What is their history? Who is Cambria working for? How are they operating?

[MeatPounder]

So why is ICRA involved in a meeting if they are just a small website tool that makes tags? Who is paying the freight?

Alex
They are much more then a simple web site tool with their memberships going for companies like AOL, Verizon, ATT, etc going for 30k a pop.

Plus they are shooting to be "the" labelling system from what it says on their website.
What's Next For ICRA?
Due to the increasingly international nature of digital content and the plethora of media ratings schemes that exist, there is a growing requirement for a common labelling framework for digital content, which ICRA can provide. ICRA is uniquely positioned to be the common labelling framework that underlies a variety of age-based rating systems. ICRA will allow a content provider to label digital content once, and for that label to be mapped into whatever rating system is most appropriate for each distribution channel.

ICRA helps to address the growing phenomena of 'space-shifting', defined by industry leaders as: "moving content between devices". For instance:

Broadcast TV clips can be played on cell phones
Movies can be delivered via the internet and viewed on the PC
Streaming media from an internet site can be displayed on a TV set
The need for a universal content labelling scheme that can be mapped to existing national or device-based rating systems becomes of great importance.

That is why they are having the round table, and why the AFF wants to be there.

As I said in the other thread I am now using both the ICRA system and a PICS label with Safesurf marking my sites adult
<link rel="meta" href="http://www.meatybabes.com/labels.rdf" type="application/rdf+xml" title="ICRA labels" />
<meta http-equiv="PICS-Label" content='(PICS-1.1 "http://www.classify.org/safesurf/" L gen true for "http://www.meatybabes.com" r (SS~~000 9 SS~~001 7 SS~~002 6 SS~~003 6 SS~~004 6 SS~~005 1 SS~~009 6))'>

It takes me less then a minute at both those organizations to obtain my label for a site, and less then 5 seconds to paste those two tags in my headers.
For my existing pages I create them with this tag <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="ALL=INDEX,FOLLOW"> on everyone of them so a search and replace I search for that and replace it with the 3 tags...the robots and the two labels.

[RawAlex]

Meatpounder - repeat that process for 1000 domains and tens if not hundreds of thousands of pages... and tell me why this is good for me again?

Alex

[cd34]

if you use apache and have mod_headers installed:

http://www.icra.org/systemspecification/ (look for section 5.2 Apache Server Configuration)

It is still once per domain, but, every html page doesn't even need to be touched. And, it properly handles images, videos, etc or content served to cell phones, ipods, etc.

[MeatPounder]

Meatpounder - repeat that process for 1000 domains and tens if not hundreds of thousands of pages... and tell me why this is good for me again?

Alex

1000 domains times what? Say 5 minutes each max, and that is high.

About 83 hrs total for that massive amount of sites if they are actually being used for porn. Very few if any have that many domains, and those that do would have a staff handling the mindboggling amount of labor entailed actually using those sites.

Well look at it this way...if just for example they get their way and create .xxx
1000 sites to purchase for god knows how much...1000 sites to move over, millions of links to change. Countless weeks of labor I would say, not 83 hrs. Much better to be pro-active and do a simple thing in my opinion. Of course you bring up those with 1000 sites, how many realistically if any have 1000 active porn sites that would be immediately impacted?

All this hemming and hawing rather then us just uniting and doing SOMETHING.
No wonder this is such an issue with the Feds. We cannot even agree that we as adult webmasters should even do anything to attempt to stop children from surfing porn.

[RawAlex]

They can create .xxx all the like... and then the US congress can send the troops out to invade Canada and enforce it.

Alex

[MeatPounder]

Nope all they have to do is block in the us any adult content on a site that is not .xxx, or whatever else they come up with. ;)

[walrus]

They can create .xxx all the like... and then the US congress can send the troops out to invade Canada and enforce it.

Alex...or simply mandate filtering at the ISP level.

[MeatPounder]

...or simply mandate filtering at the ISP level.
Exactly ;)

Alex why are we arguing about how much labor it is and that we shouldn't have tags?
Why just in this thread alone you seem to have supported everything I said except the use of ICRA.
ICRA is not perfect, but the foundation is there...and if we got the search engines along using it then we could stand up proud and show we are being proactive in protecting children and what they surf.
How long did it take to add the meta tag to your pages as you said?
Add to that 2 minutes to fillout the ICRA form for both sites...and what 12 seconds max to upload an rdf file to each site.
Simple tags are the best. No need to go back and retro fit millions of computers with some sort of chip. No need for a third party registry. Simple software can block it, and we can all do it in a very short amount of time.

