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/...&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

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]

Originally Posted by DJilla

"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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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!!!

[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]

Originally Posted by cd34

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]

Originally Posted by cd34

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

Originally Posted by Bill

"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".