Movie-style ratings for websites

[Valka D'Ur]

Film-style ratings needed for websites: British minister
Last Updated: Saturday, December 27, 2008 | 10:17 AM ET
CBC News

Britain's culture minister says websites should be rated the way films are to protect children from offensive material.

Andy Burnham says his government has plans to discuss the idea of international rules for English-language websites with the administration of U.S. President-elect Barack Obama.

"We have got a real opportunity to make common cause [and] this is an area that is really now coming into full focus," Burnham told Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper in an article published Saturday.

The minister, who called the internet a "dangerous place," said age-appropriate ratings may be the way to go.

He would also like to see internet-service providers (ISPs) offer parents "child-safe" web services where the only websites accessible are those stamped suitable for children.

Burnham also suggested the internet follow television's example, which often doesn't broadcast violent material prior to 9 p.m. There should also be a set time in which sites such as YouTube or Facebook would have to remove offensive or harmful content, he said.

Burnham denied he's attacking free speech.

"The internet has been empowering and democratizing in many ways but we haven't yet got the stakes in the ground to help people navigate their way safely around," Burnham said.

"There is a wider public interest at stake when it involves harm to other people. We have got to get better at defining where the public interest lies and being clear about it."

Source.

Wow. This is the second-most stupid thing I've read today, and it's not even 6:30 a.m. in my time zone.

I've had lots of disagreements with people here over what content should be censored online. I say that child porn and hate-promotion (ie. Holocaust denial, anti-<fill in the ethnicity or other minority of your choice>) should absolutely be censored, as it benefits NOBODY and harms EVERYBODY.

But to force all bazillion websites on the 'Net to submit to being rated, and to restrict some content as being suitable only at certain hours... This minister is aware that the world is round, isn't he? Isn't he aware that somewhere in the world it will always be "late-night" hours?

I can't see this as being either enforceable or practical. But I'm interested in other opinions or ideas that could prove me wrong...

 

[Grisu]

another moronic politician who has no idea about IT who shows his ignorance to all

 

[Yoda Power]

I'm not sure this is ignorance as much as it's a desire to be seen by the public as doing something about something which they really have no friggin' clue what to do about.

 

[CCRunner]

Stupid idea, stupid politician.

Kids get so much violent stuff anyways, censoring the internet like this would do nothing but piss a lot of people off.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I think its an interesting idea. It might make programs like Net Nanny easier to work with and more effective. It would also make other censors, like those you find in work or school environments, easier to manage, rather than the present manually-decided way in which they are.

This is if it is done correctly, of course. I don't think the exact way they rate movies is the way to do it, but a similar system, which takes into account many things about the content and purpose of the site, could prove useful to parents, school administrators, and anyone who wishes to limit the internet intake on their computers.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

As I don't have human children, I've never had to worry about such things as Net Nanny. Are there serious problems with that, or do kids generally find it easy to get around the restrictions?

Part of this "rating" idea that is so unworkable (even without the question of should it be done in the first place) is how would you rate a site such as (for example) fanfiction.net? That's a huge repository of fan fiction that covers everything from children's cartoons (think Sponge Bob and My Little Pony) to slashfic for the more "mature" TV shows, movies, books, and comics. It doesn't go as far as "X-rated", but that's a very subjective classification anyway.

And even throughout just the English-speaking world there are already vast discrepancies in ratings. What will be censored in English Canada probably won't be in Quebec. What is censored on A & E in the U.S. is not censored on Canadian channels. How this would even begin to work on the 'Net is beyond my understanding -- at least in a world where we are capable of exercising free choice.

 

[_random_]

Stupid idea. If someone wants to create a system and can convince websites to use it, that's fine, but Andy appears to be suggesting that governments creat something and apply it, which ,imnsho, is unconstitutional, and could hurt Obama politically.

On a side note, what do you guys think cfc would be rated?

 

[Bigfoot3814]

The minister, who called the internet a "dangerous place," said age-appropriate ratings may be the way to go.

