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

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by Tommy

what if we took the first step and requred labels on all submits

...as well as legit warning pages with no nudity (and yes, I am serious)

[chadknowslaw]

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.

[Bill]

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.

[Halfdeck]

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.

((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?

[Bill]

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:

<meta http-equiv="PICS-Label" content='(PICS-1.1 "&lt;http://www.rsac.org/ratingsv01.html&gt;" l gen true comment "RSACi North America Server" for "&lt;http://www.maidenheads.com&gt;" on "1999.10.05T02:09-0800" r (n 4 s 4 v 0 l 4))'>

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:

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

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.

[Halfdeck]

Originally Posted by Bill

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

<meta http-equiv="PICS-Label" content='(PICS-1.1 "&lt;http://www.rsac.org/ratingsv01.html&gt;" l gen true comment "RSACi North America Server" for "&lt;http://www.maidenheads.com&gt;" on "1999.10.05T02:09-0800" r (n 4 s 4 v 0 l 4))'>

Just look at all the junk in that tag.

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

<link rel="meta" href="/labels.rdf" type="application/rdf+xml" />

which isn't much longer than:

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

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

[Surfn]

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

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by Halfdeck

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

<link rel="meta" href="/labels.rdf" type="application/rdf+xml" />

which isn't much longer than:

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

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

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

[DJilla]

Originally Posted by Bill

Why can't it be simplified to something like:

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

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.