So, I have been thinking about this Cambria Struggles in Senate Porn Hearings - Page 4

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.

DJilla · 2006-01-31, 03:38 PM

Quote:

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.

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.

Wenchy · 2006-01-31, 06:35 PM

IMHO, the responsibility lies with each individual webmaster to make a concerted, good-faith effort to "do the right thing". The adult WM community cannot control whether or not X, Y, and Z browser have the ability to read tags (ICRA, PICS, or otherwise)... not our companies, not our problem. BUT, when the solid waste hits the rotary oscillator, do you want to be able to show your tags and say that you at least tried, or will you claim it was too complicated, too much trouble?

Additionally, and this is just food for thought, there is the fact that many things that started in adult have carried over to the broader Net market... if enough webmasters started using tags of some sort, wouldn't the browser companies feel compelled to bring themselves up to speed? It's happened before (think "consoles" and "pop-up blockers") and there's no reason to think it can't/won't happen again.

I keep hearing people screaming for someone to represent adult WMs beyond what the FSC is currently capable of. I say give 'em something to work with right out of the box... use the tags!! Whatever you prefer or, better yet (and I'm dreaming here) something all adult WMs can get behind and implement as a regular business practice. It's just a little time and effort now to potentially give yourself a leg to stand on later.

Better self-labeling now than forced censorship down the road.

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, 07:56 PM	#76
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	#78
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

2006-01-31, 06:35 PM	#81
Wenchy Trying is the first step towards failure Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Mile High City Posts: 120	IMHO, the responsibility lies with each individual webmaster to make a concerted, good-faith effort to "do the right thing". The adult WM community cannot control whether or not X, Y, and Z browser have the ability to read tags (ICRA, PICS, or otherwise)... not our companies, not our problem. BUT, when the solid waste hits the rotary oscillator, do you want to be able to show your tags and say that you at least tried, or will you claim it was too complicated, too much trouble? Additionally, and this is just food for thought, there is the fact that many things that started in adult have carried over to the broader Net market... if enough webmasters started using tags of some sort, wouldn't the browser companies feel compelled to bring themselves up to speed? It's happened before (think "consoles" and "pop-up blockers") and there's no reason to think it can't/won't happen again. I keep hearing people screaming for someone to represent adult WMs beyond what the FSC is currently capable of. I say give 'em something to work with right out of the box... use the tags!! Whatever you prefer or, better yet (and I'm dreaming here) something all adult WMs can get behind and implement as a regular business practice. It's just a little time and effort now to potentially give yourself a leg to stand on later. Better self-labeling now than forced censorship down the road. __________________ I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, "I drank what?"

2006-02-01, 02:56 AM	#82
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