Senate Approves Censored .kids.us Domain 453
lostchicken writes "The Senate has approved the first viable "kid-friendly" system that doesn't try to control the Internet. See the story here. It is an opt-in system that allows a .kids.us domain to be pointed at a site approved as safe, as opposed to an adult only domain type system."
I see a trademark dispute (Score:2, Funny)
Not a laughing matter (Score:3, Interesting)
1. servers in the kids.us domain immediately come under attack by crackers hell bent on inserting pr0n into those sites.
2. Parents attempt to sue Neustar.
3. Supreme court rules they cannot be sued and complaintants must sue the US Government (which one cannot legally sue)
4. Parents turn their fury to the individual server administrators.
5. Administrators can not keep up with all the bugs in the software and request help or protection from the us government.
6. FUD ensues.
7. White house demands new Cyber Terrorism laws.
8. DHD creates new Cyber Terrorism division.
9. more freedoms shot down in the name of "the children."
You can divise any scenario you like. The one common thread is that these servers will be major targets for crackers and they will succeed time and time again.
Re:Not a laughing matter (Score:3, Informative)
10. geeks turn inward, form their own centralized government, powered by a giant super-computer AI, and then move underground. After centuries of being geek-less the general populous grows technologically stagnant.
one day the geeks emerge from their underground lairs with powered suits of armor and enslave the world's population.
Questions (Score:2, Insightful)
Who determines what material isn't suitable?
Do they get paid? By the taxpayers I assume?
Do they really have any power to tell ICANN to revoke a domain name?
Re:Questions (Score:4, Informative)
They wouldn't deal with ICANN at all, they'd be dealing with NeuStar, who they made a sweet deal with:
Re:Questions (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a "dot US" domain name. ICANN has no authority over how the names are handed out.
Re:Questions (Score:4, Interesting)
If a child's web site is dedicated to history, would commentary on the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor be considered "Hate Speech" since it might offend Japanese kids?
Or what about a current events story on the conflict between Isreal and the PLO? Would the other side denounce any opinion given as "hate speech"?
Or more recent - there are some that consider it "hate speech" to talk ill of Al Qaeda (despite the fact that their goal is the destruction of the US).
Sounds like this may be just another example of political correctness gone too far. Why shield kids from any speech, even if it is vile, racist garbage? Wouldn't it be better to point out to the kids that racist organizations exist, but are wrong because they don't believe that All Men (and women) are created Equal?
This is a great system (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if "hate speech" is too broad, I would like a domain like this that is very restricted and controlled.
When your kids grow up and you think they're mature enough, just turn off the kids domain stuff, and let them surf away. This is the best solution, no restrictions on the "regular" internet, and a very restricted optional space for kids.
I see no problem with this.
Answers to your "hate speech" questions (Score:5, Insightful)
Not unless the commentary was structured to incite hatred of the Japanese or some other currently existing group.
Given the current situation, yes, both sides undoubtably would. In fact I think we can assume that tens of thousands of complaints would be engendered by any statement that portrayed either side as less than saintly. Content providers would probably be wise to avoid the issue - and honestly, I don't think any "reasonable person" wants his or her kids to learn about the Middle East situation from a "kid" site. Such sites would be quickly dominated by the better-funded Zionist movement in any case; no balance could really be achieved.
I doubt our "reasonable person" would consider it "hate speech" to "talk ill" of an admittedly terrorist group, unless one advocated hate towards them, or a group that resembles them. It's obviously hate speech when Billy Graham's demented larva pronounces that "Islam is Evil" and proposes "new crusades", and it's hate speech when the President says we should single out Arab communities for opression, but it's not hate speech to describe terrorism accurately
But again, we come back to the issue of appropriateness for children - any truthful discussion of Al Quaeda is going to be sufficiently disturbing that it is not appropriate for unsupervised children.
I suspect that you have no kids! Why not just give three-year-olds loaded submachine guns, they have to learn sometime what death is like, right? FUD phrases like "political correctness" and "multiculturalism" should probably be banned from kids.us, incidentally.
