PICS

[CMUNSON]

Timothy G. Kambitsch said:
     
I've been reading this thread and all the related threads on this issue 
for months.  What I have haven't read is much discussion of PICS standard 
self-rating efforts. For those unfamiliar with PICS I would suggest you 
start your reading at:
     
        http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/PICS/
     
     
     Good suggestion!
     
Before there is a flood of messages stating that PICS doesn't work because 
nobody uses it, I would ask you to take a few moments and ask yourself 
"Have I rated my own site?"
     
     No, and I recommend that you don't.
     
It take less than five minutes to add a metadata tag to your welcome page 
and indicate that the scope of this rating if for your site or set of 
pages.  PICS doesn't prescribe a rating scheme, but only outlines a 
specification for allowing communities to come up with their own.  If
you abhor the proprietary CyberNOT <http://www.microsys.com> approach, 
then you could use SafeSurf's <http://www.safesurf.com/> rating scheme or 
Recreational Software Advisory Council's <http://www.rsac.org> rating 
scheme.  If these are unsatisfactory you could develop your own.
     
     How about not jumping on this mindless avalanche and just saying nyet? 
     What happend if we all jump on this bandwagon and some government 
     mandates that all web sites must be rated? Sound like an infringement 
     of freedom to me.
     
In MSIE you can enable PICS and allow users access to unrated sites 
(unfortunately 98% of the http://www.hot100.com Hot 100 adult sites are not 
rated.)
     
     Hurray! Just shows the stupidity of ratings. When are these Puritans 
     (tm) going to realize that sex is a legitimate part of our society?
     
Alternatively, you could allow users access only to rated sites at the 
rating level you select. Unfortunately in excess of 98+% of the valuable 
web sites I've tested have no self rating (including commercial products 
like Ebsco Host and SIRS.) The last time I checked the Internet Public 
Library didn't
rate itself.
     
     You? Who's going to be doing this deciding? Why does anybody care if 
     the Internet Public Library is rated? Kudos to the IPL.
     
So clearly PICS isn't a workable solution in either case unless you use a 
third party rating service like CyberPatrol.
     
     ...and are required by pinhead mayors to do so. Do you see what I'm 
     driving at? Any "voluntary" ratings standard for CONTENT will become 
     mandatory in this political climate. People want to stop views they 
     disagree with. We haven't evolved yet as a species to respect freedom 
     of speech and the critical thinking skills that go with.
     
Here in Ohio there is draft legislation in the upcoming state budget 
that would require blocking software at the state level in an attempt to 
ensure that no materials which are "harmful to minors" are accessible 
from library computers (pretty scarey, huh?)  If required, I would much 
rather employ a voluntary mechanism that allows content providers to 
decide on the appropriate audience than place my users at the whim
of a proprietary database.
     
     Shocking, yes. That's why some of us are shocked to hear about 
     librarians collaborating with censorware companies. What happens when 
     the propietary database is used by thousands of computers? Who at the 
     software company decides what to cyber-not? What if some government 
     decides that abortion information is not part of a community standard 
     and asks the database maintainer to screen out birth control sites?
     
If there is going to be a library-community initiative, I would much
rather you take the time to rate your own site, get the webmasters at sites 
you link to rate their sites. While your at it, send a note to Netscape
to incorporates PICS support.
     
     Wait, if you are scared about the Ohio situation, why are you 
     advocating this?
     
     
     Chuck Munson