Websites Could Get Cinema-Style Ratings

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Cinema style ratings for websites? Are we talking “PG-13” or “two thumbs up” style ratings? Who would do the rating? Come to think of it, what rating would the [H] get?

The kind of ratings used for films could be applied to websites in a bid to better police the Internet and protect children from harmful and offensive material, Britain's minister for culture has said.
Click to expand...
 
"So ridiculous there's only one real danger: that... the audience will laugh to death."
- Daniel M. Kimmel, Variety
 
When people like this start throwing around phrases like "protect the children" or "protect us from terrorism" you know your rights are in trouble.
 
They would have to inject a new rating intot the system for HardOCP. Rated [H] for "Hard". :p
 
They should rate the sites with spyware, phishing, and containing viruses as G to earn a profit and pron as PG since the kids are going to find it anyways:p
 
The problem with this is that there are way too many website to even think about rating them all. And then, you lose access to not only offensive sites but also the 95% of sites that have no rating. No one is going to bother to rate personal sites, for example, so the ISPs will block them without cause.

Anyone remember Content Advisor? That was five years ago. Imagine trying to do the same thing now.
 
Already beaten by a superior front page posting two days ago. Quick on the ninja edit, though.
 
Don't worry about these freedomds over here, the nanny state will make sure you don't need them! Really! Trust me!
 
The following website is rated [H] for hardcore, honest reviews. May contain mild violence and mild language.
 
I'm 100% for this on one strict condition.

NO CENSORSHIP.

The government is welcome to rate and and all websites they want in my mind. That information would be a great starting point for companies that are creating child-safe filters, but the government must NEVER have control over the flow of information. It must always remain the choice of the PC owner and/or Internet Subscriber as to which content they choose to receive.

Rating websites is the creation of information.
Censorship is an attempt to destroy information.
History has shown us over and over that no civilization is safe when the government controls all the information.
 
This is a great idea. Homogenize the internet so it's exactly like mainstream t.v. and we get to be spoon fed everything. Mmmmm, I love you government because you to tell me what is good and what is bad and you protect me from the evil internet. Government is my friend.
 
Nemesis999 said:
I'm 100% for this on one strict condition.

NO CENSORSHIP.

The government is welcome to rate and and all websites they want in my mind. That information would be a great starting point for companies that are creating child-safe filters, but the government must NEVER have control over the flow of information. It must always remain the choice of the PC owner and/or Internet Subscriber as to which content they choose to receive.

Rating websites is the creation of information.
Censorship is an attempt to destroy information.
History has shown us over and over that no civilization is safe when the government controls all the information.
Click to expand...


The internet is an ever changing thing. How would you rate [H] front page? Some days I would rate it G, on others it might warrant a PG or even PG13 rating imho. The forums get an R rating due to the occasional F-bomb and even the occasional NC17 or XXX rating for PC pr0n. ;) With the exception of static never changing pages, you would have to rate and re-rate sights on daily basis in many cases. Now start adding up the number of pages in English alone and you have a fricken ridiculous amount of pages needing ratings. We would be filling garbage trucks full of tax dollars taking it to the dump and burning it. Not to mention the fact that it would not work anyway unless it was made mandatory. SurfPatrol and the like have existed for a long time now. People out side of schools and businesses hardly use it now, why would they suddenly start using something just like it unless forced to by law? The only way it makes any sense to do this at all is if it is mandatory, and done at the isp level. And that would be censorship.
I can't find a way to even begin to agree with this idea.
 
GORANKAR said:
The internet is an ever changing thing. How would you rate [H] front page? Some days I would rate it G, on others it might warrant a PG or even PG13 rating imho. The forums get an R rating due to the occasional F-bomb and even the occasional NC17 or XXX rating for PC pr0n. ;) With the exception of static never changing pages, you would have to rate and re-rate sights on daily basis in many cases. Now start adding up the number of pages in English alone and you have a fricken ridiculous amount of pages needing ratings. We would be filling garbage trucks full of tax dollars taking it to the dump and burning it. Not to mention the fact that it would not work anyway unless it was made mandatory. SurfPatrol and the like have existed for a long time now. People out side of schools and businesses hardly use it now, why would they suddenly start using something just like it unless forced to by law? The only way it makes any sense to do this at all is if it is mandatory, and done at the isp level. And that would be censorship.
I can't find a way to even begin to agree with this idea.
Click to expand...

Where did I say the government would be hiring people to do the ratings? Who's to say they don't simply work with MS/Mozilla to impliment a simple distributed rating system that maintain 7-day average scores? There's no reason this couldn't be easily implimented, at which point the system admin could choose how much they want to lock down their system.
 