Yes, far better, once the kids are old enough to handle the concepts. I didn't explain to my African-American three-year-old what "kill all nigger-lovers" meant when she saw it spray-painted on the sidewalk behind the house. I explained it very carefully to my WASP six-year-old, and I certainly would NOT want him to have had it explained by a web content provider while I was out of the room for a moment.
Your concern is understandable, given the slanted education given most kids by government controlled institutions (Sex is bad! The Government never lies!) entertainment concerns (Sex has no consequences! Violence is fun!) and religions (God hates people of other faiths! Sex is evil!). But I think the idea of an opt-in system where parents and providers can choose to impose censorship over what a parent's children can see is a good one, and far better than any of the current alternatives.
My children wanted to surf the web at two years old. It would have been very nice to have something equivalent to the Disney channel, where I could safely leave the room for a second or two and leave the box turned on. They will have time for hatred and violence later, right now I want them to learn things like language skills, music and arts.
Re:Questions (Score:2)
So what's the point? (Score:5, Funny)
If you can't pick up kids on
This is the way to do this kind of thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
I like choice. Choice gives you options.
This is a good idea, and maybe might be extended to the other TLDs: kids.com, kids.net, etc. Obviously, it would require some kind of monitoring and management, but it certainly appears to be a better way of "protecting" children then spurious free speech attacks on the 'net as an entity.
In fact, I believe extending this to the commercial TLDs would be a big marketing tool. Point out to parents that "our site is kid safe, we're part of the kids.whatever domain."
Build a better mousetrap...
Re:This is the way to do this kind of thing... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is the way to do this kind of thing... (Score:2)
Oh man, that combined with the "from the barney-and-teletubbies-considered-safe dept." line makes my skin crawl.
Re:This is the way to do this kind of thing... (Score:2)
This is a good idea, and maybe might be extended to the other TLDs: kids.com, kids.net, etc.
It's a stopgap measure at best; it's not a good idea, it's a good idea implemented very wrong.
All you're doing is balkanizing the internet -- I'd have MUCH rather given out .xxx or .adult and lock kids out, than give them their own section and lock them in. There is a huge difference there.
It's a money grab, it's a shmoo. If you want howthingswork.com to be accessible in .kids.us, you now pay another registration fee. If I want my domain in .kids.us, same thing. You're locking kids out of an enormous resource.
Then again, this is far easier to do than booting all the pr0n/goatse sites into .xxx or .adult. Maybe with ipv6 we can be a little smarter and dole out adult ips to 6969:6969:6969 or sommat. :-)
Re:This is the way to do this kind of thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
Thats not such a stupid idea...
With the current internet address system, anyone can have any ip
Would it be SO bad if there was a bill passed that anyone serving adult material had to have their IP's in a certain range?
There are obvious reasons why restrictions shouldnt be placed on the dns'ed addresses, but could they be enforced by whoever-it-is-who-hands-out-ip's?
"You can have this IP as long as you dont display sexually explicit images/movies as defined by section 3(c)"?
It would mean that making the net safe for kids would be as simple as blocking that netblock
Anyone displaying material which is deemed inappropriate and NOT within the IP range could have their IP address revoked...
I'm very much against internet censorship by the government, but can anyone think of a good reason why IP groups such as that would be a bad idea?
Re:This is the way to do this kind of thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
While that does seem like a good idea, it could get a bit tricky when it comes to multiple sites on a single machine. Also, it might lead to a rise of adult sites putting their material on one of their adult-IP'd boxes, then creating a page that links to images on that box, and putting that page on a non-adult box. The end result would be that they've escaped the "adult IP" blacklist. In the event they're nailed on it, they might conceivably argue that they are hosting no non-adult material on the non-adult server - just linking to it. That could bring about a big whole mess over the legality of links and such. Not pretty.
Re:This is the way to do this kind of thing... (Score:2)
Very insightful, Mr.Einstein. You forgot
to mention that when you don't have choices,
there are hardly any options.
