So COPA has been defeated. Would the industry support an alternative?

[BarebackJack]

Frankly, I would rather see the internet be age-restricted overall, like cigarettes and booze and X-rated magazines. Make it illegal for minors to use the internet. Period.

This could relieve the net of a smorgaasbord of problems, from child predators (who wouldn't be able to access kids as easily), to kids viewing porn, kids downloading music and video content illegally, kids buying stuff online with their parents' credit cards, etc. And it would get rid of a high volume of that god-awful net clutter called "myspace". Ack.

Let's face it... the internet is developed by adults, primarily for adults. The kid stuff just gets in the way and their presence on the internet causes all sorts of probelms for us adults.

Kids on the net... call it what it is: a failed experiment. Wipe out the kid content altogether and age-restrict the net so the people who run the net can run it in peace.

heh heh heh :develish:

[Squirt]

Frankly, I would rather see the internet be age-restricted overall, like cigarettes and booze and X-rated magazines. Make it illegal for minors to use the internet. Period.

This could relieve the net of a smorgaasbord of problems, from child predators (who wouldn't be able to access kids as easily), to kids viewing porn, kids downloading music and video content illegally, kids buying stuff online with their parents' credit cards, etc. And it would get rid of a high volume of that god-awful net clutter called "myspace". Ack.

Let's face it... the internet is developed by adults, primarily for adults. The kid stuff just gets in the way and their presence on the internet causes all sorts of probelms for us adults.

Kids on the net... call it what it is: a failed experiment. Wipe out the kid content altogether and age-restrict the net so the people who run the net can run it in peace.

heh heh heh :develish:

Woe actually just thought of something

Instead of having .xxx created

They should create .kid

Where all content is only for kids! All other sites are filtered but .kid

Pretty simple.. what you guys think?

[BarebackJack]

Why dont the big computer companies, Microsoft, Apple, IBM etc simply put parental control software on their installations of IE AT THE FACTORY?

That way, for a new PC to be able to access an 'adult' website, the parent would have to remove the filter.

Problem solved.

Regards,

Lee

I wrote Microsoft with that very idea nine years ago. I guess they have their reasons for not wanting to implement that.

Besides, How could it be guaranteed that only an adult could remove the filter? What would prevent a kid from hacking into the PC software and removing it himself? It seems that 5-year-olds are capable of doing stuff like that anymore.

[BarebackJack]

Woe actually just thought of something

Instead of having .xxx created

They should create .kid

Where all content is only for kids! All other sites are filtered but .kid

Pretty simple.. what you guys think?

I also suggested that to Network Solutions a bunch of years ago when they had the monopoly on domain registration. Again... seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

I guess we should just count on Congress to make all sorts of noise about stuff like this but we shouldn't expect the software and licensing companies to do anything about it until it's passed into law. They apparently don't have enough motivation on their own.

[Matt 26z]

Frankly, I would rather see the internet be age-restricted overall, like cigarettes and booze and X-rated magazines. Make it illegal for minors to use the internet. Period.

That is ridiculous. It's like saying because Wal-Mart sells 18+ products that kids shouldn't even be allowed in the store. This isn't the 1998 internet anymore where it's all about chatrooms and hobby sites. We've come too far to just pull the plug on anyone under 18.

.kids is a decent idea to protect small children, but only if user interaction (email, IM, chatboards, etc...) was prohibited. But then there are problems when an 11yo needs to access kid safe mainstream sites. Should they be expected to purchase a .kids domain to clone the .com? You are pretty much pinning the .xxx concept onto mainstream.

[BarebackJack]

Oh take the knot out of your ass-hair for a moment matt and lighten up. I know that it's probably unlikely that anyone would try to pull the plug on the under 18 set... although before the Wright Bros. made a plane people thought that the notion of man flying through the air was equally as preposterous. I just tossed that into the ring, mostly for humor's sake and to get some other ideas flowing.

