New RFC Considers .sex TLD Dangerous 421
netcentric writes "A post on CircleID has reported about an RFC prepared by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd and Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com's Washington D.C. correspondent, analyzing proposals from various parties to mandate the use of special top level domain names (such as .sex or .xxx) or an IP address bit to flag 'adult' or 'unsafe' material or the like. The analysis explains why these ideas are dangerous and ill considered from legal, philosophical, and technical points of view. Here is the post to this report on CircleID along with some commentaries and link to the entire RFC 3675."
Once again... (Score:2, Insightful)
RTFA (Score:4, Informative)
Re:RTFA (Score:2, Funny)
Re:RTFA (Score:2)
No, YOU RTFA. (Score:2, Insightful)
That's the point. What's your problem with .sex? That the kids will now ahve (even) liess problems finding the porn? Well if their finding and viewing the porn RIGHT NOW, and you don't like it, what are you doing about it RIGHT NOW? There is no down side to .sex at all. As far as the kiddies locating pron, they will find a way, .sex or not. It is left to YOU as a pare
Re:No, YOU RTFA. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, YOU RTFA. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Funny)
After all, a person who doesn't have time to RTFA isn't going to take the time to watch their kids, either.
I'd be more insightful, but I think my puppy is eating my couch.
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Funny)
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Funny)
Your message got cut by my censorship filter on the "boob" in your name, Buck-a-boob-ob.
So much for content control...
Don't even RTFA, just RTFP (Score:2)
The analysis explains why these ideas are dangerous and ill considered from legal, philosophical, and technical points of view.
Emphasis mine.
Lieberman (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Lieberman (Score:5, Insightful)
At least the ICRA content rating model put the value judgement in the hands of the viewer.
I can see xxx.us working (kind of), and maybe xxx.randomcountry. Personally I'd rather there was a reliable register of adult URLs rather than a bunch of companies all trying to make sure they alone own the filter lists. ".xxx" is addressing that problem but the wrong way IMHO.
Re:Lieberman (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps if there was a gradation similar to the one used by the ESRB, different locales with their different mores could set different thresholds.
Re:Lieberman (Score:2, Interesting)
Poop. Pfiffle. Poppycock. Any plan that depends on self-rating may as well pack up and go home. You're ignoring human nature and the reach of legislation if you think otherwise.
One name: goatse.cx
There will always be someone who doesn't care, who wants to shock, who wants to reach the most eyeballs.
Re:Lieberman (Score:3, Interesting)
After you've cleaned out your eyes tell me that goatse is gone.
Re:Lieberman (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no way the porn industry would restrict themselves to a separate TLD, if for no other reason than it would make it far too easy to screen that domain and prevent access on any system.
The reason self-regulation has worked (to some extent - retailers need to get better about giving some support in terms of enforcement) in the video game industry is that they have a vested interest in alleviating parental concerns. If they ignore the concerns of parents, many of those adults are less likely to buy ANY video game for children, which constitutes a large part of their market. In the porn industry, they care less about the concerns of conservative parents because that's not their audience.
Re:Lieberman (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of the people spamming and installing malicious pop-up-ware aren't the content providers, but rather advertisers who get paid by driving people to the site. I think the adult webmasters
Re:Lieberman (Score:3, Interesting)
I think attempts to apply technological "solutions" to the "problem" of obscenity just helps mask what the concept of "obscenity" is. In the past, it's been a segment of society deciding what the whole of society can and cannot do IN PUBLIC (or, more accurately, at priv
Re:Lieberman (Score:5, Insightful)
But could this mean, for example, that a website such as this which is providing a forum to the public will have to more vigorously scrub the content of its users in order to remain visible or within the law? I fear that this wave of neopuritanism in the U.S. would wield a domain such as .xxx as a club against websites that are not deliberately providing prurient content yet manage to provide offense (much like a radio show that accepts calls from listeners and is forced to block their obscenity or face steep fines.)
Far better to determine a system like the ICRA to leave it up to the viewer, as you say. We've got mandated V-chips in our television sets that permit the set owner to restrict programming to a particular standard which is apparently broadcast with the TV signal, but the broadcasters still censor their content. A .xxx domain will not satisfy the vocal minority that has been responsible for pushing censorship in movies, music, or radio because they are not content to control what they consume, but what we all consume.
Re:Lieberman (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, seriously... what kind of bs is that.