Nemesis999 said:
Where did I say the government would be hiring people to do the ratings? Who's to say they don't simply work with MS/Mozilla to impliment a simple distributed rating system that maintain 7-day average scores? There's no reason this couldn't be easily implimented, at which point the system admin could choose how much they want to lock down their system.
Click to expand...

Oh please. The only people who will even give a shit about a page rank system will be loud MADD type groups who will rate everything badly, as they sit there lying to themselves telling themselves what good people they are while living hypocritical lives.
 
Nemesis999 said:
Where did I say the government would be hiring people to do the ratings? Who's to say they don't simply work with MS/Mozilla to impliment a simple distributed rating system that maintain 7-day average scores? There's no reason this couldn't be easily implimented, at which point the system admin could choose how much they want to lock down their system.
Click to expand...


You think they could manage to do this without spending our money? You think MS, Yahoo, Google, and the like would do it for free? You really think the government would do it that way, and then leave it up to us to use the data how we saw fit and not how they decided was fit? Nope, they would take the rating system and then legislate them into laws like they have with the MPAA and ERSB rating systems. Additionally Mr. Burnham's plan is to enforce this rating system at the ISP level internationally. They want to treat the web like it was TV. ISP's who have traditionally held many of the same protections as telco's would have to start acting like CBS, ABC or MTV instead of a telco or risk fines or extinction. (Someone dropped the f-bomb in the [H] forum. Forum blocked by the ISP so they don't get fined.) You don't need a tinfoil hat to see where something like this would prolly go.

Granted, I don't really see something like this standing up to a Constitutional challenge here in the US at this point in time. So far this is not even an active Bill, but that is the plan as stated in the article.

And again, SurfPatrol and the like have existed for a while now. Schools and businesses do use them, but very few individuals and families do. But the filtering software is out there if parents want to use them. Why legislate unless you intend to force the use of something similar to SurfPatrol?
 
Kristofff said:
Oh please. The only people who will even give a shit about a page rank system will be loud MADD type groups who will rate everything badly, as they sit there lying to themselves telling themselves what good people they are while living hypocritical lives.
Click to expand...

So? Who the hell cares. That's the whole point of making it optional. They can rate and avoid all the websites they want, and we get to stop listen to these retards bitching that they can't use the Internet to babysit their kids.
 
GORANKAR said:
You think they could manage to do this without spending our money? You think MS, Yahoo, Google, and the like would do it for free? You really think the government would do it that way, and then leave it up to us to use the data how we saw fit and not how they decided was fit? Nope, they would take the rating system and then legislate them into laws like they have with the MPAA and ERSB rating systems. Additionally Mr. Burnham's plan is to enforce this rating system at the ISP level internationally. They want to treat the web like it was TV. ISP's who have traditionally held many of the same protections as telco's would have to start acting like CBS, ABC or MTV instead of a telco or risk fines or extinction. (Someone dropped the f-bomb in the [H] forum. Forum blocked by the ISP so they don't get fined.) You don't need a tinfoil hat to see where something like this would prolly go.

Granted, I don't really see something like this standing up to a Constitutional challenge here in the US at this point in time. So far this is not even an active Bill, but that is the plan as stated in the article.

And again, SurfPatrol and the like have existed for a while now. Schools and businesses do use them, but very few individuals and families do. But the filtering software is out there if parents want to use them. Why legislate unless you intend to force the use of something similar to SurfPatrol?
Click to expand...

Congrats on ignoring the post you're responding to. Did you miss the part where I said I wouldn't have a problem with a rating system specifically if the government did NOT get to control the flow of informations (which includes ISPs)? Or the part where I said specifically said you'd need to work with private corporations to impliment this rather just having the government hire people? So to answer all your questions... Well... read the post you're responding to in which I already answered them.
 
twatt said:
This is a great idea. Homogenize the internet so it's exactly like mainstream t.v. and we get to be spoon fed everything. Mmmmm, I love you government because you to tell me what is good and what is bad and you protect me from the evil internet. Government is my friend.
Click to expand...

I love big brother. :)
 
Nemesis999 said:
Congrats on ignoring the post you're responding to. Did you miss the part where I said I wouldn't have a problem with a rating system specifically if the government did NOT get to control the flow of informations (which includes ISPs)? Or the part where I said specifically said you'd need to work with private corporations to impliment this rather just having the government hire people? So to answer all your questions... Well... read the post you're responding to in which I already answered them.
Click to expand...

Congrats on not reading the article and realizing that is exactly what they are talking about doing.
I took your post in context with the article, my apologies.
 
Nemesis999 said:
So? Who the hell cares. That's the whole point of making it optional. They can rate and avoid all the websites they want, and we get to stop listen to these retards bitching that they can't use the Internet to babysit their kids.
Click to expand...

And how how will a government mandated ratings system stay completely optional on the customer end? Fuck that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top