Separation of Church and Microsoft

theodp writes "Last week, the USPTO published a rather odd Microsoft patent application for Content Ratings and Recommendations, which describes how religious-based communities and other 'subcultures' can use the patent-pending process to prevent their members from viewing undesirable television programs and movies."

Am I the only one ...

[gentimjs (930934)]

Who cringes at stuff like this mostly out of the fact that it will be used against (intentional word choice) children/teenagers to enforce a parent/group's own set of values upon the youngster who might not even share them? Yeah yeah I'm all for people's rights to raise kids however they want, but I'm also for the rights of kids to not be brainwashed by david-koresh-worshipping freaks or indoctrinated into neo-nazi-ideology and such at an age where they are too young to have an educated opinion about it ..

Re:Am I the only one ...

[exploder (196936)]

...it will be used against (intentional word choice) children/teenagers to enforce a parent/group's own set of values upon the youngster who might not even share them?

That's called "raising" a child, and it's generally accepted in most places that parents have that right.

Re:

[Pojut (1027544)]

I think the OP's point is that this may be used in such a way that the parents don't bother devising their own system for raising their child based on their own child's needs/interests/wants...basically, using someone elses "system" for raising their own child.

I think I would have to agree. I can understand if you want some website to give you the rundown on what is in a movie so that you as a parent can make an educated decision about whether you child should see it or not. However, I wouldn't (and don't

Someone else's system for raising your own child

[CustomDesigned (250089)]

I think the OP's point is that this may be used in such a way that the parents don't bother devising their own system for raising their child based on their own child's needs/interests/wants...basically, using someone elses "system" for raising their own child.

Also known in the USA as "public school".

Seriously, I've filtered my childrens web browsing through squid since RedHat 7.2 (how long ago is that?). What's with the patent? Usually, restrictions have less to do with inappropriate content, and mor

Re:

[be-fan (61476)]

Right, but there is such a thing as raising a child properly and raising a child badly. We have laws against certain forms of child abuse, but unfortunately other forms are still allowed...

Re:

[Tribbin (565963)]

Yes indeed.

If I want to raise my kid from birth to be specialized to safe humanity from the robot-uprising in the not too far future, that is my fair right.

Re:Am I the only one ...

[Oligonicella (659917)]

What a pile of horseshit. Very, very few parents see it as having the joy of control over another person. If a parent has a set of values, they attempt to bring their child up to respect those.

To continue your bad analogy: If a child doesn't want to go to school, go wear clothes, to eat vegetables, etc.

Allowing an undeveloped person -- both in mind and body -- to control their life is not parenting, it's the abdication thereof.

Re:

[wsherman (154283)]

Allowing an undeveloped person -- both in mind and body -- to control their life is not parenting, it's the abdication thereof.

I think what you mean here is "full control" and I'd actually agree with you that children should not have full control. On the other hand, it would also be a huge mistake to give them "no control".

The way I see it, you set boundaries but you allow them freedom within those boundaries. Maybe you let them play outside - but you don't let them play in traffic. Maybe you let them choo

Re:Watch the Movie "Jesus Camp"

[thule (9041)]

Depends on how you define "social skills." The many home schooled kids I have encountered have a much better ability to socialize outside of what is normally defined at their peer group. They can converse with adults much better than other kids their age. Although some are too sheltered, I've also seen kids that are very confident in who they are and seem, to me, less likely to be influenced by the day's fad by peers.

Re:Watch the Movie "Jesus Camp"

[PortHaven (242123)]

I'd have to agree. Most of the home-schooled students I've met did not associate well with their peers until about age 24. However, they got along with other adults, other homeschoolers. And those peers who tended toward a higher maturity level.

I realized, that most of these home schoolers don't fit into the lifestyle of the avg 16-24 yr old who is often on a rampage of discovering their freedoms via teenage years and parent free college. I think many home-schoolers skip this period because they're often granted much greater personal freedom in their studies and responsibilities. They don't have to plunge into excess because they feel as if they've already had freedom.