But what happens... (Score:5, Funny)
Will someone please think of the disenchanted youths?!
Re:But what happens... (Score:5, Funny)
Kierthos
Re:But what happens... (Score:2)
Re:But what happens... (Score:2)
The claim is that violent games make kids more violent, not that it turns them into exact clones of the absurdly proportioned, rocket-launcher-wielding characters they see on the screen.
Re:But what happens... (Score:3, Funny)
I give up. 'Cause the little tykes always try to hit the long wood on the 12'th at Augusta?
Hrmm (Score:2)
You dont have to go far on here to find a link for goatse.cx courtesy of the local troll population.
Re:Hrmm (Score:2)
Will someone please think of the children? (Score:5, Funny)
Arrgh! (Score:2)
Obligitory "think of the children" link (Score:3, Funny)
I think it should be the other way around (Score:2)
If it was made mandatory for all pr0n sites to go under
Re:I think it should be the other way around (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I think it should be the other way around (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that there is lots of content that some people (christian right) would find "objectionable" for children, and a lot of it isn't pr0n. The classic example is that of renaissance nude paintings, which always get picked up by the "naked people finder" filter programs and will probably be banned from .kids.us as "smut" even though they are obviously art. For that matter, do you want to force every site that mentions human reproductivity into a pr0n domain, just because some "anti-smut" campaigners don't want their children to know that babies aren't delivered by the stork?
(cf the ridiculous controversy about a "burka" being forced on that statue of justice)
NAMBLA? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:NAMBLA? (Score:5, Funny)
this is fine but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Grudgingly Admitting it is a Good Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Kids are running rampant on the internet and can come across some truly disturbing shite. I myself was on this technical-nerd-/. site one day and clicked on a link and was presented with largest bloody rectum I have ever seen. Wait the only large bloody rectum I have ever seen. And it is more ubitiqous than the Bonzai buddy pop up.
Anyway, I dont have kids, soon, and I plan on treating them like adults. But not turning them into little Ron Jeremys.(That is my job for the time being).
So a restricted domain where it is all about kidstuff is cool with me. Might even fun for our jades asses to look at. Of course when I strip off the emerald spectacles it is gonna be a marketing haven for toy companies, candy companies, and anything that sells kiddy products, a market with a demographic that is always renewing itself.
So lets see how it works. Could be a good thing. And we can always have a good guffaw when the script kiddies hijack a couple of sites and plaster them with the goat.cx guy, nude shots of ana nicole, and John Holmes memorials.
The Flatline
Re:Grudgingly Admitting it is a Good Idea (Score:2, Funny)
What, you're gonna kill'm all?
drats (Score:2)
Not censored! (Score:5, Insightful)
The story title is off, it isn't "censored", it's "moderated", there's a difference.
Content isn't altered, content is accepted or rejected.
Re:Not censored! (Score:2, Insightful)
"We don't want you to look at anything but what we approve, regardless of what your social background, religion, ethnicity, etc. may be. We are the only ones who decide what you get to see at all."
Hrm... sounds a bit like censorship to me.... (Of course, it also sounds like the M$ parody "Here's where you will go today.")
Kierthos
Re:Not censored! (Score:2, Insightful)
It would be cool if there were sites dedicated to homework help and research for school papers, news from the world explained in terms that kids can understand would also be a good thing, but ultimatly its the parents who decide if they want their children to view this material or not.
So before you get on the anti-censorship bandwagon and call and idea down because it has one bad thing wrong, think of how many benifits it has and weigh the idea on its merits, then make the choice.
Re:Not censored! (Score:2, Interesting)
Which is merely another description of censorship, no?
Remember, moderation is always the enforcing of the opinions of a group or a single individual by removing 'unsuitable' opinions &c. You can not possibly consider moderation of whatever source of information to be purely objective.
For this reason there is no distinct difference between censorship and moderation, since both define the restricting of a person's or a group's access to a source of information.