Sure, dotkids is putting the .xxx idea on the mainstream. But it's putting it on the portion of the mainstream that is crying out for something to be done. And I would venture that .kids would affect a smaller percentage of websites than .xxx would in the long run. So why not have the parents bear the brunt of the child protection stuff since it's they who refuse to monitor their offspring to begin with?

.kids would also discourage governmental ghettoization because it is doubtful the government would be interested in penalizing the kid sites by segregating them out for extermination.

Still the fundamental problem with TLD filtering is that one way or the other, kids will find a way to get at internet contraband. Plus, it would mean that Disney and all its ilk would have to re-register their domains if they wanted to be found on browsers that only accepted .kids sites. It's unfair to some businesses, and so is .xxx.

As discussed above, labeling has its distinct problems as well. So what answer is the lesser of all evils?

I'm grinning my wicked little grin when I say I'll still stand behind age restricting the net, even if it's somewhat implausible. Whether or not it can be done doesn't take away from the fact that it's really not all that bad of an idea when you consider what it could ultimately achieve.

I'm sure Encyclopedia Britannica would get behind it. It could boost their sales if kids didn't have access to the net anymore.

[BarebackJack]

here, just for the fun of it....

[gaybucks_chip]

The .kids domain has been suggested and I think someone even pitched the idea of a TLD but someone decided it wasn't "viable"

As for tags... mandatory tags could definitely work. It's a simple matter to add a rewrite command to Apache to insert the tag on any page on an adult-related domain, so it wouldn't have to be inserted on individual pages.

Outside the US it might be a bit more of a challenge to get compliance, but if the rule said that any site viewed in the US had to have the tag, a noncompliant site could either be blocked by IP address or the originating ISP could be instructed to block outbound traffic to the US until the tags were in place.

I agree that it's ultimately parents responsibility, but I think that the industry can take steps to help that won't significantly impact our bottom line.

[BarebackJack]

The .kids domain has been suggested and I think someone even pitched the idea of a TLD but someone decided it wasn't "viable"

.kids was bandied about a couple of years ago. I don't think it was nixed as not viable... but there was concern that it would be too burdensome on companies that focused on family-oriented websites, from religious claptrap to Disney. I don't remember who exactly put up the fight against it. The problem was, as with .xxx, that anyone who wanted to be seen on a .kids oriented browser would have to buy the .kids TLD. Disney might not have a problem with that, and the Christian organizations probably would have coughed up the money. But any small company, like someone selling Halloween costumes or Power Puff Girls trinket stuff, as well as all educational websites, might have seen that as an unfair requirement to continue doing business.

As long as we're in the land of things that won't fly, perhaps .fam would be a better TLD, as it wouldn't be exclusive to kids only. Regardless, it would probably be seen as just as burdensome if not moreso.

I agree that it's ultimately parents responsibility, but I think that the industry can take steps to help that won't significantly impact our bottom line.

I remember suggesting a few years ago that it be made a law that parents get jailed for child endangerment if they let their kids go on the net unsupervised. CPS would throw them in jail for other kinds of endangerment. Why not this? If people started seeing news stories about parents being incarcerated for child abuse because they let their rugrats on the computer without supervision, it might start to change the way parents look at the internet.

I used the examples that if a child gets ahold of the family gun and injures or kills himself or a playmate, CPS doesn't lay the blame on the gunsmith. Or if a kid gets under the sink and drinks bleach, they don't blame it on the bleach manufacturer. Or if he falls into a pool and drowns due to lack of supervision, the pool builder doesn't take the fall. Yet the internet is treated differently, and WE are somehow liable for the parents' failure to parent.
Bah!

[basschick]

i've always supported .kids and recommended that parents i know keep smaller children on the aol kid section.

when i was growing up, parents were held legally responsible. nowadays, they seem to be the only people who AREN'T responsible for their own children. not only can that put others in legal jeopardy that they truly don't deserve, but think of how those kids will grow up. they'll never feel or act responsible because the message they grew up with is that they aren't - adults aren't - responsible.

btw, are there kid-friendly search engines out there? i don't mean search engines that don't list porn but that don't list all sorts of things that are inappropriate for children.