That said, there are always exceptions. As there are with every demographic. Those home-schooled individuals who were overly sheltered or poorly educated. But from my encounters I'd say this is less the case than what it's made out to be.

Re:Am I the only one ...

[everphilski (877346)]

Who cringes at stuff like this mostly out of the fact that it will be used against (intentional word choice) children/teenagers to enforce a parent/group's own set of values upon the youngster who might not even share them?

The alternative? You want the government to raise them?

Re:

[Colin Smith (2679)]

Why not? Your average "citizen" is perfectly happy to abdicate all their other responsibilities, and therefore freedoms.

 

Re:Am I the only one ...

[jollyreaper (513215)]

Who cringes at stuff like this mostly out of the fact that it will be used against (intentional word choice) children/teenagers to enforce a parent/group's own set of values upon the youngster who might not even share them?

The alternative? You want the government to raise them?

Well, we could always use more troops. My SUV ain't gonna fill itself.

Re:

[Chyeld (713439)]

We've all been brainwashed as youth, as long as we are going to allow free thinking, we are going to have to deal with the results of people going to extremes outside of what we consider acceptable.

Any argument along the same lines as the one you presented can be boiled down to the same sentiment: "My belief/moral/cultural system is superior to theirs."

In some cases many would agree with you, in some cases not. Isn't what is currently being discussed simply the same argument that you've presented, only with

Re:

[be-fan (61476)]

"My belief/moral/cultural system is superior to theirs."

At what point can we say that a certain set of beliefs (not necessarily a whole system, but certain ones) are indeed superior? Stupid ideas in religious have been losing the war ever since the Enlightenment. When can we draw the line on certain things? I mean, for god's sake, even the Pope has excepted evolution, can't we call out people who teach their children otherwise for what they're really doing --- lying blatantly to their children about fundame

Re:

[Chyeld (713439)]

There are plenty who have done the same, with less intent. My parents happen to teach in a small rural area, the amount of pure, for lack of a better word, "disinformation" provided by some parents to their children is scary. And while this is an example is in a rural area and thus easier to swallow for most here, given stereotypes, the same sort of thing happens everywhere.

Yes, people who raise their children outside of the 'norm' of culture are typically looked down upon and if these people weren't alread

Re:

[be-fan (61476)]

I'm not advocating government intervention here, but more active social ostracization. Society is far too accepting of these lunatics (as evidenced by the fact that we somehow have 3 presidential candidates who actively spout this nonsense).

Of all the ways parents fail their children, not teaching them to think has to be one of the worst, yet simultaneously it is one of the most accepted. People are shocked at parents whose emotional abuse of their children leave them emotionally scarred as adults, but are

Re:

[E++99 (880734)]

Who cringes at stuff like this mostly out of the fact that it will be used against (intentional word choice) children/teenagers to enforce a parent/group's own set of values upon the youngster who might not even share them?

It's the right and duty of parents to determine the atmosphere most conducive to the development of their children, and moreover to instill values in them. It's not the right or duty of ABC or CNN or Fox or even the Government. Relinquishing the responsibility for your child's environme

Giving credit

[benhocking (724439)]

Also, you don't give enough credit to the "children/teenagers", who, if they're intelligent in the first place, will more than likely see through "crazy belief systems".

And who will be able to figure out how to bypass the restrictive system itself.

Re:

[Tribbin (565963)]

I did not read your post but I think you wrote a paradox.

Re:

[Tribbin (565963)]

That weren't slashdotters.

That was a script from the 'Brotherhood of Parenthood' who fight for the right of parents to do whatever they want.

Not surprisingly the 'fortune' from slashdot is, at this very moment; "Never trust a child farther than you can throw it."

Re:Am I the only one ...

[Oligonicella (659917)]

No, chum. It's because they recognized the bullshit inherent in equating the "techniques" of Koresh, nazi's and Methodists.

kdawsonfud

[everphilski (877346)]

the patent nowhere mentions a collusion between church and Microsoft. The patent submission suggests several applications, including, "groups of viewers may include a parent-teacher association, a religious-based community, or any other subculture wanting to provide standards and boundaries for program viewing selections.".

