Please leave a small tip in the tip jar if you learned something.Posted: 2 August 01 | Last modified: 14 January 04
Every web page should be self-rated with a detailed, easy-to-use content rating system that helps parents and teachers filter content without resorting to mass censorship. I think SafeSurf currently has the best system and that everyone should use it. I also think that other rating systems, especially third-party programs and ratings, should not be used.
The Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) is a specification from The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) originally created to help control what children access on the Internet. In general, users (parents and educators) buy programs that read the labels placed on content by the content creators and third-party rating services; then based on the settings selected by the user, the program filters or displays the content.
As a web content creator, you should rate your own material. The reality of the situation is that parents, teachers, and politicians want a way to regulate access to adult material.
The movie industry in the United States has been very successful at self-rating for years. If the Internet community does not self-rate, then third parties will fill the void. These third parties could easily be your government. Do you want your government rating your content?
Here is an example of the element used to self rate: <META http-equiv="PICS-Label" content='(PICS-1.1 "http://www.classify.org/safesurf/" l r (SS~~000 1))'>
Meaning:
Assume that the content of your site requires parental guidance until you thoroughly verify that it does not. Things as commonplace as legal drug use, chat rooms, violent animated characters (like video games), or a semi-nude artistic picture can all be items that would require some parental guidance for a seven-year old.
Do not assume that because the topics your website deal with are not obviously controversial that they are appropriate for all audiences.
If you happen to agree with more than one rating system, use more than one. Not all applications use all rating systems; therefore, it is prudent to use as many rating systems as you agree with.
Internet Explorer and Netscape both have systems for loading the rating file for any PICS rating system. Therefore, it is not necessary for a parent or teacher to purchase additional software when using one of the above rating systems.
Many people want to use PICS applications to filter nudity, violence, strong language, and many other topics presented in a non-artistic context. I think that rating systems that do not categorize artistic content separately from non-artistic content are irresponsible. I will not support these rating systems.
SafeSurf is more detailed and objective than the other rating systems mentioned here. All categories (nudity, violence, etc.) include a mechanism for rating the content as artistic or literary.
They also have a section that allows the content creator to recommend an appropriate age range for the content. Why other rating systems do not recognize the difference between a 16-year-old and an 8-year-old in their rating systems is unknown to me.
I strongly recommend the SafeSurf rating system.
The Internet Content Rating Association was formerly a part of The Recreational Software Advisory Council. Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator come with the ICRA rating system (also called RASCi) rating file pre-loaded. This makes it the most widely available system today.
As of this date (14 January 2004), The Internet Content Rating Association does not have a context setting for their "Language" section; however, they do have a mechanism for separating artistic (as well as medical, educational, or sport) nudity and violence. Nevertheless, I will not use their rating system until the language in Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men is categorized differently than that of an 18-year-old's personal webpage.
I think that it is impossible for any third-party rating system to provide a service that is worth buying or supporting. The economic model of these companies is flawed. With hundreds of thousands of domains on the Internet, it would take a lot of money to rate and continually review all of the websites.
Furthermore, they often block access to websites that do not have mature content. The lack of resources makes it economically unfeasible to review their ratings in such a way as to minimize mistakes.
Until third-party rating companies find a new economic model, I think web producers should avoid supporting their products.
To read more about CyberPatrol (a product of SurfControl), I recommend reading this article from The Censorware Project. |
SurfControl owns a number of products that attempt to categorize potentially offensive or objectionable websites into 12 categories. This is a third-party service that rates websites without the consent of the content creators; there is no self-rating system associated with any of their products.
I strongly discourage submitting your website to this company for inclusion in their filters. There are not enough explicit definitions for artistic content; furthermore, I think the categories they have defined are discriminatory. In particular, I object to the following:
Please leave a small tip in the tip jar if you learned something.
Send an email to comments@hunterthinks.com.