Re: NYTimes oped: Federal laws better than censorware

["Colin A. Reed" <aleph@cco.caltech.edu>]

I think the answer to your question is that most of us find the very idea
of filterware distasteful (let alone the generally poor quality of the
implementations.  However, that's much the same as I find american cars
distasteful.  If somebody else wants to blow their money on one of those
pieces of crap, by all means let them.  (I admit, they're slowly getting
better)  This leads us to poke fun at the current systems and argue against
people actually using them, much the same way a christian friend of mine
keeps trying to get me to accept jesus into my heart and love him so that I
won't go to hell.  On the other hand, we get really pissed off when
somebody tries to force us and our kids to use this crap.  It doesn't
matter if it is AOL or the FBI, outside coercion is outside coercion.
At 04:48 PM 12/7/97 -0800, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
>
>I still don't understand why it is "censorship" when any
>company can come up with any software that rates sites
>according to any scheme, and anyone can choose to use
>any package, or ignore the software altogether. there is total freedom 
>in all of this.
>
>Declan, why is it that you are now editorializing against an
>editorial that asks for government standards & laws instead of
>free market ones? are you starting to finally figure out that
>private enterprise filtering systems, while having huge 
>aspects that are not all that pleasant, are superior to the
>alternative? (btw, I don't like the claims of the editorial
>either, but that has always been my position on this issue--
>that private enterprise 
>systems are superior to government censorship)
>
>I agree that PICS was introduced in part to try to come up
>with a solution to the problem of offensive content that
>could be presented as an alternative to any government 
>involvement. people on the net want to solve their own problems
>on the net, without laws, in general.
>
>everyone who continues to rant against filtering companies
>strike me as people who are screaming sour grapes. "we don't
>like the choices these companies have made!!" but just start
>your own!! the market is deciding what filtering company
>is doing the best job, mostly regardless of your ranting.
>and surprise!! guess what!! the market may not actually
>decide that it even cares whether filtering products are
>up front about informing what sites they filter.
>
>what, it takes a lot of work to filter sites? well, you're
>damn right-- doing anything of value requires a lot of work,
>and the filtering companies are working hard to improve their
>technology, no thanks to the screechings of a lot of people
>who feel that they have some better way of judging filtering
>software than the parents who use it.
>
>the net will continue to support schemes that help separate,
>segregate, and rate content, and those who reject such ideas as
>"censorship" are going to be seen as increasingly out-of-touch
>and clueless about how the technology works.
>
>does anyone claim it is censorship because a service interested
>in rating "cool sites" does not rate many sites it thinks are not
>cool? why then is there so much controversy when a *service*
>designed to rate *sites acceptable to children* does not include
>certain sites? can anyone tell me the difference? answer: many
>people wish to be the judge of what children can and cannot see.
>but ultimately,  does anyone other than a parent have the
>authority to do this? in a free society, which I think we
>still live in, that is?
>
>if you think you are a better judge of what children should
>see, create your own service that includes whatever you think
>is being excluded. the market may support you. or, the market
>may thumb its nose at you.
>
>(however, postscript to all of the above,
>I do agree that any government laws making filtering
>software in some way mandatory is bogus and abhorrent.)
>
>


                             -Colin