Re: web architecture and safe content

On Oct 14, 2009, at 12:43 PM, Mukul Gandhi wrote:

> I gave this issue, some more thought and I guess following is a
> solution which might work.

It will not, and in any case there is no problem that needs a solution.

> 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)

What criteria are you using for "good"? I myself use the web to  
investigate trends in contemporary art, for example. Financial sites  
are about as bad as it gets, for me. How will you define "good" so  
that it works for 14 million people?

> . 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.

It is not, because there is no agreement about what constitutes 'non  
adult content'. And in any case, being an adult, I rather want to see  
adult content. I presume you mean pornographic: if so, you should say  
so explicitly. There is also no universally accepted criterion for  
what is pornographic, however. The legal boundaries defining such  
things are local, culturally dependent, and change with time. There is  
almost nothing that is not found annoying or offensive by some people.  
I myself am regularly offended by public displays of irrational  
superstition, but I do not seek to control all so-called "religious"  
content on the Web. LIke the pornography, I simply ignore it. It is  
not hard to ignore.

> 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.

It is obviously not possible to have such a 'regulator' (an Ayatollah  
of human communication for the whole planet?), and it is also obvious  
that no such regulator is needed, in any case.

> 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?

It is complete nonsense. People will go on publishing stuff that other  
people consider offensive. There is no way to prevent or regulate  
this, nor should there be. Get used to it. If something offends you,  
stop looking at it.

Pat Hayes


>
> 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
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 22:27:56 UTC