Maybe they should set up a
A community ought to be able to have standards, after all...
Damn, that shoe feels good on the other foot!
Re:Lieberman (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is inherently intractable, when viewed from the top like that. There will always be a large, single-minded group intent on writing its taxonomy onto everyone's sky. And, where there's one group, there's many.
The only approach that's even theoretically workable is from the other end, via opt-in domains, e.g. '.angel' or '.moral'. Then, every sect that finds itself blessed with the One True View could spawn its own h
Re:Lieberman (Score:2, Interesting)
Adult Bit and Evil bit? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Adult Bit and Evil bit? (Score:5, Funny)
.sex is dangerous? (Score:2)
Adult bit? Don't the have that already? (Score:5, Funny)
hahah (Score:5, Funny)
Lets just say I should hope so
Re:hahah (Score:4, Funny)
I think maybe I'll get a
Cheers.
Always amusing... (Score:4, Interesting)
...to read why showing a nipple on US TV is immoral, while executing the said owner of the nipple and selling the nipple is a good deed.
Haven't been with her yet (Score:2, Funny)
Does she have the clap or what?
Amazon.sex (Score:5, Funny)
tomshardware.sex
slashdot.sex
irs.sex
gateway.sex
Internet's about to get real interesting.
Re:Amazon.sex (Score:2)
tomshardware.sex
slashdot.sex
irs.sex
gateway.sex"
Don't forget about Microsoft.sex. Of course, it would be a source for penis enlargement spam, or leaked video footage starring Mr. Gates or Mr. Ballmer.
And no, I did not suggest the video would feature both of them together, thank you very much!
Re:Amazon.sex (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Amazon.sex (Score:3, Funny)
Error 404--Not Found
From RFC 2068 Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1:
10.4.5 404 Not Found
The server has not found anything matching the Request-URI. No indication is given of whether the condition is temporary or permanent, but naturally we hope it's not.
If the server does not wish to make this information available to the client, or if the client is a prude, the status code 403 (Forbidden) can be used instead. The 410 (Gone) status code SHOULD be used if the server knows, through some i
Re:Don't forget (Score:3, Funny)
google.sex
Re:Amazon.sex (Score:2)
See I tried, christianFANBOY.sex and it said 404 Error Not Found
Thread title (Score:5, Funny)
Now _that_ would be a dangerous series of websites.
wbs.
in soviet russia (Score:3, Troll)
2. Mandate that this is the only place where deviance can take place.
3. Eliminate special place for deviance.
4. ?????
5. Profit!
Obligatory Scrubs Quote (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obligatory Scrubs Quote (Score:2, Funny)
why don't you people use hyperlinking? I had to cut and paste that into my address bar.
Re:Obligatory Scrubs Quote (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Obligatory Scrubs Quote (Score:2)
Mozilla 1.6 here, and the options I got were "copy", "select all", "web search for", and "view selection source".
Voluntary vs. Forced (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Voluntary vs. Forced (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess it's time for someone to start thinking about registering goatse.xxx.
Re:Voluntary vs. Forced (Score:2)
Free-Speech Zones (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Free-Speech Zones (Score:5, Interesting)
Am I cynical, enlightened, disillusioned, or just fed up with being pushed around by Washington bureaucrats? If I want to look at pr0n then, by doggammit, I'm going to. If GW Bush doesn't want me to look at pr0n then perhaps he should donate one of his daughters to my harem. For cripes' sakes. I'm 28, in good physical condition, educated, I have a libido like any other man on this planet, and I have standards which say I'm not going to screw the town nasty-mattress just to get off.
If they don't want to deal with my spooge then figure out a way to hook me up with a woman who will. It's hardly my fault that I have to spend my life locked up at work just to pay taxes so that they can continue to propagate this kind of useless b_llsh_t which costs me money even though I voted against it.
If the police state that we live in is so doggone perfect then quit hassling me about not having a suitable mate.
I'm going to register... (Score:2, Insightful)
And then sell the domain to that loser for hefty sum.
Re:I'm going to register... (Score:2)
Or, you could host that "How to Breakdance" video he was featured in (when he was nearly a teen) on the site. Talk about embarassing!
Re:I'm going to register... (Score:2)
Of course it wouldn't work... (Score:5, Insightful)
Both, of course.
I mean, why wouldn't you?
