Re: Just say NYET to kneejerking

[Jonathan Rochkind <jrochkin@cs.oberlin.edu>]

*****
2- The censorship that I advance is censorship _by parents_ _for their own
   children_.  Only.  
 
   People have talked about cable boxxes and telephones.  Are you not aware
   that many cable companies offer boxes with a (physical) key that must be
   present in order for certain channels to come through?  That the phone
   companies currently allow customers to disallow outgoing 900 calls?  My
   idea is to implement a net-equivalent system--household by household
   determination of what will be allowed into their homes.
 *****
 
There is a difference between mandating and offering. Between allowing and 
requring. If there were cable companies which _forced_ people to use
boxes of that sort, and phone companies which _required_ customers
to disallow 900 calls, your analogy might be closer. And most of us would
probably be in fierce opposition to those systems too.
 
I'll echo what other people have said: you are perfectly free to set up
a system which only gives accounts to children if their parents get a
"overseeing" account too. No one here will mind at all, I dont' think.
People will mind if you require all systems to behave that way.
It's the difference between offering a service and requiring people
to be censors. I'm not sure why you don't see the distinction here.