W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2009

Re: web architecture and safe content

From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:13:08 +0530
Message-ID: <7870f82e0910141043i488f2683y5ac36d2e7fab4f2c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>, www-tag@w3.org
I gave this issue, some more thought and I guess following is a
solution which might work.

To my opinion, I think we require only two kinds of web content
partitioning for users:
1. Present web
2. Non adult web

To provide a non adult web, ISPs can apply URL filtering at their end
(this could be done, easily with a good firewall I guess) and provide
access to good search engines. I can find Google's search engine to
already be implementing adult content filtering, via the preference
page, http://www.google.com/preferences. So Google can be the search
engine to start with.

When I subscribe to a non adult web from an ISP, an ISP can give me
access to say 1000 good web URLs (say major news sites all around the
world, some financial sites, and so on). These 1000 good web URLs
could be organized in a directory. Apart from the 1000 good web URLs,
I need to have access to a search engine, like Google which allows me
to search a non adult web in entirety. I think, ISPs can partner with
search engine providers to be able to allow subscribers, to browse
only non adult content. I feel, this could be technically feasible.

There could be some regulator, who could be monitoring the quality of
non adult web offered by ISPs. I don't know, how a regulator could be
asked to monitor all this. But I think this is necessary, keeping in
mind the safety of people.

I think, to provide all this to users, ISPs can just partner with
search engine providers, and this could be going forward pretty fast.

Any thoughts, please about this?

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote:
> I'm sorry, isn't this exactly what the POWDER architecture is for?
> Have you looked at it?
>
> This is a technical list and probably not the best place to talk about
> regulation.
>
> Jonathan


-- 
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 17:44:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:17 GMT