Labeled as kdawsonfud.

Re:

[Otter (3800)]

And given the apparent obviousness of this invention (unlike most of the nonsensical "Microsoft Patents [some ancient computing feature]!!!" stories here), it's odd that this silly aside about religion is what was chosen to complain about.

prior art

[phrostie (121428)]

don't the Christian Scientist have prior art on this?

The Church of Scientology would want this

[David Hume (200499)]

The Church of Scientology [xenu.net] would certainly want this. The Church [xenu.net] already has the Scieno Sitter [wikipedia.org], "a content-control software package created by the Church of Scientology, which, when installed on a computer, blocks certain Web sites critical of Scientology from being viewed." Perhaps, as in the case of the Scieno Sitter [lermanet.com], subscribers of MS COS television wouldn't even have to be told about the censorship program. After all, we wouldn't want people finding out about Xenu [wikipedia.org].

Over-reaction

[shbazjinkens (776313)]

So basically this is NetNanny for TV and it's "censorship?"

Churches, schools, rec centers, libraries, etc have been applying this kind of technology ever since the internet got popular, I don't see what the big deal is. If you want to watch porn go home, don't do it at your church, right?

I don't know about the patentability of this

[BadAnalogyGuy (945258)]

Though I suspect that this patent is probably designed not as a submarine patent or a patent troll, I have to wonder about its validity considering the existence of rating systems and parental controls, as well as technologies such as "flag this post" and "flag this user" which allow community-based censorship of content.

That said, this type of technology would be immensely useful in DVR devices. Rather than seeing this as a means of restricting your (or your kid's) viewing habits, a rating system that grew to be more appropriate to your particular tastes would mean less time spent channel surfing and more quality time with the boob tube. You would, in an optimal system, only be presented with programs/media that fit your profile which you generate as you watch and rate shows.

The less time spent in front of the TV the better, I always say (seriously, I say it all the freaking time). If you can get your daily dose of porn in a single block of recorded programming, you all of a sudden stop being fat, lazy American porn-loving slobs, and you become efficient Japanese tentacle fetishists. Or whatever kink you're into.

Information overload and underload is the biggest problem with media (mass or otherwise) today. What we need are sources of content that give us the right amount of load so we can be satisfied without getting worn out.

Re:

[kebes (861706)]

I further question the patentability considering that "Internet Accountability Software [google.com]" of various types already exist, such as: x3watch [x3watch.com], accountable2you [accountable2you.com], InternetAccountability.com [internetac...bility.com], etc. (Note: I have never used any of these products and have no affiliation with them.)

Apparently these systems send reports about internet surfing habits to other members of the community. The idea is to self-censor by willfully allowing another "accountability partner" to see what sites you're viewing. This self-imposed m

OMG! Slashdot For TV!?! OMG! Crucify someone!

[stoicfaux (466273)]

Content ratings and recommendations is described in which embodiments provide that a viewer can create a rating system that other viewers can then subscribe to which forms a group, or subculture, that collaborates to identify and rate television programs, movies, and other programming choices for the viewers of the group. This adaptive and flexible approach enables individual viewers to discover like-minded subcultures, benefit from a rating system that represents similar viewing choices, and optionally, participate in identifying media content and rating the viewing choices.

A group of people willingly subscribe to a group that recommends TV shows they would be interested in and blocks those deemed inappropriate/off-topic/irrelevant. It's like Slashdot for TV.

Is there any chance that Slashdot moderators can apply 'Troll' and 'Deliberately Misleading Flamebait' to article titles and summaries?

Re:OMG! Slashdot For TV!?! OMG! Crucify someone!

[Frosty Piss (770223)]

Look at which "editor" posted the "story": KDawson. Mr. Dawson has become the Poster Child for misleading Slashdot headlines and summaries. I'm as anti-Microsoft as the next reasonably sane guy, but Dawson's editing generally has little relationship to the actual story.

