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

[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.

[walrus]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.