From: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 22:41:10 +0800
To: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Subject: Re: Mandatory Voluntary Self-Ratings
Message-ID: <9605100005.AA15315@rpcp.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 06:46 PM 5/9/96 EDT, you wrote:
>        While that they aren't going for "this isn't appropriate" is to their
>credit, they do have a lot of problems with the nonsensical nature of some
>of their ratings; take a look at the definitions, for instance. (It's also
>obvious that they simply copied them from their ratings of video games. A lot
>of their HTML references for the definitions are messed up, incidentally.)

        I would agree the questions seem too video game orientated, and I
don't like some of the questions either. However, it is a fair effort, and I
don't think if something is questionable (for instance, someone errs by
labeling someone that is 18 years old as a teenager) the whole system falls
to pieces. Or some crucial piece of information on my home page, that some
child might have seen, but won't be seen because I labeled a character in
one of my stories as a teenager even if he/she was a teenager.
        I'm sure this is something that could go on for a very long time in
some cypherpunk thread (something I'm not interested in argueing about), but
there is no such thing as a perfectly objective or unbiased system. For
instance, I don't like the distinctions other systems make for
homosexuality, but I also understand some parents may wish to screen on it...

_______________________
Regards,       Men govern nothing with more difficulty than their tongues,
               and can moderate their desires more than their words. -Spinoza
Joseph  Reagle      http://farnsworth.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html
reagle@mit.edu      E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65  BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E