Help me out BG!

[Fallso]

What do you think about your 10 yr. old son/daughter/brother/sister/cousin ...

never too young to be introduced to harsh reality.

I believe it was Patrick Henry in 1776 who said "give me uncensored internet, or give me death" or something like that.

lol.

But yeah, censorship is stupid and never helps people in the end, they just feel resentful and rebel in one way. Look at china and TOR, fuck tons of chinks are on that.

[Correction]

A ratings system for web sites, put together with perhaps better tags for the content, could have potential. It could allow for elective filtering of content, such as by parents or libraries, and also possibly better indexing of what's out there.

No, no and no. It's impossible to rate the web in its current incarnation.

Say you put in an MPAA-style rating system on websites. How do you enforce them? Prison sentences? How do you deal with web forums, wikis and comment pages? What about sites that cover a variety of topics from children to adults? Do you rate, say, Kotaku, the equivalent of NC-17 because of the link to Fleshbot on every page?

And what do you do when there are the inevitable complaints that the job of rating the content of THE ENTIRE INTERNET is an impossible, perpetually incomplete job?

[Woozie]

Hi2u parents.

What he said.

/endthread

[Isiolia]

No, no and no. It's impossible to rate the web in its current incarnation.

Say you put in an MPAA-style rating system on websites. How do you enforce them? Prison sentences? How do you deal with web forums, wikis and comment pages? What about sites that cover a variety of topics from children to adults? Do you rate, say, Kotaku, the equivalent of NC-17 because of the link to Fleshbot on every page?

And what do you do when there are the inevitable complaints that the job of rating the content of THE ENTIRE INTERNET is an impossible, perpetually incomplete job?

It'd be a very hard thing to do, sure, but you'd model it more similarly to existing media outlets as well.

The MPAA doesn't go around shuffling through people's houses looking for every DV tape so that they can slap a rating on it. However, if you want your film to have widespread distribution, you'll submit it to their voluntary ratings process.

Probably would be more of a certification system than anything else. Violation would mean loss of certification.

User generated type content could be filtered, obviously moderated, and taken care of with a disclaimer (as most any game with chat has regarding the rating).

Again though, such a system would be voluntary to comply to, though not doing so would mean being inaccessible from a machine with filters in place.

It'd be a pain, but it'd be far better than trying to actually censor stuff.

[Moosey]

Yes and no.

The internet as a whole should not be censored, certain websites should though.

All websites with questionable content should have warnings that come up on their front page(many do already) and have terms you agree/disagree that allow you to enter or not. That's pretty much a given though.

Websites who's main audience is under 18, or claims to be a "family friendly" site, should make sure that it stays like that, but that too is pretty much common sense, although that is up to the individual(s) who run the site to make sure that happens.


As many others have said already, the content viewed on one's computer is up to the owner of the computer/internet.

As far as 10 years olds on BG; this isn't a place for anyone under 18(legally anyway).

21 M all younger relatives are over 18

[ismarc]

For the sake of argument, I will ignore the fact that it would be impossible to censor the internet unless it was a world-wide, every nation, every governmental entity and every service provider that respected the censors. Past that, it is unreasonable to censor the internet as a whole (China does it with a nationwide governmental firewall, possible, but unreasonable). At work, I have no problems with any firewall mangling they do to turn inappropriate images or speech for the workplace into happy bunnies and kittens. And, extending that past just work, essentially, I'm ok with the content I'm receiving being filtered anywhere I'm not allowed to pull my dick out. While that's a pretty crude way to determine if content should reasonably be filtered there, it's the greatest test there is. If you are not in a place of privacy or a residence, decency laws exist to protect people from experiencing things they don't wish to. This does not prevent people from being allowed to go experience those things, it just prevents it from occurring if they don't want it to.

Now, on the level of responsibility for the "filtering" (I use this term because to censor is to ban, to filter is to make it inaccessible from that location), it is the responsibility and choice of whoever is providing the internet access. At home, I pay for unfiltered, unmodified, direct access to the internet. I make the decisions on if I want to replace all images of bunnies and butterflies with goatse, or if I want to change every word "the" to "teh" because I like the spelling better. If you connect from someone else's access (be it an institution, a company or a neighbor), you abide by the acceptable use policy they decide on, which can be as restrictive or lenient as they want.

The government is not my babysitter. The government is not my "safety net" when I'm retarded. The government is there to protect my rights, nothing more, nothing less.

[Correction]

It'd be a very hard thing to do, sure, but you'd model it more similarly to existing media outlets as well.

The MPAA doesn't go around shuffling through people's houses looking for every DV tape so that they can slap a rating on it. However, if you want your film to have widespread distribution, you'll submit it to their voluntary ratings process.

Probably would be more of a certification system than anything else. Violation would mean loss of certification.

User generated type content could be filtered, obviously moderated, and taken care of with a disclaimer (as most any game with chat has regarding the rating).

Again though, such a system would be voluntary to comply to, though not doing so would mean being inaccessible from a machine with filters in place.

It'd be a pain, but it'd be far better than trying to actually censor stuff.

