- From: Matthew C. Clarke <clarkem@unpsun1.cc.unp.ac.za>
- Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 15:49:14 +0200
- To: uri@bunyip.com
I want to raise the ugly issue of censorship and suggest a possible scheme which uses URLs to implement a helpful and hopefully non-threatening form of self-censorship. I understand that various people and organisations have been looking into the possibilities of self-censorship already, but I have not seen details publicised of any firm proposals. Please bear with my first contact with the URI working group with patience. Has this sort of suggestion already been debated? How can I join in the debate? To whom should I write in order to promote this idea? Of course, there will be a lot of controversy about whether ANY form of censorship is acceptible on the 'net. However, I think that a modification to the syntax of URLs could be of benefit to all -- allowing freedom of speech while at the same time alerting readers to undesirable (or at least undesired) material. At the moment, a URL consists of two parts: a scheme followed by some scheme-specific information. These parts are typically viewed as an access method followed by a location. I propose that this should be extended to include a third field which provides information about the information content. Thus, the format of a URL will include: 1. The access method (i.e. info about the item's syntactical structure) 2. An indication of the content (i.e. info about the item's semantic content) -- although this could be an optional field 3. The location. For instance, a URL might be -- http:"EroticGraphics"://access.digex.net/~pcw/deepk5.html (I'm sure there can easily be agreement about whether to use quotes, colons or some other delimiters.) This format allows a simple way for any sort of comment about an item to be recorded as part of its URL. In particular, certain codes could be used as abbreviations for subject classifactions and censorship ratings. For instance, perhaps a code such as "V4" could become a standard way of denoting items whose content has a high degree of violence (rated from, say, 1 to 5). The Content field of the URL could be used for many purposes and anyone's computer could make use of information filters based on this field. Someone could use the URL's Content field to search for items relating to golf. Someone else could filter out any items whose URL included a "V" rating over 2. There need be no rigid enforcement of such codes. If someone makes an item with violent content publically accessible but fails to give it an appropriate "V" rating, then the normal net-pressure could show them that they have erred. The debate about whether and how to censor electronic information is sure to become hotter. The scheme I have described will provide a useful feature for many purposes, one of which is an Internet convention on self-censorship. This is an idea still in embryo, but surely something of this type could benefit everyone. Matt. ------------------------------------- Matthew C. Clarke <clarkem@unpsun1.cc.unp.ac.za> University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa (PGP Public Key available on request or by Fingering PGP@mac.cs.unp.ac.za)
Received on Tuesday, 5 September 1995 09:48:54 UTC