Tweet
Just makes me sick
5) Censorship, Big Brother, AOL, and Site Ratings
I recently added content ratings to Langa.Com using a voluntary program
run by the Internet Content Rating Association: You embed special codes in
a site's pages to alert "nannyware" and browser content filters to the
presence (or absence) of potentially offensive materials: specifically
sex, violence, nudity, and strong language. (See http://www.icra.org/ and http://www.w3.org/PICS )
I hadn't rated the Langa.Com site before because, well, it's pretty
innocuous.<g> In fact, after wading through the ratings process, I got a
zero on all counts except language--- because of the occasional mild
epithet (e.g. a rare "hell" or a "damn"), I got a language rating of a
"one" out of a possible five, and I probably still could have made that a
zero if I'd wanted to push it.
With such tame content, why bother rating at all? Well, it turns out some
ISPs, browser settings, nannyware, and content providers won't let you
view a site at all unless it's been rated; unless it passes their content
filters. Although this is a "guilty until proven innocent" approach, I can
understand why it's done: Otherwise, the rawest, raunchiest X-rated site
or hate-speech site (and the like) could simply remain unrated and
accessible to children--- the people these ratings are intended to
protect. Rating your site is easy and involves no censorship: All you're
doing is describing what's already there. I was glad to add the ratings
code to Langa.Com.
But there's a darker side to content filtering. For example, AOL uses its
own content filters, which---like almost everything else on AOL---are
nonstandard. And they appear to go far beyond filtering for sex, violence,
nudity, and strong language.
For example, AOL's content filters can keep you from visiting competitors'
sites, and they also appear to be fostering a specific political agenda.
For example, with restrictive settings turned on, AOL lets kids visit the
home page of the Republican National Committee ( http://www.rnc.org ), but
not the Democratic National Committee site ( http://www.democrats.org ).
It's not a ratings thing--- I've looked at the source code for both sites,
and neither carries internal ratings. Rather, something or someone inside
AOL has decided that the Republican site is OK for young minds and the
Democratic site is not.
Readers have told me that AOL lets them visit some pro-life/anti-abortion
sites, but not some pro-choice/abortion-rights sites; or some pro-gun
sites but not some gun-control sites; and in general, allows access to
conservative-agenda sites more often than to liberal-agenda sites. I
haven't personally checked out every variation--- I avoid AOL as much as
possible. But I did specifically check out the Republican/Democrat sites,
and it's true that kids can visit the former, but not the latter.
Regardless of your political views, I hope you agree with me that this
kind of content filtering is a truly evil thing if it's deliberate; and a
truly inexcusable thing even if it's just programmatic sloppiness or
stupidity: This has nothing to do with protecting kids. It amounts to
censorship, and it's dead wrong.
http://www.langa.com/
I recently added content ratings to Langa.Com using a voluntary program
run by the Internet Content Rating Association: You embed special codes in
a site's pages to alert "nannyware" and browser content filters to the
presence (or absence) of potentially offensive materials: specifically
sex, violence, nudity, and strong language. (See http://www.icra.org/ and http://www.w3.org/PICS )
I hadn't rated the Langa.Com site before because, well, it's pretty
innocuous.<g> In fact, after wading through the ratings process, I got a
zero on all counts except language--- because of the occasional mild
epithet (e.g. a rare "hell" or a "damn"), I got a language rating of a
"one" out of a possible five, and I probably still could have made that a
zero if I'd wanted to push it.
With such tame content, why bother rating at all? Well, it turns out some
ISPs, browser settings, nannyware, and content providers won't let you
view a site at all unless it's been rated; unless it passes their content
filters. Although this is a "guilty until proven innocent" approach, I can
understand why it's done: Otherwise, the rawest, raunchiest X-rated site
or hate-speech site (and the like) could simply remain unrated and
accessible to children--- the people these ratings are intended to
protect. Rating your site is easy and involves no censorship: All you're
doing is describing what's already there. I was glad to add the ratings
code to Langa.Com.
But there's a darker side to content filtering. For example, AOL uses its
own content filters, which---like almost everything else on AOL---are
nonstandard. And they appear to go far beyond filtering for sex, violence,
nudity, and strong language.
For example, AOL's content filters can keep you from visiting competitors'
sites, and they also appear to be fostering a specific political agenda.
For example, with restrictive settings turned on, AOL lets kids visit the
home page of the Republican National Committee ( http://www.rnc.org ), but
not the Democratic National Committee site ( http://www.democrats.org ).
It's not a ratings thing--- I've looked at the source code for both sites,
and neither carries internal ratings. Rather, something or someone inside
AOL has decided that the Republican site is OK for young minds and the
Democratic site is not.
Readers have told me that AOL lets them visit some pro-life/anti-abortion
sites, but not some pro-choice/abortion-rights sites; or some pro-gun
sites but not some gun-control sites; and in general, allows access to
conservative-agenda sites more often than to liberal-agenda sites. I
haven't personally checked out every variation--- I avoid AOL as much as
possible. But I did specifically check out the Republican/Democrat sites,
and it's true that kids can visit the former, but not the latter.
Regardless of your political views, I hope you agree with me that this
kind of content filtering is a truly evil thing if it's deliberate; and a
truly inexcusable thing even if it's just programmatic sloppiness or
stupidity: This has nothing to do with protecting kids. It amounts to
censorship, and it's dead wrong.
http://www.langa.com/
Comment