Re:

[stoicfaux (466273)]

To answer my own question: you can tag the article with 'misleadingheadline'. Type in 'misleading' and you will get a dropdown list of 'misleading*' tags. Although I'm curious as the difference between 'misleadingheadline' and 'misleadingtitle'. Can we tag a tag as redundant? =)

Can it do the reverse?

[grassy_knoll (412409)]

As in, could one use this to block all religious programing? Or all $FOO that the viewer doesn't want to watch?

If so, and it's controlled by the viewer... problem?

A switch to block $naughty_things ( cancel or allow? ) doesn't seem as useful, but if it's user controled content filtering it might be ok.

"So don't watch it"

[dazedNconfuzed (154242)]

Ya know, some people would like a little more information about what a movie contains so they can make a rational* choice about what they choose to watch - and there's nothing wrong with that, nor with getting a little technical help from the publishers etc.

* - just because YOU don't agree with their reasoning doesn't make it wrong.

I always knew...

[jd (1658)]

Microsoft was a religion and that Bill Gates was its God.

Seriously, it must be obvious to everyone why Microsoft is pulling this. We have an American election in which the right-wing conservatives have been "amiable" to Microsoft's continued monopoly and dubious practices (such as buying out standards bodies). It is in Microsoft's interests at exactly this time to be seen to be "friendly" to those same right-wing conservatives and to win support from the very power-base the politicians are relying on. The

... Like the Fox Blocker?

[Etcetera (14711)]

...which describes how religious-based communities and other 'subcultures' can use the patent-pending process to prevent their members from viewing undesirable television programs and movies."

That wouldn't have anything to do with the Fox Blocker I read about off Daily Kos [timblair.net] now would it?

I know what they're doing.

[Orange Crush (934731)]

It's plain as day.

MS's only real money makers are Windows & Office, so they're trying to diversify the L. Ron Hubbard way and are preparing to start their own religion. That's where the real money is.

The most important subculture...

[140Mandak262Jamuna (970587)]

The most important sub culture for MSFT is that group of CIOs and CTOs of big corporations who should not hear about ODF, vendor-lock, upgrade-treadmill, defects in OOXML spec and other such nefarious and deleterious concepts. They all should get a carefully constructed message from their local MSFT sales manager. That is the most important subculture MSFT is talking about.

Aum MSFT! Aum MSFT!! Aum MSFT!!!

Become... one... with... MSFT!!!

Aum Nirvana.

Aum Shantih Shantih Shantihhiii

rating system within a rating system. been done

[Locutus (9039)]

big deal, they are trying to patent a rating system where an identified user can join a rating list to filter shows/news/etc. BFD, rating systems already exist and this rating system within a rating system shouldn't even be patentable. Besides, isn't Tivo already doing this with their Recommended Lineup thing? It's not blocking shows but instead providing shows which others also liked/watched. Not patentable due to prior art. IMO.

LoB
 

Could help squash the FCC, maybe?

[Loosifur (954968)]

The FCC (in addition to other functions) does a lot of censoring to protect society from rogue nipples and people who swear on the basis that everyone has access to television and therefore television shouldn't offend the sensibilities of anyone at all. Well, let's say you're deeply offended by boobies and monk seals. You join a ratings block of like minded folks who also are offended by boobies and monk seals. I, who happen to adore those things but am deeply offended by Jerry Lewis, join a block that refl

It's been done.

[Irvu (248207)]

This is essentially how most if not all censorship or group filtration has been accomplished. Noteably the National Legion of Decency [wikipedia.org] used this method to review and filter movies for their participants with a selected subset of their members (usually the priests) viewing films and then delivering a content rating to their remaining members via the pulpit often along the lines of "You'll go to hell if you see Mae West!" This became the basis of the existing MPAA ratings which use a selected set of individuals to rate a film for others and in some cases (e.g. X ratings) censor it from widespread public view.

