Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )

Kee Hinckley (nazgul@utopia.com)
Mon, 26 Jun 1995 10:13:08 -0400


Message-Id: <v02120d0bac146d460da5@[204.57.39.6]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 10:13:08 -0400
To: Brian Behlendorf <brian@organic.com>
From: nazgul@utopia.com (Kee Hinckley)
Subject: Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )
Cc: R Martin Roscheisen <rmr@cs.stanford.edu>, uri@bunyip.com

At 8:26 PM 6/25/95, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Jun 1995, Kee Hinckley wrote:
>> I have a question about SOAPs.
>>
>> The problem is what to do with unrated sites.
>[summary: saying "allow unrated sites" would allow unrated obscure
>'naughty' sites to still go through, and "disallow unrated sites" would
>most likely prevent valid places.]
>
>The latter would probably be the only acceptible choice for those
>protecting their young'ins.  The problem then becomes a lack of data
>points - a demand - which could be solved by market forces.  Ideally the

My concern is that it's not clear to me that any demand will exist.  What
will drive a parent to spend more money or do more work in order to allow
their kids to see more web sites?  We believe there's a benefit, but will
someone who doesn't live so intimately on the net?

Kee Hinckley      Utopia Inc. - Cyberspace Architects=81    617/721-6100
nazgul@utopia.com                               http://www.utopia.com/

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.