Support the simple solution.

Alex


Simple meta tag filtering can be implemented by nothing more serious than a windows update. If 75% of the people do the update, then you have 75% penetration on the first go. All new computers going forward would have the software installed, so it wouldn't be long to get to 80% or 90%. Installing a chip and waiting for a turnover in computers would lead to probably less than 25% penetration in the first year, which is way to slow a pace to really show change. To make that work today, we would have had to start putting them in PCs in maybe 2002 or 2003.

With windows update and other automated updating tools, putting a simple filter system in place is a piece of cake if you can get Microsoft, mozilla, and Apple on board, and there is little or no reason for them NOT to be on board.

Alex
Findpics and link2x now have simple meta tags on all pages.

Alex
of code and you are off to the races.

The government needs to pass simple rules: All web pages must be rated (General to Restricted / adult / XXX ) and all browsers must support a simple system to read these tags and block unwanted websites.

Done.

Sadly, the simple answers will never be simple.

Alex
No, I think that the TV industry and movie industry have already blazed the path and set the standards. Hollywood and the other media also understand and have long since accepted (grudgingly, with issues) the current rating system. I would rather be part of that big whole, rather than being the oddballs on the corner.

Alex

[Bill]

All this hemming and hawing rather then us just uniting and doing SOMETHING.
No wonder this is such an issue with the Feds. We cannot even agree that we as adult webmasters should even do anything to attempt to stop children from surfing porn.

This is a bit pessimistic.

Already, thru this discussuion in several threads, we've established that most of us are already using some type of relevant browser self-rating systems already.

Some use the meta "ratings" tags.

Some use the ICRA/PICS tags.

Some use both.

Any one of these choices seems perfectly suitable to me, altho I think that using the ICRA/PICS tags alone is the weakest, because it is not obvious to parents and politicians, and therefore is politically irrelevant.

So, really, that part of the discussion is complete, altho there may be some technical niceties to decide later, such as wether its possible to create a visible and obvious PICS tag that would be politically relevant.

So, self-rating methods are decided, what's the next step in the process?

[RawAlex]

ICRA apparently is an organization run by major ISPs and third parties not interested in our business, attempting to force a solution on the rest of us.

I am not arguing AGAINST tags, far from it. I am suggesting that putting up the wrong tags would be a waste of time, and giving in to the current half baked third party solution isn't going to help up to put forward things like simplifed tagging that would keep porn from being walled off from other adult materials (the current PICS / ICRA tags would allow companies like AOL to allow access to poker, example, or abortion information, but filter out and make porn non-existant to it's end users.

When we stand alone, seperated by mark from the rest of the world, we are and easy and simple target to filter and remove. Detailed page ratings will allow this to happen.

Meatpounder, I won't add much more to this discussion, I think I have made my points clear. I am for tagging, but not for complicated or detailed tagging that will (1) likely need to be replaced over and over again in time with better solutions, (2) is the solution at hand is supported by third party groups that don't really like porn, and (3) will allow sites of a sexual nature to easily be blocked at the ISP level so that surfers would have no chance to access the material, even if they wanted to.

Point 3 is important. What would happen if ISPs were required by law to block access to porn unless clients contact them and authorize access? Most people would not want to be marked as "perverts" so they wouldn't do it. They might not know how to unblock it. AOL, MSN, COX, and whatever adelphia is now suddenly all block porn. Can you imagine the effect on your business overnight?

Don't give people who would want to hinder free speech the chance to easily flag and remove us in a global fashion.

Alex

[DJilla]

.kid and a small levy on all other domain buyers (to finance the administration and promotion thereof) - is my silver bullet solution to all of this rubbish.

'Bout time somebody remembered this. Me too!

At this point, I think the FSC is running so fast that it doesn't have time to focus on finding it's focus and working to do what organizations need to do: Represent and listen to it's members..