Also, with censorship, content isn't altered. The content is simply 'moderated', meaning that some of the content is rendered unwatchable, unreadable or is made in some other way inaccessible.
Excellent! (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, I wouldn't want to be NeuStar. That's a hell of a responsibility; to police an entire subdomain for appropriateness. And I wonder what sort of liability issues that creates. If I let my 10-year-old browse at will through
As it stands now, my son's email account receives close to 50 spams a day, 10 of which are sexually revolting. But because of the nature of the beast, I cannot press charges against any of the companies that originate the mail (if I could find them, that is). It would be refreshing to to have a "Kid Safe" label and have it mean something*.
* Unfortunately to get any organization to truly "Certify" that (and be able to TRUST that certification), there must be real and hurtful penalties attached.
Re:Excellent! (Score:2)
The 50 I quoted were the ones that get through
Monitoring. (Score:3, Interesting)
a site that is about furry teddies (Score:2)
Re:Monitoring. (Score:2)
Sounds good in theory.. (Score:2)
Web sites in the domain would be prohibited from linking to sites outside it, and they could not set up chat rooms, instant messaging or other interactive services unless they could certify that they did not expose children to pedophiles or pose other risks.
That "certify" part is the nail in the coffin. What about the liability associated if something slips through the cracks? I can not see companies lining up to provide this.
Coming Soon.... (Score:2)
wean into real world slowly (Score:5, Insightful)
NeuStar would be expected to police the subdomain to ensure it remains free of inappropriate content.
Policing a kids domain is definitely necessary. It doesn't fall to the side of censorship but rather common sense.
However this may create an opening for the government to define what is appropriate for children beyond the known vices. For example, what about people's religious beliefs. Could the government decide on one over the other, ban all as hate speech for the sake of not having to deal with it, etc.?
If the kids.us domain is too restrictive, parents are going to let their kids look elsewhere for information, which may doom the kids.us domain. Of course kids.us is not supposed to be a success story (so "doomed" may be incorrect); instead it's supposed to protect children. For the kids it does protect I know we are all thankful.
Might the system not work better if there existed different levels of these subdomains like "kids.highprotection.us", "kids.mediumprotection.us", and "kids.lowprotection.us" (no comments about the names please -- they are just examples), then the medium level might include religious beliefs, and the low level might include regular news sites, etc. This way parents could decide on a level that that deemed most appropriate for their kid/s (maybe based on age, etc). This would also provide a good way to wean the kid onto the "real" Interent as they get older. Sooner or later the kid is going to be at a friend's house (whose parents have less restrictions) and will experience the real Interent anyways. Just like when I was a kid I first got to play video games (Atari) at a friend's house because my family didn't own a game system (my parents probably thought it was a bad idea at my young age because I shouldn't have spent a lot of time in front of the TV).
Re:wean into real world slowly (Score:2)
Okay I hear the jokes... (Score:3, Interesting)
God, I hope that they do something right for a change on the internet before some place like adultsexplayhouse.com or donkeysweat.org decides to move into the kid market... and sue ICANN for "their rightful domain name" on
So for all of you
Re:Okay I hear the jokes... (Score:2)
Please, Read the article - THERE ARE NO CHAT ROOMS!
Did you read the story? (Score:2)
The story also says that ICANN doesn't own the rights to the domain it's another company who controls the
I don't think the suing option will work, because the system is opt-in, but the standard
I know there are dorks out there looking to warp my kids, but I'm open to any ideas there are to protect my kids while I do teach them!
Ben
my friend tried to register fuck.sport (Score:2)
!!
I found the URL (Score:2)
click on the New.net tab
and enter fuck and
May not be too helpful (Score:2)
Re:May not be too helpful (Score:2)
Could someone please explain (Score:2)
Adult web sites could opt-in as well to an adults only domain (ICANN really did fuck up when they nixed the xxx domain).
