Re: "This post is G-Rated"

[frantz@netcom.com (Bill Frantz)]

At 12:50 PM 1/26/96 -0600, Mike McNally wrote:
>Bill Frantz writes:
> > >Enforce?  Enforce?  Exsqueeze me?
> > 
> > On cypherpunks, Perry is the principle enforcer, although others frequently
> > join in.
>
>Oh, right.  I remember now.  All the off-topic junk I see on this
>list is just my imagination.  All the billions of "UNSUBSCRIBE" and
>"SIGNOFF" and "SET NO-MAIL" messages I see on the mailing lists I'm on
>are just bits of lint that slip by.

Absolutely correct.  What we don't have is general firewall discussions and
general conspiricy discussions (which are directed elsewhere).  Perry
performs a needed function.

>The "enforcement" is always a reactive thing.  I don't think you'd get
>far with a parent explaining that the material they consider indecent
>which somehow showed up on alt.kids.only would be dealt with by
>blistering flames.

Such parents would not let their children read unmoderated/unrated
newsgroups.  I think they are failing their children, but they would
certainly disagree.


>So you think those who want a "controlled cyberspace" would be happy
>with newsgroups that stay "mostly decent"?  I strongly doubt it, and I
>will also add that such "enforcement" is far, far less effective on
>newsgroups than on mailing lists.

The people who want a "controlled cyberspace" will not be happy.  I want
explore the consiquences, both technical and social, of taking the control
away from them by putting in the hands of individuals and minor children's
parents.  This approach would destroy their principle argument and make it
less likely that they will succeed.  However, unlike the motion picture
precedent, I think multiple rating agencies will not only be desirable, but
necessary.  I assume that in addition to the Christian Coalition's rating
service there would be a Hottest Pics of the Net service.

Bill