So, I have been thinking about this Cambria Struggles in Senate Porn Hearings - Page 3

RawAlex · 2006-01-28, 06:33 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alex

RawAlex · 2006-01-30, 10:24 AM

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

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

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

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

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

Alex

Halfdeck · 2006-01-30, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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:

HTML Code:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toby · 2006-01-30, 01:36 PM

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.

walrus · 2006-01-30, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toby

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

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

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

SirMoby · 2006-01-30, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toby

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

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

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

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

SirMoby · 2006-01-30, 04:08 PM

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

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

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

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

Toby · 2006-01-30, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirMoby

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirMoby

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirMoby

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

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

Toby · 2006-01-30, 07:14 PM

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

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

walrus · 2006-01-30, 07:56 PM

Unfortunately, the world isn't black or white.

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

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

Toby · 2006-01-30, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by walrus

Unfortunately, the world isn't black or white.

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

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

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

walrus · 2006-01-30, 08:19 PM

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.

LowryBigwood · 2006-01-31, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by walrus

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

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?

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

RawAlex · 2006-02-01, 02:56 AM

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

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

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

Alex

2006-01-30, 01:36 PM	#4
Toby Lonewolf Internet Sales Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Houston Posts: 4,826	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. __________________ Latex Vixens Babes In Boots Well Heeled Women Dressing For Sex Stocking Vixens

2006-01-30, 07:14 PM	#9
Toby Lonewolf Internet Sales Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Houston Posts: 4,826	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. __________________ Latex Vixens Babes In Boots Well Heeled Women Dressing For Sex Stocking Vixens

2006-01-30, 07:56 PM	#10
walrus Oh no, I'm sweating like Roger Ebert Join Date: May 2005 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,773	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. __________________ Naked Girlfriend Porn TGP free partner account

2006-01-30, 08:19 PM	#12
walrus Oh no, I'm sweating like Roger Ebert Join Date: May 2005 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,773	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. __________________ Naked Girlfriend Porn TGP free partner account

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

2006-01-28, 06:33 PM	#1
RawAlex Took the hint. Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,597	Halfdeck, rating a site with ICRA isn't hard on a single case basis. If you own a single site, and want to register that single site and make all the pages compliant, it isn't difficult, but can be a little involved (plus it adds just a ton of crap onto the page that is not in the slightest SE friendly). Now, let's say you produce 10 new sites each day, 100 new galleries each week, and manage hundreds of domains. ICRA is just an added nightmare that, like cross referenced 2257 documents, wastes time and generates little return compared to simpler and more direct solutions. <meta http-equiv="PICS-Label" content="Adult"> What could be simpler? No third parties... no junk tags... no huge multi line piece of shit tag wasting bandwidth and adding little to the solution. Why the heck use the DIFFICULT solution when an easy one is right at hand? When you put a third party in the middle of your transactions, your business is controlled by someone else. Live free or die, right? Why the fuck let someone else get in the middle of your business? Alex

2006-01-30, 10:24 AM	#2
RawAlex Took the hint. Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,597	Halfdeck the choices should not be between a flawed and overdone system or nothing. Supporting option A is to make half ass and burdensome third party work the gold standard. That truly would be sad. There are other choices. Our industry could easily go back to PICS and whatnot and say, look, we want to use: <meta http-equiv="PICS-Label" content="Adult"> Simple and short. Make sure the browser companies can handle this going forward. Put it in their next update, next release. End discussion. We can toss a simple tag in, and the children get blocked. Supporting a flawed system means we would have to live with the flaws. That isn't a very good choice. Alex

2006-01-30, 04:08 PM	#7
SirMoby Jim? I heard he's a dirty pornographer. Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 2,706	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.

2006-02-01, 02:56 AM	#14
RawAlex Took the hint. Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,597	Walrus, in the same manner that programs don't allow the use of certain keywords (and visa / MC has a whole list of things that they won't process), the solution is clear: The major programs have to say "your pages need to have this tag". When the people that control the money decide or are forced to take action, then the rest of the business will move with them. Until then we are all pissing up a rope. Alex