What an absolutely idiotic idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to see how this is better than any filtering software. If kids can only access .kids.us sites, then they are confined to a list of sites that have been pre-approved by some censor who thinks that only they know what is good for America's children. If, on the other hand, if children surf through filtering software, then they are confined to a list of ... (i.e. the same exact situation.
Several things need to happen here:
While we would all like for the world to be a place where everyone is happy, and protected, that is simply not the case. You have to look out for your own -- you can't rely on some (government, company, whatever) to raise your children for you.
No -- think it through (Score:5, Insightful)
This is really pretty condescending. Most of us who have children understand this. The real issue is that there is quite a bit on the net that children may encounter that they just aren't ready for. Only a few folks have real fears of actual physical harm befalling a child as a result of surfing the web. Most of us would just like our children to have an actual childhood, however brief.
People need to realize that most censorship does more harm than good. Every attempt to provide a list of "good" and "bad" sites has failed, and will always fail, because "good" and "bad" are purely subjective.
Censorship is a bad thing only when foisted on adults. I think, however, that you are going to have a pretty hard time making the case that keeping a 7 year-old from accidentally encountering www.fursuitsex.com is a bad thing.
People need to stop raising such gullible children, The world contains bad things, and everyone has to learn how to deal with them. If a child is brought up, and hasn't ever seen "bad" in his/her life, then (s)he will be ill-prepared to function in our world.
If you have ever raised children, you would understand that sheltering a child from all "bad things" is impossible. Few parents are attempting to do this. While I'm all for porn and violence, let's not pretend that it somehow builds character and prepares you for life -- it doesn't.
While we would all like for the world to be a place where everyone is happy, and protected, that is simply not the case. You have to look out for your own -- you can't rely on some (government, company, whatever) to raise your children for you.
Nobody is relying on the government to raise their children. All this bill does is attempt to create a limited, safe space. It does so without foisting draconian censorship on the rest of us and reducing the Internet to the lowest "kid-friendly" denominator.
More importantly, the creation of such a safe space strengthens the hands (politically) of those who oppose broader censorship laws, such as COPA and its ilk, since it essentially takes away the "but we must protect the children " argument. This is a good thing.
Re:No -- think it through (Score:5, Insightful)
No -- what you appeared to be claiming (unless I misunderstood the post) was that all censorship was always bad in all cases. This is flatly untrue.
To be a parent is to live in a perpetual state of insecurity. The bill in question does not appear be an attempt to provide a blanket sense of security to anyone. What it does provide is a tool, at minimal cost and intrusiveness, for those parents who whish to avial themselves of it. Don't think it's appropriate? Don't use it.
That is the point, people are relying on the government to raise their children. No one, other than the parents themselves, should decide what is "kid-friendly" or appropriate for their child.
Providing tool != "government raising your children". Can you really not distinguish the difference between these two things? Obviously, this is no substitute for parental oversight -- but then nobody is claiming otherwise.
Moreover, Congress is not deciding what is "appropriate for all children". They are deciding what is appropriate for inclusion in a domain which, as a parent, I am free to use or ignore. The key phrase here is "free to ignore".
Can you honestly say that everything that you believe is alright for your kids to see, is the same as what your next-door neighbor believes is alright for his/her children to see?
Of course not. But then that's irrelevant to your argument. It would be relevant only if my neighbor were forced to adhere to my standards or visa versa. It might also be relevant if the Senate bill would incur massive taxpayer costs. However this does not appear to be the case.
In fact, I suspect that the kids.us domain contents will probably skew toward younger children. For my older kid, it'll probably be too restrictive and won't be used. In any case, whether my neighbor and I share the same standards (and you'd be surprised to what extent standards tend to be shared, especially regarding younger children) is entirely beside the point.
As I mentioned earlier, this bill should be supported for the simple reason that it potentially heads off truly onerous legislation. Being fetishistic about free speech doesn't help matters here; in politics it is generally wise to choose your battles with great care.