Re:Of course it wouldn't work... (Score:4, Insightful)
Slippery slope (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, yes you were all happy when the GOTO [acm.org] was considered harmful. But it didn't stop there. Oh no. I warned you, I did.
And now see where it's led? Sex considered harmful!
Bring back the GOTO before it is too late!
Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
Preferably something easy to type with one hand.
Yawn. Old news. (Score:2)
Just ask any parent.
Ask your own parents... Another fine mess you've got us into, dear
This is extreme and misguided. (Score:3, Insightful)
If it doesn't take, maybe then we can discuss this mandate.
Essentially, give them the freagging tool and see if they take to it before forcing them to use it. What ever happened to the "graded-approach?"
A more politically correct adult TDL.. (Score:2)
Re:A more politically correct adult TDL.. (Score:2)
It's not just "think of the children" (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people just don't like being inundated by porn when they use the Internet. Period.
I mean, come on -- we all know that if you spend time randomly surfing the Web, you can hardly go an hour or two without randomly stumbling across some porn -- or reference to porn -- in the form of an advertisement or a pop-up or a joke site or whatever. Half the spam you receive -- and you can't help receiving it -- falls under most people's definition of porn.
So why is that? We don't put up with it in the rest of our day to day lives.
Most communities regulate porn theaters, porn magazines, etc., very strictly. Even if you, personally, like and consume porn in the privacy of your own home, if you leased an office building, you probably wouldn't want a porn theater opening up on either side of you. If your office had a magazine-swap rack in the break room, you probably wouldn't want your employees leaving porn there. Very few people would vote to let their city accept advertising from porn companies on park benches and bus stops.
I don't think it's out of line to have a reasonable expectation of being able to spend your day without viewing porn. So how to tackle that problem on the Internet?
It seems to me that the porn industry has a lot of money, and they're willing to pay it to people to get their advertising and their products out there to where people will pay to consume them. If that's the root of the problem, then it does not seem unreasonable to me to propose possible ways of regulating the way the porn industry does business. The
Not the best one, perhaps, but a legitimate one nonetheless.
Re:It's not just "think of the children" (Score:2)
The RFC correctly identifies that it would be impossible to create a perfect system.
Like anything else is perfect. .com isn't always commercial. .org isn't always non-profit. But there's a helpful categorisation there.
Instead of 2^300 categories even just 2 (adult and not-adult) may be helpful for those who choose to use it.
The objection that people may be persecuted for accessing the 'adult' section is a straw-man. It's not hard to identify where people are browsing now.
The one serious obj
Think of the routers!! (Score:3, Interesting)
As the RFC points out, if you create 'adult and non-adult' TLDs, how do you decide (on a global scale) what it means to be 'adult' or 'non-adult' when countries, religions and communities have such incredibly divergent views of what they should be? For any answer to work, it -must- take this into consideration,
Re:It's not just "think of the children" (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people just don't like being inundated by black people when they use the Internet. Period.
I mean, come on -- we all know that if you spend time randomly surfing the Web, you can hardly go an hour or two without randomly stumbling across some black person -- or reference to black people -- in the form of an advertisement or a pop-up or a joke site or whatever. Half the spam you receive -- and you can't help receiving it -- falls under most people's definition of black culture.
So why is that? We don't put up with it in the rest of our day to day lives.
Most communities regulate who's allowed in it, housing prices, etc. very strictly. In fact, in the South there are still many towns that do not have a single black person. Even if you, personally, like and talk to black people in the privacy of your own home, if you leased an office building, you probably wouldn't want a black person moving in on either side of you. If your office had a magazine-swap rack in the break room, you probably wouldn't want your employees leaving a rap magazine there. Very few people would vote to let their city accept advertising from Gangster Rap labels on park benches and bus stops.
I don't think it's out of line to have a reasonable expectation of being able to spend your day without viewing black culture. So how to tackle that problem on the Internet?
It seems to me that the NAACP has a lot of money, and they're willing to pay it to people to get their advertising and their agenda out there to where people will pay to consume them. If that's the root of the problem, then it does not seem unreasonable to me to propose possible ways of regulating the way the NAACP industry does business. The
Not the best one, perhaps, but a legitimate one nonetheless.
Note: It's amazing how quickly a s/porn/black/g can demonstrate how unreasonable you're actually being.
