Re: Why PICS is the wrong approach

["Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@rpcp.mit.edu>]

At 07:58 PM 12/11/96 -0500, you wrote:

  > 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).

	Perhaps I don't understand what you are saying. I just want to ensure that
you understand that the PICS labels can be distributed in multiple ways.
(document, server, label bureau.) I suspect you do, and what you are
objecting to is that documnet-embedded labels will have a greater weight
than those distributed by third parties:

  > 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 consequently authors have a greater responsibility/liability than you
would like:

  > 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.

In which case, I disagree. I think accurate, consistent, "objective" (I
know this is an argument on the other thread, I think one can get
relatively "objective ratings" see my RSAC case study for a break down on
the qualities of rating systems on my ecommerce page (home page below))
well branded and reputable agents will have a greater weight, and will have
a market motivation for accuracy exceeding regulatory pressure. (Plus,
there is nothing preventing thresh-hold tolerances for use with multiple
ratings.)

_______________________
Regards,          Restlessness and discontent are the first necessities 
                  of progress. -Thomas A. Edison
Joseph Reagle     http://rpcp.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html
reagle@mit.edu    E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65  BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E