Separation of Church and Microsoft 165
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."
Church + Microsoft + Title = drama? (Score:1, Insightful)
FTFA-
"Other 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."
Am I the only one ... (Score:2, Insightful)
kdawsonfud (Score:5, Insightful)
Labeled as kdawsonfud.
Re:Am I the only one ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Over-reaction (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:Am I the only one ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The alternative? You want the government to raise them?
OMG! Slashdot For TV!?! OMG! Crucify someone! (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
"So don't watch it" (Score:5, Insightful)
* - just because YOU don't agree with their reasoning doesn't make it wrong.
Re:Am I the only one ... (Score:1, Insightful)
I always knew... (Score:2, Insightful)
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. They are losing support from some of their traditional sources and need to replace them.
That OLPC will need to sell in the US and doesn't (yet) have adequate filtering makes this a skillful move on Microsoft's part. Why? Because if the churches and assorted other fringe groups insist on this Microsoft-patented technology on any laptop provided to children, it completely kills off OLPC's own OS and requires the use of Windows. There will be no alternatives. Schools, libraries, Universities that receive money from religious or other censorus body and so on will likewise be forced to give up Linux or give up their funding. (The Golden Rule of Arts and Science is He Who Hath The Gold Makes The Rules.) If there's a right-wing President, the same will likely become true of all public schools "in the best interest of the kids".
Microsoft doesn't care two whits about the religious groups or the feelings of those involved. It's never cared about anyone's feelings before and I don't see it starting now. This is purely a tactical move to manipulate those feelings into having other people destroy Microsoft's competition. If others are conned into doing so, then Microsoft cannot be (so easily) be held liable, now that it's a declared monopoly.
Re:Am I the only one ... (Score:2, Insightful)
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 environment to the judgment of the TV networks, movie studios and school administrators, does not constitute leaving your child free to choose "his own" values. It does constitute neglecting your duty to your child.
Re:Am I the only one ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Could help squash the FCC, maybe? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Am I the only one ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's been done. (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
This is starting to drone on and on and on and on (Score:5, Insightful)
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:It's happening already (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What's wrong with that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Am I the only one ... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 at most mildly bemused at parents whose intellectual abuse of their children leave them intellectually disabled as adults.
Re:Am I the only one ... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 choose what they want to have for breakfast but you don't let them have a beer and a smoke for breakfast - they can do that when they're 30.
The religion question is tricky. Should a child be forced to go to church? Should a child be forced to "believe in Jesus"? It's not like the child is going to be irreparably harmed by not going to church (or not "believing in Jesus") so there's no practical need to force the child to go to church. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who were forced to go to church as children who more or less turned out OK - though there may be a tendency, later in life to imitate the authoritarian streak of their parents.
My answer if that if a child has extremely strong feelings about not wanting to go to church then it's probably not a good idea to force it. If it's a young child then most young children want to do things with their parents so serious resistance could indicate that the child is being abused by the priest. If it's a teenage child then it's probably time for the child to be making some of their own decisions about religion.