cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-12-10 - Re: PICS is not censorship

Header Data

From: Asgaard <asgaard@Cor.sos.sll.se>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: fc5f360d77665a54898598e81c60810e6e04cc3dc72f62ccd439bdc3951a9375
Message ID: <Pine.HPP.3.91.961210202436.6251A-100000@cor.sos.sll.se>
Reply To: <v03007807aed2edd5da77@[207.167.93.63]>
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-10 19:29:38 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:29:38 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Asgaard <asgaard@Cor.sos.sll.se>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:29:38 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: PICS is not censorship
In-Reply-To: <v03007807aed2edd5da77@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <Pine.HPP.3.91.961210202436.6251A-100000@cor.sos.sll.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>>What if the PICS classifications were worded so as to describe the factual
>>content of a page rather than the writers opinion of its suitability? This,
>>if correctly implemented, could remove the problem of interpretation.
> 
> Doubful. I contend that any such approach is bound to fail.

I agree with the last statement. Who decides if Great Tits is about
sex or ornithology? (This example has reportedly confused many
admirers of prolific milk-producing tissue searching on AltaVista
ending up at Bird Sites.)

Asgaard

Thread