From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 10:28:58 +0800
To: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
Subject: Re: Any examples of mandatory content rating?
In-Reply-To: <ad93dffc1b021004ed13@[205.199.118.202]>
Message-ID: <199604132333.QAA22457@netcom11.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Klaus writes:
>I foresee major legal challenges to mandatory ratings of content. Issues
>involving prior restrain, censorship, and the First Amendment of the U.S.
>Constitution.

there is a big distinction to be made here. are posts required to
carry a rating system by which anyone can create ratings, or
are they required to carry some "official" rating from some
govt agency? for example, I think it would be odious if the government
mandated PICS for various providers, but I sure would like it a lot
more than them mandating a rating agency. that is, are they
mandating the *capability* to rate, or some "official" rating
system that involves judgement? 

>This MPAA situation is an important example because it is neither
>"self-rating" nor "government" rating, but is, instead, something else.
>This model would be extremely hard to apply to the Internet, as there is no
>similar body to the MPAA, nor is there the same economic incentive for any
>such body to form and then to try to cope with tens of thousands (at least)
>of articles and pages per day....

totally disagree with you. the existence of Surfwatch etc. proves
that there is *already* such a market and economic incentive. 
SurfWatch is in fact, in a sense, a ratings agency similar to the MPAA--
not a government body.

I foresee that the "industry" of providing ratings is going to be
a very significant aspect of future cyberspace. these ratings are
generally always going to be advisory-- people can latch onto them
for a fee if they like to determine quality. note that "good/bad"
is the most simplistic rating possible. even more superior rating
agencies might find "cool material". in fact in a sense, every
editor of every newspaper is a sort of "rating server". he culls,
filters, and selects information that the readers like.

increasingly, we are going to see systems that place economic 
incentive on *selection* more than *copyright*. in other words,
in the old system, there is a "thing" called an "article" in
which one pays money to the owner whenever you copy it. in the
new system, the article itself has no value-- what you pay is
the system that delivers it to you (all intermediaries, editors,
etc), all the way up to the author.

it will take people awhile to realize, but ratings can actually
be extremely liberating and useful if put into place in a 
robust way. I believe PICS is a very good step in the right
directions. what today is limited to credit ratings etc. will
expand into a system of rating everything, I suspect, and 
it will be done in such a way that everyone agrees it is
a Good Thing and they couldn't imagine getting along without
it.

in the old system, censorship was accomplished by the government
putting chains on, or burning, "atoms". in the future, people will just
select whatever information they are interested in. censorship
of bits is not only inappropriate, it is impossible. censorship
can only work when you have atoms. those who are applying old
"atom" ideas to "bits" will continue for some time to have sway
with the public, until the general population realizes their
arguments are completely specious.