From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 09:00:47 +0800
To: Andrew Shapiro <ashapiro@interport.net>
Subject: Re: NYTimes oped: Federal laws better than censorware
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.16.19971204120003.2ff7b144@pop.interport.net>
Message-ID: <199712080048.QAA16328@netcom9.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




I still don't understand why it is "censorship" when any
company can come up with any software that rates sites
according to any scheme, and anyone can choose to use
any package, or ignore the software altogether. there is total freedom 
in all of this.

Declan, why is it that you are now editorializing against an
editorial that asks for government standards & laws instead of
free market ones? are you starting to finally figure out that
private enterprise filtering systems, while having huge 
aspects that are not all that pleasant, are superior to the
alternative? (btw, I don't like the claims of the editorial
either, but that has always been my position on this issue--
that private enterprise 
systems are superior to government censorship)

I agree that PICS was introduced in part to try to come up
with a solution to the problem of offensive content that
could be presented as an alternative to any government 
involvement. people on the net want to solve their own problems
on the net, without laws, in general.

everyone who continues to rant against filtering companies
strike me as people who are screaming sour grapes. "we don't
like the choices these companies have made!!" but just start
your own!! the market is deciding what filtering company
is doing the best job, mostly regardless of your ranting.
and surprise!! guess what!! the market may not actually
decide that it even cares whether filtering products are
up front about informing what sites they filter.

what, it takes a lot of work to filter sites? well, you're
damn right-- doing anything of value requires a lot of work,
and the filtering companies are working hard to improve their
technology, no thanks to the screechings of a lot of people
who feel that they have some better way of judging filtering
software than the parents who use it.

the net will continue to support schemes that help separate,
segregate, and rate content, and those who reject such ideas as
"censorship" are going to be seen as increasingly out-of-touch
and clueless about how the technology works.

does anyone claim it is censorship because a service interested
in rating "cool sites" does not rate many sites it thinks are not
cool? why then is there so much controversy when a *service*
designed to rate *sites acceptable to children* does not include
certain sites? can anyone tell me the difference? answer: many
people wish to be the judge of what children can and cannot see.
but ultimately,  does anyone other than a parent have the
authority to do this? in a free society, which I think we
still live in, that is?

if you think you are a better judge of what children should
see, create your own service that includes whatever you think
is being excluded. the market may support you. or, the market
may thumb its nose at you.

(however, postscript to all of the above,
I do agree that any government laws making filtering
software in some way mandatory is bogus and abhorrent.)