Re:What an absolutely idiotic idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Children are not just little adults who are capable of making their own decisions and who understand not only what's good and what's bad, but why. Teaching them the difference is a long process, not an instantaneous event. People always raise gullible children -- the hope is that they won't be gullible adults. 6-year-olds are easy to fool, not because their parents did a lousy job of raising them, but because they're only 6 and aren't done learning. The job of raising them isn't complete.
I have a 3-year old who occasinally sits in my lap and we go to disney.com, nickjr.com, pbskids.com, etc.... I directly monitor what he sees -- is it censorship to only allow him to access the sites that I want him to? When he says "Daddy, click here," and that's not someplace I think he needs to go, should I let him go there just to let him see "oh yeah, there's bad stuff out there"?
In a couple of years, probably by the time he's 5, he's going to want to do the computer himself. Now, 5 years old is too young to be exposed to things like pornography, pictures of dead people or serious violence. When that point comes, you can be darned sure that I'm going to limit the sites that he can go to. Sure, it won't be perfect -- it may be that I accidentally ban him from Scoobydoo.com or something. The point is not to exactly mirror my preferences for what he can and can't see, but to let him learn how to use the computer by going to some websites that are fun and age-appropriate.
If the
Re:What an absolutely idiotic idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Even when I was 12, 13, 14 years old I don't think I had such a concept of self-censorship. If it was out there I would look at it. Luckily, the Internet was a more innocent place. Sure, I'd seen plenty of porn, sure I knew what a bad place the world could be when I was a teen, I read the news. But I didn't have to worry about stumbling onto Fecal Japan, goatse.cx and so on and so forth. Freedom of speech is great and all but there are some images that I'm not sure are appropriate for a 12 or 13 year old, let alone a 7 or 8 year old (and a lot of them can surf the web themselves these days).
Of course, I realize point 1 above. And Point 3, like I said, has some truth to it, though I don't think to avoid being "gullible" you need to see pictures of prolapsed rectums, bondage, mutilated bodies and so on at a bright young age. The real problem is point 2 - it's HARD to really filter out harmful stuff without cutting out lots of reasonable stuff. Which is why hopefully when I have children I can solve these problems through parental policy and monitoring, until my kids are in the mid-teens and old enough to really call their own shots.
Privacy and the COPA (Score:2, Interesting)
On the other hand, I'm sure a pedophile could run a site, and get lots of leads.
No internet, then (Score:2, Interesting)
For me, it means that only sites designed specifically for the .kids domain would be allowed. And, the no-external-linking and no-forum-chat-messaging gives an experience completelly different to what Internet is, and more close to TV or educational CDs. What will happen when those children have later to use the real Internet?
I predict (Score:2)
Enforcement? (Score:5, Interesting)
What recourse do I have when my kids happen upon content that should not be there in
.kids.US ? (Score:3, Interesting)
I realize that it would be nigh impossible to create a worldide standard, but theis tastes a little of "screw everyone else".
Re:.kids.US ? (Score:2)
Cheers,
Ian
Re:.kids.US ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ben
Silly idea... (Score:2, Insightful)
Keep the computer in the living room (Score:5, Insightful)
My brother has VNC going on the home network just to keep an eye on his two kids, and one of them's gotten the family AOL account shut down for inappropriate behaviour in a chat room (don't ask).
Leave the computer out in the open, like the TV, and let the oversight be implicit. Your kids may watch something out of line when they're out or you are, but something tells me that neither you nor they are going to watch XXX when you're both in the same house.
Like it is at work. Your behavior might change if a URL log is kept, but it would really change if your back is to your boss who can always see your screen.
Re:Keep the computer in the living room (Score:2, Funny)
So the kid's not all bad... is that what you're saying?
Re:Keep the computer in the living room (Score:3, Funny)
sounds like an easy solution.
Roundabout path to trouble (Score:2)
But one caveat is that anyone who thinks this is foolproof will surely be disappointed. The problem is links. Let's say some Disney television program gets a kids.us domain pointing to it. That site has a link to abcfamily.com which links to abc.com which links to abcnews.com which links to the latest celebrity sex scandal.
