From: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 04:16:43 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: "This post is G-Rated"
Message-ID: <ad2cff3b0a02100475c5@[205.199.118.202]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


[This post is classified as G-Rated by Tim May. G-Rated for children of all
ages, children who need to learn about the facts of life as quickly as
possible. G-Rated for "This post really tickles your G-spot!" You asked for
voluntary self-ratings, you got it.)


At 2:16 PM 1/25/96, Jeff Williams wrote:

>But what if they *ask* you nicely to label your work?
>
>  "If you think your message is offensive, violent, or racist,
>   would you please consider labelling it?"
>
>I don't think I'd mind.  In fact, *optional* labels would make me more likely
>to post such material, because I'd have some confidence that it would only be
>read by people who want to read it. (And they could even find it more
>quickly!)

If the League of Usenet Ladies makes this request, I have no problems
(though I'm almost certain to delete their request and do nothing one way
or another about it). If the Islamic Students Association makes the same
request, I also have no problems (and will also likely discard the
request). These are non-governmental entities, merely requesting actions
(and, of course, gettting about 2% compliance, or less,  with their
requests).

(Note of course that the League of Usenet Ladies and the Islamic Students
Association are very likely to have very different ideas about what the
labels should reflect! Not to mention the several hundred other major
special interest groups who will want their ideologies reflected in a
ratings system.)

However, it is not a role for _government_ to ask that I "voluntarily" rate
speech. "Congress shall make no law..." A government that faces a 2%
compliance rate will be sorely tempted to make it less than voluntary.

And what standards? What happens if I indeed voluntarily rate my message
"G-rated"? And it contains descriptions highly unsuitable for children (in
the minds of others). What if I use _my_ conceptions of what is right for
children to read or see to actually _attract_ them to my writings?

A ratings system inevitably means a debate about what the ratings mean, and
whether some work is properly rated. Self-rating runs into this problem big
time. Especially when people like me like to throw grenades into
discussions to challenge the orthodoxy.

(Note that the MPAA movie rating system is _not_ run by the government, nor
is it even "suggested" by government...though I don't deny that the movie
theater owners adopted the MPAA ratings to forestall  talked-of government
actions. But of course movies pass through the chokepoint of distribution,
and time usually exists to rate them. Usenet posts would of course not fit
this model.)

>There's nothing inherently wrong with labelling information. When messages
>here are labelled [NOISE], I know to avoid them. This sort of
>meta-information is helpful and good.
>
>The precedent is what's troubling. Someone will probably try to mandate the
>labels...Someone will try to write a law that says "Anyone who posts what I
>consider offensive without a label is guilty." This is what should be
>fought...not labels.

So deal with the hypothetical I gave: someone like me sets out to "nuke"
the labelling system by deliberately mislabelling his posts! If you have
labels but no means of stopping my actions, see what results.

In any case, if people want to label their posts, fine. Personally, I find
such simple labels as "NOISE" or "OBSCENITY" to be meaningless. Many of the
most interesting posts have that stupid "NOISE" label attached, many of the
most noisome posts don't.

I see no agreed-upon labelling convention emerging. Fortunately.

--Tim May

Boycott espionage-enabled software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we 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: 2^756839 - 1  | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."