- From: Ken Meyering <immedia@netwest.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 14:34:22 -0700
- To: "Ronald E. Daniel" <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>, bede@scotty.mitre.org, www-talk@www10.w3.org
- Cc: immedia@netwest.com, nazgul@utopia.com, peterd@bunyip.com, marc@matahari.ckm.ucsf.edu, michael@junction.net, rating@junction.net, uri@bunyip.com
I'm opposed to any system that requires any effort on the part of the content-providers to "label" or "classify" their material. People should not be required to attach other peoples value judgements to their own expressions. This is just another way of saying, "BE INHIBITED", "THINK LIKE US", "SAY IT OUR WAY". What you think of my http server is *your* business, and is subjective. There are already giant list-building/selling services that maintain "orwellian overviews"... however, John Q. Fundamentalist isn't aware of them yet. In a "Free-Censorhip Market", where any number of list-providers can serve up ratings, values, vectors, recommendations, etc., no effort is required on the part of the content providers, and the public will "learn faster" by looking at different lists and their relative opinions. Eventually, I think, people will gradually desensitize to material that society previously considered taboo. What was once "shocking" will become "just information". When you consider child development, (and most of our personal histories), or sensitivities are just a product of our experiences and identification, and as we mature these sensitivities change, hopefully our tolerance increases as well. === I'm interested in Expert Systems applied to Computer-based Training. One of the accepted requirements of an expert system is that it be able to "Explain, in plain terms, it's reasoning". Similarly, if a third-party rating service wishes to gain the respect of the public, it should also be required to explain it's ratings. Some systems will simply GENERALIZE, for example exclude any domain which in the past has posted a photograph considered objectionable to that's systems values. This would be the equivalent of an "unforgiving black-list". Other systems will incorporate time-domains, for example, they will allow ratings to change with time..."forgiveness". Some systems may actually have humans that review an individual file. Initially, the sheer number of systems will be confusing, and the methods those systems use will also be confusing. But over time, the "whole system" and all of it's "value servers" will become a mirror of a "thinking, reasoning machine". It will be able to give advice, solve problems, and respond to natural language queries. Critical to the success of the "intelligence" of the whole system is that it be "all inclusive"...not requiring any information provider to "self-judge". For those who think that such a system will be cumbersome, I suggest the following: 1. Most parents who currently own computers are not terrified by information, and therefore will "think for themselves" and not use third-party value filters. 2. Those who are frightened by shocking pictures and words can choose to subscribe to third-party value servers. If they are irritated by the slowness of the "mediated transaction", they can help subsidize higher bandwidth networks and distributed value services. Many will suggest that self-rating protocols etc. are more efficient for the clients. Of course. But then the clients are not "contributing", they are simply passive consumers of information. That is not what the interactive mediums are about. As for third-party systems being complex and cumbersome. Of course! So are morals. If they choose to be hyper-cautious, then they probably won't mind a slight slowing of their access. Chalk-it up to "playing it safe". The third-party "Free Censorship Market" will itself be an educational exercise. Will someone please write a public domain Windows program and a public-domain Macintosh program (prototype client-based filter, that CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC can show to anyone who cares) that is capable of: "intercepting" URL socket requests by Browsers and News Readers demonstrating a mediating process (could be as simple as looking up the numerical address then checking for a match in a local list) proceeding to "allow" or "dissallow" the transaction. Let this be an educational exercise Let this little mediating agent "check references" Let it be basic-like Let it be invisible (background mode), or visible (pop-up mode) Release the source code... Let the whole exercise be an education to the public. Ken Meyering immedia@netwest.com http://www.netwest.com/~immedia
Received on Tuesday, 27 June 1995 17:34:50 UTC