From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 06:13:29 +0800
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: Re: Censorware Summit 2.0, from The Netly News
In-Reply-To: <v03007806b0aa1d8b87c6@[204.254.22.15]>
Message-ID: <199712022156.NAA24800@netcom13.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



there's a simple solution to anyone who doesn't
like the so-called "mandatory voluntary" rating systems.

START YOUR OWN!!

anyone is free to create software that filters whatever
sites they deem appropriate, to use whatever algorithms
they think are legitimate.

for example, the the GLAAD agency might come out with
a list of sites they think are appropriate for children
to view that are excluded by other rating systems. I wouldn't
be surprised if some of the rating companies agree to
integrate such a list into their software and give the
end user the choice of whether to turn it on.

what? it takes a lot of time to rate sites? you don't want 
to do it? yet you want to complain about someone else who has taken
the time to do this for customers who have chosen
to pay for it?

there is a legitimate market for filtering software, and
it is growing. who is to say what software can be run on
someone else's computer? who is to tell parents they shouldn't
use a filtering package for their own children?

filtering software can be as simple or complex 
as we wish. ultimately end users are voting with their money.

the froth over the rating systems seems to me mostly
overblown. I do agree however that they should not be
made mandatory based on the law.

the free market is solving the problem. we have ratings
agencies and people (such as GLAAD) who rate the rating
agencies. I don't see anything worth hyperventilating about.