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

Cheers,
B

Alex,

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

Really? Well, what's the code then? If it's a simple universal code why isn't it as commonly known as or it's variations?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul's response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What am I missing?

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

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



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

Why can't it be simplified to something like:



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Alex

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



which isn't much longer than:



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

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

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

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

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

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

This tag, tho:



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

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

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

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

That ICRA site is ridiculous.

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

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

That's what they rate for.

Where's the entry for...

Hardcore Fucking
Ass Slamming
Midget Anal
Gay Cumshots
Facial Cumshot

I guess all we have to check is...

Erections/explicit sexual acts

Since even broadcast TV has...

Exposed breasts
Bare buttocks
Passionate kissing
Obscured or implied sexual acts

I guess everything is XXX nowadays.

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


xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
xmlns:label="http://www.w3.org/2004/12/q/contentlabel#"
xmlns:icra="http://www.icra.org/rdfs/vocabularyv03#">



2006-1-29
http://www.icra.org/rdfs/vocabularyv03#





hot-latina-ass.net






Label for all/most of website
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
Exposed breasts; Bare buttocks; Visible genitals; Passionate kissing; Obscured or implied sexual acts; Visible sexual touching; Explicit sexual language; Erections/explicit sexual acts; Erotica; No violence; Profanity or swearing; Mild expletives; No potentially harmful activities; User generated content may be, but is not known to be, present;

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

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

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

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

Alex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Alex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time will tell :D

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

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

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

That may be the case but shouldn't we be working on a rating system any way? At the core it's a good idea so why shouldn't we make up a working proposal?

What purpose will a multi-level system serve if it will never get implemented widely enough to be useful. And just who is going to determine these various ratings and how they're blocked? Just way too complicated to ever be effective.

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

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

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

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

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

But do they work to block adult content? No, not very well because most sites don't include any coding and get blocked by default when it's not adult at all, so people just turn it off.

This is a reality regardless of the rating system and is an entirely different issue.

This is a whole other can of worms. If news sites want to use a rating="violence" tag, more power to them, but that's a different political agenda. I'm only concerned with an effective way to keep kids out of porn sites.

|huh You have a content filtering system that is defined by w3c and implemented by IE....and it takes just little more time to go somewhere, check a couple checkbox's, get the code and then cut and paste that into your pages that you cant use it but...if it were a simplier tag that you could cut and paste into all your pages, that somehow would be easier?

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

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

Unfortunately, the world isn't black or white.

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

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

Yes, but that assumes that the sites are rated correctly for the content they contain. I'll guarantee you many that include the PICS tag won't be rated correctly.

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

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

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

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

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