The internet is only as dangerous as you, the user, make it. You can find exactly what you want on the internet, be it good or bad. There aren't really any victims.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Don't they already have settings on Web browsers to stay away from age-restricted content? Or are those woefully inadequate?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The internet is only as dangerous as you, the user, make it. You can find exactly what you want on the internet, be it good or bad. There aren't really any victims.

Tell that to the kids on the child porn websites. I doubt any of them are voluntary participants.

As for how CFC would be rated, that depends... would the government paper pusher in question be looking at the gaming content? The ads? Checking to see how many gosh-darn swear words we have here? Would they be freaked out by the content of the picture threads, which range from adorable puppy photos to stuff I personally would hesitate to allow on my own sites?

This is one of the reasons that such an idea struck me as so utterly stupid, and has the scope to make such a mess. I'd say CFC should be rated however they rate material suitable for age 15 and up these days, but it really depends on what the bureaucrat in question is looking for.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

Tell that to the kids on the child porn websites. I doubt any of them are voluntary participants.

Wait, do you mean actually on the sites or visiting them? Because "the internet is a dangerous place" sounds like it refers to the latter.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Wait, do you mean actually on the sites or visiting them? Because "the internet is a dangerous place" sounds like it refers to the latter.

The politician likely meant that it's dangerous for those who visit "bad" sites, but what I mean is that the children who are IN the pornographic photos and videos are victims. I can't believe that even if it were legal, that they would be willing to be part of such horrible activities.

 

[Zelig]

Not really feasible for any reasonable purpose, too many websites, too much ambiguity.

As I don't have human children, I've never had to worry about such things as Net Nanny. Are there serious problems with that, or do kids generally find it easy to get around the restrictions?

It depends what you're using something like netnanny for. If your teenage kid is alone in their room with a computer and the door shut for hours every day, I wouldn't expect netnanny to do anything.

If you let your 6-year-old use the internet to look at lego stuff, and you don't want him/her wandering onto porn sites, netnanny could come in useful.

Overall, you're much better off simply communicating with your kids, rather than trying to use programs that they're probably going to understand better than you do.

If you have a real objection with something your kid is visiting, probably the best way is to set up a way to track if he/she visits said material, and cut off all computer use for a month or so every time it happens. Hand-writing school papers is not fun, and there isn't much other legitimate use a kid needs a computer for.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The rating system isn't a bad idea (not that it is a good one) so long as most websites can avoid the added paperwork by just choosing to remain unrated, but restrictions based on the time of day part is extremely dumb. (I tend to think that such restrictions on TV are kind of dumb too, but for the World Wide Web it doesn't even make any sense.)

 

[CaptainF]

Nonononononono.

Censorship of any sort is not something to implement in a mature society. I thought we had the balls to tolerate distasteful material? Free Speech?

 

[LucyDuke]

I've had lots of disagreements with people here over what content should be censored online. I say that child porn and hate-promotion (ie. Holocaust denial, anti-<fill in the ethnicity or other minority of your choice>) should absolutely be censored, as it benefits NOBODY and harms EVERYBODY.

To your second statement: censorship harms everybody. To your first: here's another.

The politician likely meant that it's dangerous for those who visit "bad" sites, but what I mean is that the children who are IN the pornographic photos and videos are victims. I can't believe that even if it were legal, that they would be willing to be part of such horrible activities.

Oh totally. But it's not like the internet directly caused the crimes perpetrated by the folks making that material.

Overall, you're much better off simply communicating with your kids, rather than trying to use programs that they're probably going to understand better than you do.

 

[Shylock]

I find it funny when old people with solutions they managed to get away before try to foist them on mediums where it will work worse than before.

I think they just want more power for themselves, and they'll get it one way or the other someday.

 

[silver 2039]

The government needs to stop trying to do the job of parents....maybe they shouldn't let their 6 year old sit on the computer for hours without supervision? Now there's a novel idea.

 

[Nylan]

The internet does not work on a time cycle.

 

[amadeus]

Andy Burnham says his government has plans to discuss the idea of international rules for English-language websites with the administration of U.S. President-elect Barack Obama.

That's the part that scares me, although I don't think Obama or any of his handlers are stupid enough to believe this could be anything less than a disaster of epic proportions.