Why PICS is the wrong approach

["Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>]

PICS is the wrong approach becuase it oversimplifies the ratings of
content, because it places the ratings made by the author in the payload
itself, and because third-party ratings systems are cut out of the loop
(effectively).

One computerish way to think of this is that the "binding" is too early. At
the time of distribution, say, I mark my work something with some PICS
label, based upon my best understanding of the PICS labels, ratings,
agencies, and laws. But once set, the "binding" has been made. Later
reviews or reviews by other entities cannot affect the binding, at least
not for this distributed instance.

And of course it is quite likely that things important to others in their
ratings are not as important to me. I might even ignore certain points, not
even seeing the need to point out things in the work. This is inevitable,
as there is no uniform view of truth, no uniform set of values and
priorities, and no hope there ever can be such a monistic view. Consider
the recent example of AOL's lists of banned words, even words in "harmless
situations" (e.g, the example someone cited of "tits" being banned, despite
being the name of a bird...would an animal-lovers Web page or posting with
"Tits and Asses!!!" prominently in the title be PICS labelled as obscene?
Some would surely think so.).

A much better solution is to let the unique ID block of an article--the
Usenet article ID, or some hash of the headers, whatever--be a pointer that
other ratings servies could then use to provide for their customers or
clients as a filtering mechanism. This would allow as many ratings services
to exist as clients would be willing to support.

Sure, there are _time delays_ in the evaluation process, as, for example,
the Catholic Index reviews Web pages and Usenet posts, but all evaluation
causes delay. This puts the burden on those proposing to filter content.

More importantly, the "payload" does not carry some particular set of
fairly-arbitrary PICS evluations. Binding by the censors instead of by the
originator, which is as it should be.

--Tim May


Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."