Message-Id: <9506262146.AA16332@internet1.lotus.com> To: www-mail <email@example.com> Cc: rdaniel <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Darren New <email@example.com>, From: Paul Grous <Paul_Grous.NOTES@crd.lotus.com> Date: 24 Jun 95 18:52:15 EDT Subject: Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps ) I have a question about SOAPs. The problem is what to do with unrated sites. Given the speed with which the Web grows, most sites are likely to be unrated by most approval organizations. Defaulting to "yes" for unrated sites only makes sense for a conservative parent if they have reason to believe that all the sites they don't like would be rated. Since most sites with kid-questionable content don't want trouble - they'll probably be happy to be rated (besides which, for people looking for purient content - it's a great advertisement). But, and here's the questio, what's the easy mechanism for a site to notify all interested rating parties (who knows how many) that they shouldn't be viewed by kids? If that mechanism isn't well defined, then I predict that organizations will recommend that parents use a "unrated equals off" access mode, and that will dramatically limit children's access to very legimate information. Furthermore, if means that rating authorities will be flooded with requests from people who wanted to be rated positively, and there are far more of them then there are those on the other side. So the job of the rating authority becomes that much more difficult. I haven't read the SOAP proposal (a pointer please?). Am I missing something fundamental? Kee Hinckley Utopia Inc. - Cyberspace Architects 617/721-6100 firstname.lastname@example.org 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.