From: frantz@netcom.com (Bill Frantz)
To: m5@dev.tivoli.com (Mike McNally)
Message Hash: 06d617cb1c9a252140beebaddd060c52e42400b373dfd1221ac0e96408e45577
Message ID: <199601260353.TAA07900@netcom6.netcom.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-01-27 19:35:25 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 03:35:25 +0800
From: frantz@netcom.com (Bill Frantz)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 03:35:25 +0800
To: m5@dev.tivoli.com (Mike McNally)
Subject: Re: "This post is G-Rated"
Message-ID: <199601260353.TAA07900@netcom6.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
At 5:33 PM 1/25/96 -0600, Mike McNally wrote:
>Bill Frantz writes:
> > However is should be possible for TV programs
>
>Maybe, until it becomes common for "TV programs" to be accessible by
>URL...
Web sites and TV series can both be rated without seeing each and every
page/show.
>
> > and whole newsgroups.
>
>Since nobody "owns" newsgroups, and nobody controls what's posted to
>them, I don't see how that's possible at all.
It seems to me that a moderated news group or mailing list would be easy.
You don't expect explicit sex descriptions to show up in the comp.
hieararcy.
An unmoderated group or list carries a higher risk of seeing inappropriate
material. However even unmoderated lists have standards and those people
who enforce those standards. This kind of enforcement is an example of
communitarian as opposed to authoritarian control. It all depends on just
how vital it is to the consumer (and rating group) that NO inappropriate
material appear.
Crypto relevence: Public key systems or digital signitures can help ensure
that the material actually comes from it reputed source (e.g. the
modarator).
Bill
Return to January 1996
Return to “m5@dev.tivoli.com (Mike McNally)”