Perfectly Reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
that reminds me... (Score:3, Funny)
The URL was "www.canda.boys.com"
it didn't take long for the rightful owners of boys.com to spot this and add a "*" entry to their DNS table...
I'm sure I don't have to tell you what happened next...
good try, who will (really) control (Score:5, Interesting)
I, however, don't know if this will be successful. Parent who don't wish to monitor their children, like those that complain about South Park and the like, will complain that the system is not perfect when a nude painting inadvertently makes it into a discussion about classic art. Christian fundamentalist will try subvert the intention of the domain by using it to promote their religious beliefs. The fast food chains will dominate the advertising in a continuing attempt to brand our children.
But, all in all, a good attempt and a gold star for congress. I am really not trying to be ironic. It is just we need to first teach our children to think. Sometimes I think we are so concerned with nipples and penises that allow equally dangerous, but more socially accepted material. Of course I agree that stuff like goatsx should be banned, but perhaps also this Jerry Falwell propaganda against muslims [falwell.com].
I Agree: Well Done Congress (Score:3, Interesting)
As one who routinely, and scathingly, bashes congress here and elsewhere, I have to agree. This appears to have been a rare instance of insightful, intelligent, reasoned, and balanced governance, something we have seen far too little of lately.
I think this actually has a good chance of being quite successful, and school firewalls can easilly be designed to only access
As long as the criteria, process, and oversight of the selection of material that is allowed in the
However, I am actually fairly optomistic that some lessons may have been learned, and it will be the former, not the latter, which happens. In any event, this is a good, well balanced start to solving a problem without, for once, trampling on either the constitution or the most promising new technology to emerge in a hundred years, namely the Internet itself.
Kids and the net (Score:4, Insightful)
A great idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
This idea is simple to implement for parents and easy to understand for everyone involved (but a pain for NeuStar).
The various objections raised here seem silly, and not very well thought out.
Kids need to learn to avoid this stuff on their own. It's censorship! Damn right it is censorship, and you're an irresponsible parent if you don't practice it. Kids get enough chances at avoiding (or seeking out) this stuff at school and around their peers. They don't need things handed to them on a silver platter. Parents need to be ever-vigilant, but they need a break too.
Someone else is going to decide what's okay, and what's not! Their morals might not be your own! I'm willing to let someone else make the decisions, and check in occasionally to make sure they make sense. There may be material that's a little too mature (ever see some of the teenage girls on Nickleodeon?) or a out of whack politically (PBS kids programming chaps my ass some days with this), but I'm willing to trade a little boundary-pushing for a much safer experience.
Parents will never figure out how to set this up! FUD & bullshit. They won't need to. If the US adopts this how long will it take for AOL 9.0 to come out with a button that locks down the system? Or Internet Explorer 7.0? Plugins galore that do the same thing? Not long and every software resaler will fall all over themselves to help parents remove this objection to letting the kids use the Net. Remember, *kids* drive a HUGE portion of the US economy.
It's a US-only thing! Yup. Too bad. (For you or for us, depending on your viewpoint.)
Why not just have a .XXX or .SEX domain? Two problems, first is that not every bad thing for children is porn -- I don't want my kid spending time at the Illinois Nazi website either. Second is that the genie's out of the bottle already. It's going to be impossible to legislatively corral it back in. Better to set up a sandbox where the genie's not allowed to go and defend that spot rigorously.
.kids.us? what about .screws.us (Score:3, Funny)
screws.us
fscks.us
ruins.us
like,
washington.kids.us
verizon.screws.us
or even, archaeology.ruins.us
R
Once more congress just doesn't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
A domain name references a set of records that in turn may reference computers that in turn offer an array of services, one of which may be a set of web pages.
Is congress intending to police all of those services on all of those computers that are referenced by all of those different types of records under each domain name in kids.us?
And what are they going to police? As others here have mentioned, there is no single standard for content for children.