Re:It's not just "think of the children" (Score:4, Insightful)
new: replace the operative word with "freakishly tall librarian" and see if the sentence still makes sense. If it doesn't -- congratulations, this issue isn't black and white!
we call them cliches because they didn't die when they stopped being useful.
Re:It's not just "think of the children" (Score:3, Insightful)
It looks like you just took the word pornography and replaced it with a random politically correct word in a vain hope to try to associate the struggle to sell pornography with the struggle for equal rights. That, sir, spits on the grav
Re:It's not just "think of the children" (Score:2)
Yes, the
So the U.S. passes a law saying that all U.S. porn sites must operate under the
Re:It's not just "think of the children" (Score:3, Insightful)
What sites are you visiting? I can go for months without coming across a site more adult-oriented than anything on primetime network TV.
Abolish the non-country TLDs (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is entirely possible when there's a locality involved. The theatre is in a known place and the magazines are tangible objects. The applicable community standard is that of the community in which the theatre or magazine is found. How does a politician in the USofA regulate a web server in Russia? If a teen in Oklahoma visits debbie.does.donkeys.da.ru where does the offense take place? Sure, YOU can create a .xxx domain,
I dont agree, (Score:2)
I really think we need several more TLDs for more things than jsut porn;
-.com - company commercial sites.
-.org - NFPs and other groups that are no
Re:I dont agree, (Score:2)
Re:I dont agree, (Score:2)
www.[kid-site].kid.us
ww
www.[company].com.us
www.[joe'
Potential for mischief (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, some person bent on mischief registers a ".com" domain name that points to my website.
Am I in trouble here? Who committed the offence?
Now, imagine, I pay some person in Nigeria cash to set up domain names in ".com" that point to my website and continue to do so as each domain name is taken down.
So much potential for abuse by or against adult webmasters.
You Americans Are Fucked Up (Score:5, Insightful)
So now the underlying protocols that drive communications for the entire world need to have bits to designate "sexual content", just to appease the ridiculously puritanical Amercians.
Sometimes I wonder what the hell happened to your priorities. You'll go to war and kill 1000s of people to find WMD (which it seems never existed). You'll televise your murderous rampage to the world in all its horrifying brutality. Yet if a woman shows a breast on television then there's a "moral" outcry. Whose morals? It seems your society's morals are those of a prudish spinster.
The incredible thing is that in the area of morals and censorship, America shares more in common with religious regimes like the Taleban than with any other group. I can only think of two regions in the world that are so ridiculously out of touch with their human nature: the USA and the religious nutcases in the Middle East.
It'd be so easy to dismiss this rant as a troll or flamebait. Sure, it's easier to ignore that which you wish wasn't true, but you know that I'm making you uncomfortable because I'm telling the truth. There's a serious problem with morals in America right now. Your laws are repressing a natural part of the human existence, imposing an incredibly puritanical view of humanity onto millions of people, yet your same lawmakers allow a 10 year old child to see a man murdered on television. What the hell is wrong with you people?!?
Re:You Americans Are Fucked Up (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not to say your rant is completely invalid, but I do take objection to your painting a group of several hundred million people with a single broad stroke. Your beef is with "the religious nutcases in the USA", not "the USA."
To nathanh (Score:3, Insightful)
Not all of us are (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not productive. What would be productive is sharing with those who agree with you, and working to change it. Every culture has it's dissidents, man, including America. Dog knows we need it right now...our government is going batshit crazy...but support for the people who don't agree with it would be nice, generalization about how all americans think that way isn't.
A lot of Americans are pissed off at the idiocy here. Why do you paint us as all being a lot of greedy, grasping nutcases? From a personal standpoint, Fuck You. I've spent nearly twenty years fighting against the idiocy in our government. You know what? It's a losing fight - which I know goddamned well that a lot of Europeans are familiar with - so why are you so busy flaming rather than helping out?
I don't know whether we can stop these out-of-control powergrabs. I don't know if there any real solutions short of violent revolution. But it'd be nice if the Rest of The World would realize that we're not all a lot of greedy morons. You know, we just might need your support if it comes to stopping this shit. We certainly don't need more hatred.
Goddamn. I am seeing way too much of this on slashdot recently. Some of it is justified. Some of it isn't. We're losing the fight here, hey, and we could use all the support we can get! If we lose this fight, the world is probably going to be pretty fucked up. So quit flaming us and help out, godammit. Any way you can.