[gaybucks_chip]

i

btw, are there kid-friendly search engines out there? i don't mean search engines that don't list porn but that don't list all sorts of things that are inappropriate for children.

There is "Ask for kids" run by the Ask Jeeves people and the one run by Looksmart. I don't remember the url for either, though.

[desslock]

When I was just an innocent lad, age eleven walking home from school through the park between Shackelford Junior High and my house, I happened upon several ragged magazines tossed aside on the ground.

Picking them up, they turned out to be a Penthouse magazine and the now long gone skin mag "Oui." (So yes I told my buddies later that I found a copy of "Oy" magazine, but anyways)

Now - as a child, exactly what harm was I afforded by happening upon this kind of material? Are the harms such that the government should regulate or restrict the sale and presentation of such materials?

Would government regulation actually WORK to keep dirty magazines out of the hands of minors? I think we are so used to living in a society with age restrictions for things, we don't even know why they are there. In Germany the drinking age is years younger than in the United States. Does this imply that life for kids in the United States is safer?

One last point - when people here talk about a .xxx domain or a .kids domain - does that mean that there should be a federal law on how you present your website? Let's say that I create a .com website devoted to the movie Carnal Knowledge, and some US Attorney in Johnson County, Texas deems it obscene.

Should someone be convicted and sentenced under federal criminal law for that?

Steve

[gaybucks_chip]

I look at it this way. Some form of regulation is pretty much bound to happen.

If the right wing loonies had their way, they would like to legislate gay people out of existence, and pornography out of existence (not to mention gambling, dancing, sex for other than procreation, playing cards, drinking, and almost anything else fun.)

I do think that *inappropriate* sexualization and/or exposure to sexual things among children and perhaps those under , oh, 14, can lead some some unhealthy views about sexual behaviors that can cause psychological problems.

So... if we as a responsible community propose something that legitimately helps responsible parents keep materials out of their children's hands (similar to requirements many communities have to keep adult magazines on the top shelf of a magazine rack, or obscure what's on the front cover) then everyone wins... webmasters still can advertise their products to those that want them, children and those who don't want to see them have more limited exposure to sexual materials, and our rights to communicate are not trampled in any meaningful way.

[BarebackJack]

The European way of life is always an interesting comparison.

In Europe, the age of consent to marry and/or have sex (for str8 kids) is 16. Television and mainstream print magazines allow nudity in advertising. The drinking age is lower. The attitude towards drugs like heroin and hashish is more relaxed (in Amsterdam you can legally buy hashish in coffee shops). And, of course, in practically every advanced country in the world where English is spoken, gays have the right to marry. All in all, the Europeans are more low-key about all this kind of stuff which Americans get so uptight over.

And surprisingly, you don't hear about all that many weird psychos coming from those countries. They don't seem to have as large a problem with things like sexual predators, teen pregnancies, serial killing, abortion clinic bombings, etc. as we do here.

Could it be that having a culture-wide healthy sexual attitude actually leads to having a healthier culture overall?

I mean, even their currency is stronger than ours.

Sadly, there are too many Americans who are not only so paralyzed by irrational fears about such things as human nudity that they are unwilling to let these fears go despite the examples to the contrary that have been made in other countries, but we Americans are also willing to accept even more irrational fears into our daily lives - the kind that the right wing goofballs keep pumping out ad nauseum through the media.

Anyway... the old adage seems true in this country that the more effort you put in toward prohibiting something the more of a problem you ultimately create with it. Where the prevailing attitude is, "Yeah, so what... a naked body. Big deal," there seem to be fewer social problems than in America where the attitude is "OMG! Nudity! We must protect the children from seeing naked people!"

And to think... the people who founded this country were progressives. Well, the end of the 19th Century sure put a kabosh on all our social progressiveness...

[SPACE GLIDER]

make it a crime to allow children unsupervised access to the internet.

That makes a lot more sense