This is also how other churches have censored things for years, how school boards go about banning books, how large political organizations censor materials, etc.

Basically Microsoft is trying to patent censorship as it has been practiced for centuries.

How exactly do you cite the Spanish Inquisition as prior art?

Actually, it's Brilliant

[Trojan35 (910785)]

Now the crazy parents who don't keep track of their children can use this instead of parenting. ...And they can stop trying to pass legislation to restrict MY television viewing.

This is starting to drone on and on and on and on

[PortHaven (242123)]

So what if I as a parent want to subscribe to a viewing community that helps me screen out certain content that I as a parent deem inappropriate. For a site that often exclaims the personal right to choose Slashdot's article posting seems to be on the wrong side of the fence on this one.

First off, with the rate of new show turnover these days combined with the number of channels and shows on TV. There is no way a parent could preview ALL the programming without it being a full time job. So anything that makes that task easier is a plus for caring parents.

Second...shows change. I've been watching Smallville over the years. The early seasons I'd consider a family friendly show. Perhaps a bit flirtatious but nothing too out of bounds. A couple of seasons back Smallville decided to take a turn toward a more adult tack. For example, the Smallville Halloween scene insinuates female vampires biting off a guy's penis and drinking his blood. That might be a fine scene for your children. But I'd rather not have my children watch such a scene. A content rating like the one proposed above could allow people to be alerted to when a show or even a particular episode goes down a track that might not be what you want your 7 yr old watching.

Lastly, we're talking personal screening. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH AN INDIVIDUAL CHOOSING TO CENSOR WHAT THEY OR THEIR CHILDREN WATCH.

"Government Censorship" = evil.
"Personal Censorship" = freedom.

Somewhere along the way we have seemed to confused the two. Look, politics and political views aside. Taking away personal censorship and forcing people to accept content is an extremely bad thing. You have to look at such laws and concepts from an either or view. You may think these parents are wrong for wanting to censor certain content and that they should not be able to edit said content or even avoid it. But I am sure you'd hate the reverse. How many of the people ranting against this personal censorship have the "Foxnews" channel skipped/blocked out of their channel listings? Would it be right if someone told you that you could not choose to do so?

Come on folks...can we have liberty before politics!!!!

Slashdot can we have "News for Nerds" without the political slants. Otherwise, we should consider changing the name to "Slantdot". Which would be a crying shame. I love Slashdot because it's filled with geek news instead of the constant glutt of political news. I don't mind if an issue is inherently political (ie: politics and Diebold voting machines). But I am tired of submissions which have to twist 359 degrees in order to turn the topic into something political.

*blech*

- Saj

Re:

[Red_Foreman (877991)]

You already have that feature - it's called a "Channel Lock".

Re:

[pegr (46683)]

You already have that feature - it's called a "Channel Lock".
 
Or his Kentucky cousin, "Vice Grips"!

Re:

[SpaceLifeForm (228190)]

As much as I can open them, they still won't fit around their head.

Re:What's wrong with that?

[RexRhino (769423)]

Funny, my TV already has that feature. I don't turn the TV to Fox News, and strangly enough, Fox News doesn't appear on my television.

Re:

[l4m3z0r (799504)]

s/PC/TV/ and you are correct. Still I think they are patenting a new use for the V-Chip. The V-Chip itself allows you to block programs deemed too violent, too sexy, too whatever but it doesn't combine a group think dynamic to it where you say I would like to get all the blocked settings that the Catholics are using also combine that with the stuff that my neighbors block.

Re:

[Captain Sarcastic (109765)]

"It is not heresy, and I will not recant!" -- from To the Devil a Daughter, said by Christopher Lee

Re:It's happening already

[PortHaven (242123)]

"Where it bugs me is when they start telling me I have to live according to their rules."

Nothing about this is to force you to do so. Nothing says "everyone must join x or y community. It's merely to provide an opportunity for like people help rate and review and approve.

The only ones I hear trying to force someone to live by their rules in this case are the ones decrying this as censorship and saying it must be stopped.