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

[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]

Originally Posted by walrus

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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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

That 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]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by odysseus

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

[Bill]

Originally Posted by grandmascrotum

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]

Originally Posted by MadMax

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

...is it not our job to stand up and say "NO"?

and to yell, scream and stomp our feet if necessary.

[walrus]

Originally Posted by DJilla

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.

Originally Posted by DJilla

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]

Originally Posted by DJilla

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]

Originally Posted by walrus

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.

Originally Posted by walrus

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.

Originally Posted by walrus

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/columnis...hnson.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]

Originally Posted by DJilla

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/...ad.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:...s&ct=clnk&cd=1