I agree with this but would only add that we should keep in mind that their focus by nature has to be on a VERY BIG playing field. It’s not easy nor cheap to deal with the entire government, lobbyists, law firms, PR efforts, the local activities they are involved in, do it on a shoestring and with a large volunteer effort. I’m hearing over and again (which I believe wholeheartedly) that they are interested and wanting of our participation. They know where the future is and as a whole, these are some pretty smart people. I’m feeling comfortable with trying to remember that everything can’t be in “internet time”. We just want to see some results and the platforms that are being worked out here are worthy.

it is about building a group that counts a large part (if not a majority) of the online adult community as it's members. A group cannot even pretend to speak for "us" if so few of us are members (except because many felt they were held for ransom in the 2257 process).

If there are 50,000 webmasters out there, the group would be a stunning success if 30,000 of them were members. An "us" group with no "us" is just a few people with nice suits and an agenda. .

If only 5000 new WM members signed up this year the results such a message would achieve could be immediate and overwhelmingly positive. Why any WM would be bitter over needing to become a member because of 2257 is insane. FSC had nothing to do with it. It’s the law and the ONLY way one could insure protection. If anyone thinks that the battle s) are over or been won, they are sadly mistaken.

WM REPRESENTATIVE
Remember that a representative would only have to really work on an interim basis and be advisory. This is because between now and the next elections I’m sure that we will have gotten a full slate of candidates up there for the board. This is just one more reason to flood the FSC with new memberships. Once you’ve got board presence, everything will be much, much easier and smoother.

[DJilla]

Halfdeck, please let me answer:

1 - RDF files are a patch on a kludge on a tack on. Doesn't matter what's in them, they are an extra step in what should be a simple system.
2 - There would be no simple system for checking (and rechecking) RFD files for every sites submitted to a link list. They could put up a "we are porn" tag today, and as soon as they are listed change it to "safe for kids". I don't think anyone wants to have to re-write bots to try to figure out what is in a seperate file.
3 - you have to re-register each domain (or modify the files) for each use. Registration is pointless if you register only one domain and never mention the rest.
4 - If you use what already works (not really) then you are endorsing it and making a simpler solution less likely.
5 - What Conner Young failed to do was look at the millions and millions of pages, galleries, free sites, paysites, and blogs out there with no tags and the thousands upon thousands of webmasters who have no intention of endorsing a system that creates hassle and extra administrion.

Some american webmasters still don't have valid 2257 information, or have the 2257 pointing to a mailboxes etc or a po box in an office building. That is with a major threat of jail and huge fines. Do you really think we can do better on a volunteer system that is just way more complicated than it needs to be?

Alex

This I would like to propose is a good thing. I really think that agreeing and doing the little, easy, simple things like metags now is something to be expected from a "good wm". Doing the code work just goes with the job. Lazy webmasters are on their own, just like spammers, and other unwanted stuff.
Repeat:
Step One: give the government a smaller target to go after. By setting our standard of self compliance.

So, maybe a poll on which tag is most popular is a good thing to explore as well. Mature, Adult, Restricted,

[wishmaster]

The way i see the government want us to play mom and to all the kids that can get on the net ... we all as webmaster should use the ratings" tags to help stop kids from looking at the porn biz but what it all come down to when does mom and dad step in and say what can I do to make sure my kids are not looking at this ...


I'm sure many of us feel the same as i do but want can we do but use the ratings" tags to help ..
hell i'm a dad and i dont let my kids see any of this stuff ..

[SirMoby]

The way i see the government want us to play mom and to all the kids that can get on the net ... we all as webmaster should use the ratings" tags to help stop kids from looking at the porn biz but what it all come down to when does mom and dad step in and say what can I do to make sure my kids are not looking at this ...


I'm sure many of us feel the same as i do but want can we do but use the ratings" tags to help ..
hell i'm a dad and i dont let my kids see any of this stuff ..
You're right. All that we can do is label the sites and it is up to parents to do something using those labels. As a parent I know that if there aren't labels then there is no way to allow my daughter to use the Internet and still keep the nasties away.

That being said, as a parent I want a lot more labeled then just sexually explicit material. Guns, gambling, violence, religion, hate and most of Fox News is not the type of stuff for children.