I'm sorry for the rant, but I also get the impression that a lot of the world doesn't understand the agony in the US these days. For some reason, it reminds me of the international reactions to the craziness that was going on in Germany in the 30s. Don't know why.
Sheeezus.
SB
Everyone says they hate sex (Score:2, Funny)
I imagine.. (Score:2)
Please go read the RFC (Score:2)
Some of the key points, in very brief:
* The owner of a server has no control over what domains choose to point what names at his IP address.
* A TLD is a global designation, but there is no global consensus on what constitutes 'pornographic' or 'unsuitable' material.
I'd be for .sex (Score:4, Interesting)
However, I also think it's unlikely to happen. The UK and US governments seem to think that there is something wrong with sex -- especially the non-procreative varieties -- but prefer to deal with it by pretending it doesn't exist. Creating a special domain for pornography and then taking action to ensure it is used properly would mean having to admit that people do enjoy sex.
And that's something I really can't imagine the authorities ever agreeing to, given the way the USA reacted to a lady's chest being shown on TV, and the fact that until recently, you weren't even allowed to depict a hard-on in Britain. The only way it would ever gain any sort of approval would be if someone else started it off. But in countries where sex is seen as just being something people do, they probably would not see the need for a separate place on the Internet.
I could be wrong. I'd like to be wrong. But it's going to require a pretty major attitude shift somewhere.
Re:I'd be for .sex (Score:2)
I can't believe their's an RFC for this! Somebody's trying to use the RFC name to add authority to their opinion.
I gave the RFC a quick read, and can't say that I found its arguments very convincing.
The slippery slope argument that creating one special TLD will lead to everything being required to reside in a specific TLD hardly seems like
How about .PRUDE? (Score:5, Insightful)
Advantages: the evangelicals are happy because they can be pure and clean without having to actually make any moral choices, and the rest of us can use this thing called "free will", which allows people to view and avoid whatever content they desire.
Parents (Score:5, Insightful)
Dummy up you parents, start taking back control of your kids lives instead of letting MTV and the internet be in control.
Of course it's a good idea! (Score:3, Funny)
Mark the content by port number. (Score:4, Insightful)
69 - SEXplicit Cunni-lingus Movies. ( Trivial File Transfer Protocol will have to be moved to 6969, drat! that's the orgy number. )
80 - Innocuous censored stuff.
81 - Computer Cracking.
82 - Sex Education.
83 - Free Software Source Code. ( Like your new neighbours? )
84 - SEXplicit Copulation Movies.
85 - Commercial Software Advocacy.
86 - Racial Supremacy Advocacy.
87 - Currently taken by ttylink.
88 - ditto kerberos.
89 - Artistic Nudes. ( High quality print ready
Then there are also literally dozens of high number ports available if needed. Never happen of course, because of the huge financial interests of the network nannies, but it could create a new industry called the Net Content Classification Tribunal. The whole exercise could be run by the UN and suck up billions of dollars.
Sex dangerous? (Score:3, Funny)
Does Anyone Think??? (Score:3, Interesting)
1. I don't think there is a kids and porn problem. Raise your hand if you viewed porn at one time when you were a kid. Now keep your hand up if you turned into a social deviant. Not many, eh! Speaking from personal experience, the people I knew growing up who turned into social misfits and freaks are the ones who were shielded all of their lives (see home schooled and religious fanatics).
2. Aside from border problems, HOW DO WE CATEGORIZE PORN?!!!!! Do art websites qualify? What if I model a naked woman in Maya and put that on the web? Or is it just 'real' photos and video we're concerned with. What about dirty letters? What if I run a site with pictures of a clitoris? Now what if I put info about women's health on that website? Whether or not I'm creating a site for commercial purposes is irrelevant to me. The fact is as someone who puts content on the web and views content, porn or whatever, I don't want censorship. If you don't like it, set the BIOS password on your computer and try PARENTING your child, instead of giving them the internet as a babysitter.
3. Does anyone realize how quickly content would be eliminated from the web if this were to go into effect? Do you think AOL or Earthlink will allow access to those sites when parents groups protest? This is not making it easier to identify this type of material, it's aimed at eliminating it.