Re:Once more congress just doesn't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
But in addition, we have the first amendment that limits the Federal government's power to restrict expression. By labelling certain forms of expression as "acceptable" and, indirectly labelling everything else as non-acceptable, there is a chilling of expression. This labelling will tip the scales so that someone who has something (possibly something quite valuable) to say to children will not do so if there is even a remote risk of falling afoul of some kids.us censor's attitude or biases.
If a private group wants to create standards for web content - fine, it can do it. There already is a PICS system that allows content markings (from many different content reviewers) to supplement web materials and many web browsers support PICS.
In other words, the tools are there in most web browsers for concerned parents to accept only that content that has been approved by some group who's preferences are in line with those of the particular parents. We don't need congress to become a puritanical maiden aunt, or worse, to give Ashcroft the green-light to become one.
Re:Uhhh...michael, did you even read the bill? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Uhhh...michael, did you even read the bill? (Score:4, Interesting)
Does this allow the government or Neustar to spy on people and gather information if they want to? Yes, it does. Since it is an opt-in system, I'm comfortable with it. No serious site will place itself in the
Re:Uhhh...michael, did you even read the bill? (Score:2)
I used to work for a serious site that would have to be in that domain. Why? Because they catered to high schools and of course, high schools will be required to use the "child-safe, corners-rounded-off, don't-want-to-learn-about-that-nasty-evolution" Internet.
The funny thing is that we would have had to change our entire business model around that domain because we provided an open publishing system to High School teachers. Some of the stuff those teachers let their kids put up would probably not be "acceptable", and we would have hand to police those schools from seeing themselves!
Re:Uhhh...michael, did you even read the bill? (Score:2, Insightful)
Since the MPAA is an opt-in system, I'm comfortable with it. No serious movie will place itself in the PG-13 ratings domain. Those serious movies that do will no doubt also release a regular version.
Yeah, that's what happens, sure it does.
Hey webmasters! In the future, you only get one 'fuck.' Better use it wisely.
Re:Uhhh...michael, did you even read the bill? (Score:2, Insightful)
If it were being created to help kids then this "opt-in" system would be deemed too drastic a measure that cuts kids off from too much information outside
On the other hand, since this law is being written for voting parents who just want peace of mind, it can get away with this level of generality.
It's sad, but not unreasonable in a democracy where children can't vote.
Re:Uhhh...michael, did you even read the bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
<SARCASM>Fortunately, these times are about to finish. With Trustworthy Computing and DRM all these free speech morons will finally shut up and we will live happily together placing our kids in front of the monitor and letting other people decide what's good for them.</SARCASM>
Seriously, I don't think such technology is bad, but the first prevention measure should be education of kids, which requires education of adults (I understand that not everyone is supposed to be a geek, but it's parents' responsibility to know what their kids are doing).
Re:Uhhh...michael, did you even read the bill? (Score:2)
Re:Uhhh...michael, did you even read the bill? (Score:2)
The Text of the Bill: Not That Draconian! (Score:3, Insightful)
The text of the bill is here [loc.gov]. It doesn't say anything like that. Neither of the restrictions you discuss are in the bill.
This seems to me a perfectly good way to make an internet playpen without eating internet freedom. Please don't scaremonger.
Re:Uhhh...michael, did you even read the bill? (Score:2)
Everyone else: This is pure BS, just so everyone knows. Another troll from the masterful PhysicsGenius.
Re:A complete waste of money (Score:3, Funny)
-lw
Re:So how long before (Score:2, Interesting)
This new domain is an excellent opportunity for propaganda. The government could keep all kinds of groups outside of
And what about foreign sites? No child would be able to read the Chinese People's Daily, say. This system could be seen as just another part of an indoctrination system involving schools, and soon television.
Although I tend to view the primary goal of this not as being for propaganda, but rather to satisfy parents, the view of it as a propaganda mechanism is NOT flamebait!
Re:I am confused (Score:2)
The sad thing is, people would buy that in large quantities. That's exploitation of children.
Re:This is a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:my favorite goodies (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How long before (Score:5, Funny)