It's not just hard. It's outright impossible. Even the ESRB can't rate everything put into a videogame because a lot of video games take longer than the average film to evaluate all the content. By your own admission you can't rate user-generated content at all. It won't be long before two huge game titles hit the market that are 100% user generated content. The modern web crossed that line YEARS ago. Start rating now and you might as well count all the grains of sand on the beach while you're at it.

'loss of certification' is the reason why foreign journalists are imprisoned/expelled from countries like Zimbabwe. Are you sure you understand what you're asking for?

Voluntary ratings is a fantasy designed to shift the cost and responsibility away from the people who demand this veiled censorship (i.e. parents and politicians) onto producers of the content. Do you really want the full-time job of moderating any site you run now, on top of whatever it is you do for money?

It is NOT better than 'actual' censorship. It is censorship, and is not a good move overall. Public Libraries have filters to keep costs down and prevent miappropriation of a public resource. That's fine. Companies install filters to prevent workers from being a drain on corporate resources. That's also fine. I can keep my son/daughter's computer somewhere like the living room or dining room so her access is not only monitorable but restricted to things he/she wouldn't mind doing with a bunch of people watching.

I completely fail to see what your proposals are meant to accomplish other than make things harder for everybody.

[Isiolia]

It is NOT better than 'actual' censorship. It is censorship, and is not a good move overall. Public Libraries have filters to keep costs down and prevent miappropriation of a public resource. That's fine. Companies install filters to prevent workers from being a drain on corporate resources. That's also fine. I can keep my son/daughter's computer somewhere like the living room or dining room so her access is not only monitorable but restricted to things he/she wouldn't mind doing with a bunch of people watching.

I completely fail to see what your proposals are meant to accomplish other than make things harder for everybody.

Basically, help the people who are trying to filter.

The point would be to alleviate the burden of trying to look at everything on the 'net to make a filter that works. Like a known good list, but not just "good" or "bad".

Part of the "problem" as it were with content on the 'net -is- the lack of responsibility that people have for it. Right now really all you have are groups looking out for their own interests, or tracking down child pornographers.

It's how most things work. Electronic devices are certifies, movies are rated, cars pass inspections, etc.

[Correction]

Basically, help the people who are trying to filter.

The point would be to alleviate the burden of trying to look at everything on the 'net to make a filter that works. Like a known good list, but not just "good" or "bad".

Seeing as how the entities currently responsible for said filters are commercial enterprises profiting from government contracts, I see no reason for anybody but the software writers themselves to pick up the burden of making sure their own businesses stay viable and practical.

[Howard Roark]

please don't let those god-loving MPAA bastards anywhere near my internet

[Tyrone]

I agree with most of the people on this forum.

Censorship is just another way to keep parents from doing thier jobs as parents. I agree that in todays society that most parents work and do not have the time to spend watching little timmy 24 hours a day but honestly if you do not have the mutual respect between parent and child enough to trust them not to do what you tell them that the problem is not whats on the internet. Just because you suck as a parent and cant keep your kids from looking at things youve told them not to doesnt mean i should be punished and have to read blocks instead of what was ment to be written. The intenet is not the only medium that needs this adjustment television, radio and movies all need to be handled this way. If you dont want timmy looking on the internt turn it off. do somthing to prevent him from doing anything without your supervision. if you dont like the content of a tv program block it if you dont like whats on the radio change the station its all very simple and people are starting to make my life miserable because they choose not to take care of thier responsiblitys. you would not tell the stove manufacturers not to make stoves bc my child might reach up and burn himself. you tell the child dont touch this. same goes for everything else you dont want your kids doing. as for adults who think they can controll what i do i say screw off and leave people alone and worry about your own life and stop interfering with mine.

there you go all things that you should put in your paper you have my written permission to quote any or all of it.

the only arguement i have for censorship in any medium is it would keep 10-13 yr old off xbox live flaming and acting like jackasses. nothing is more fun that playing a game or reading a post and you see or hear like 26927 curse words on the screen and or over the mic. Grow up cursing doesnt make you older or sound cooler. But yet thats a whole other paper unless this is some way is your doctor's disertation.

[Pamelita]

T___T

Thank you all so much for not derailing this thread to the fiery pits of hell.

Anyway, I agree, I don't think internet should be censored. I also don't think people should be punished for speaking their mind because no matter how much I disagree with what some of you say, it would violate our first amendment. There are many other things we can do to prevent kiddos being affected by bad things on the intrawebs.

Again, thank you all for being nice to my poll!

<3


Edit: forgot to do this:

Is this a serious research paper?

^^b You didn't think BG was going to be my only survey did you?

**Edit 2: Yay I keep forgetting stuff. I'm also surveying everyone in my office. I work for Catholic Charities. Woo.

[Jefe]

No, the intrawebs should not be censored, the parent/legal guardian/etc. should be responsible for what the minor[s] view or have access.

[Charla]

I'm also surveying everyone in my office. I work for Catholic Charities. Woo.

Would you mind letting us know what they respond? I think that would be more useful information at this point. If you ask me, anyone who uses the internet enough can tell that it can't be effectively censored except by China. Therefore the real question is: what do people who don't use the internet much have to say about it?