That's my three bits. Take it with a grain of salt. Disclaimer-I run a website for profit (about $25 per month profit, but I just got it going). It has adult material on it. It's at http://www.aliengoods.com/ and I sell bondage furniture. And guess what? I have a disclaimer page that most content filters should catch and block. I don't care because I don't sell to children (let's not get into a public library filters debate - they anger me).
summary: (Score:3, Interesting)
always with the crack smoking (Score:4, Interesting)
Lastly, if a kid is too young to risk seeing anything dodgy, then they are probably too young to even gain anything from using the internet as a whole for education. Think about the (educational) things you use it for, do younger kids need that?
ddd? (Score:4, Funny)
that will be fun.
Re:ddd? (Score:5, Insightful)
Spreading porn is a serious part of the work the Internet does. The best way to change the societies in the middle east whose screwed up 'religious' bigottries lead to terrorism is with mountains of porn.
Yep I am 100% serious here.
I believe in cultural relativism, Whahabi 'islam' is barbaric relative to any acceptable moral standards. Women are treated at best as second class citizens and at worst as mere property.
It takes powerful forces to break down that type of prejudice. Pornography is a very powerful force. That is why the Saudi and Iranian mullahs fear it so much.
The fundamentalist christianity that spawned David Koralishen, the anti-abortion assasisnation squads, Timothy McVeigh are not too great either. The answer is more porn.
Watching people having sex does not break down many social barriers, but the idea that religious authorities don't have to run a society does.
Re:ddd? (Score:3, Funny)
Pornography is a very powerful force.
I really wish someone could explain exactly what this powerful force is capable of.
Besides boosting the paper tissue industry.
Re:ddd? (Score:3, Insightful)
What happens if the loonies get their way? Nobody is allowed to see or discuss sex, but the sexual drive doesn't go away - it just comes out again in another form - possibly a very desctructive one.
Re:ddd? (Score:4, Funny)
Some UK adverts (Score:5, Funny)
Ad #1 [trojangames.co.uk] Ad #2 [trojangames.co.uk] Ad #3 [trojangames.co.uk]
Re:ddd? (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realize that that is one of the most breath-taking oxymorons I've ever seen uttered on Slashdot? If you're willing to label a culture "barbaric relative to any acceptable moral standards", then you are not a relativist. You believe that there are absolute standards applicable to all cultures and that there can therefore be cultures in violation of those standards.
(Many, if not most, people who think they are cultural relativists aren't for precisely this reason. It's all relative this and you can't judge me because relative that, until they are faced with women getting the clitorises cut off at birth, and wham, in come in the concrete standards and out goes the relativism. Thank goodness; I just wish more people were more honest and internalized that they are not relativists and thus using "it's all relative" as a defense for anything is fairly hypocritical, unless they are indeed willing to admit that brutal mutilation of children or the degradation of women are morally acceptable in certain cultures. (Bringing up the question of, why not also here?))
Re:ddd? (Score:2)
.xxx is backwards (Score:5, Insightful)
- DOD employees including uniformed military (the expression 'curse like a sailor' comes to mind, although jarheads, grunts, and flyboys hold their own)
- DOD contractors in industry
- researches at universities and technical institutes.
But demanding that adult sites label themselves as adult is the wrong way to go, and mandating a particular filtering scheme for everyone is worse yet. Somewhere along the line, somebody decided the it was important for schools to be connected to the Internet. And now they're shocked, shocked! at what they've found. It's as if a teacher took a bunch of grade-school kids on a field trip to a titty bar and then demanded that the authorities shut it down.If someone wants to create a TLD like .kids, and make whatever rules they want for their piece of cyberspace, more power to them. Net Nanny and its ilk can whitelist the 'safe' sites, blacklist the 'unsafe' ones, and parents who want their kids subjected to such filters may choose to employ them.
As a father (and grandfather!) I have always figured that if my children want to look at something really perverted, it's their desire to look at it that's the problem, so me putting up filters really won't accomplish much other than protecting them against fat-fingering an URL (or forgetting that the White House is part of the .governmnent
Legally-mandated META tags are backwards too (Score:3, Interesting)
No. you have it backwards again. It's your job to block any sites that do not use whatever method you're proposing to allow your kids into the titty bar, onto the nuclear submarine, into the Bradley, or onto the streets of Baghdad, without seeing or hearing things that you believe will hurt their psyches. The default assumption is, and must always be, that the Internet is appropriate for consenting adults.
I support it being illegal to fraudulentl
Re:I've never thought this was a good idea... (Score:5, Funny)