Is It Just Me, Or...?

As the webmaster/editor of GOTC, a site that thrives on controversy, I've faced the question of Internet ratings and wanted to take this opportunity to share my views on the topic. This dissertation is fairly long, so I'm going to split it up over a total of three weeks. The quoted sections in all three sections come from an ACLU white paper titled "Fahrenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning? How Rating and Blocking Proposals May Torch Free Speech on the Internet". Anyway, let's dive right on in. Shortly after the Supreme Court's decision that the Communications Decency Act was unconstitutional, the White House called for solutions from the computer industry:

Industry leaders responded to the White House call with a barrage of announcements:

Netscape announced plans to join Microsoft - together the two giants have 90% or more of the web browser market - in adopting PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selection) the rating standard that establishes a consistent way to rate and block online content;

That's good - parents should have the proper tools to take advantage of ratings built right into the browser. (I'm a big Netscape fan, but when I talk to parents of young children, I do have to admit that Microsoft has the edge in that department.)

IBM announced it was making a $100,000 grant to RSAC (Recreational Software Advisory Council) to encourage the use of its RSACi rating system. Microsoft Explorer already employs the RSACi ratings system, Compuserve encourages its use and it is fast becoming the de facto industry standard rating system;

There are a couple of other rating systems out there (which the white paper talks about later), but the RSACi system is the most consistent one I've seen. Instead of relying on subjective issues like, for instance, the G/PG/PG-13/R/NC-17 movie ratings, RSACi has firm "qualifications" for each level of content. Under the RSACi system, content is measured on four axes: Nudity, Sex, Violence, and Language. Each is measured from 0 to 4, with 4 being highest.

For example, consider the nudity axis. Level 0 means no nudity. Level 1 is simply "revealing clothing" - deep cleavage, that sort of thing. Most of the photos you might see in a Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue would fall into this category. Level 2 denotes "partial nudity", including see-through attire - some especially revealing swimsuit pictures would qualify for this level, as would "pasties and G-string" photos. Level 3 signifies "full nudity", meaning particularly that pubic hair or the genitalia are exposed. Level 4 means that not only is full nudity present, but it is "provocative" - meaning that it implies sexual arousal. A typical artistic nude would hence be rated level 3, while a Hustler centerfold would score as level 4. The precise definitions of those terms are available here. (One interesting point to the descriptions is that they refer to "sentient beings" - not necessarily just humans, but not including non-sentient animals. This provides a way to rate, for instance, Phil Foglio's XXXenophile.)

Under this system, parents can set their browser to filter each axis differently - for instance, if you don't mind your kid seeing crude language and violence but want him shielded from sex and nudity, pick N0 S0 V4 L4 (no nudity, no sex, all violence, all language) and that's what he gets to see. You may notice that this is very similar to the ratings currently applied to videogames, and with good reason - the same organization developed both, and RSACi is directly descended from the RSAC videogame rating system. (The "i" is, of course, for Internet.) At any rate, the RSACi implementation of PICS ratings gives parents more control over objective levels of actual content than any other PICS-compatible system.

Four of the major search engines - the services which allow users to conduct searches of the Internet for relevant sites - announced a plan to cooperate in the promotion of "self-regulation" of the Internet. The president of one, Lycos, was quoted in a news account as having "thrown down the gauntlet" to the other three, challenging them to agree to exclude unrated sites from search results;

That's simply inappropriate. Most ratings software (all that I've examined) has the option to block unrated sites. That's on the user's end, and applies only if they want to enable it. The search engines shouldn't force that choice for anybody - especially not someone who doesn't use filtering software (like me; I don't use filtering because I'm the only one with access to my computer, and I can handle "bad" content). On the other hand, if those search engines use a personalized interface that will detect an individual user and allow that household to set ratings, that's another situation entirely.

What may be the result? The Internet will become bland and homogenized. The major commercial sites will still be readily available they will have the resources and inclination to self-rate, and third-party rating services will be inclined to give them acceptable ratings. People who disseminate quirky and idiosyncratic speech, create individual home pages, or post to controversial news groups, will be among the first Internet users blocked by filters and made invisible by the search engines. Controversial speech will still exist, but will only be visible to those with the tools and know-how to penetrate the dense smokescreen of industry "self-regulation."

Absolutely false. (Before I really get into this, did you notice the ACLU's abrupt switch from "may be" to "will"?) First of all, any third-party rating service would be unworkable; there's too much content out there, and it changes too rapidly for anything except self-rating to work. Secondly, self-rating does not curtail content creation; rather, it actually frees an author to say what he really thinks and then rate it accordingly. This is what happens here at GOTC; my writers can say whatever they want, with the knowledge that instead of editing the language and thereby blunting their message, I will simply rate the content accordingly. They get the freedom to say anything that they think needs to be said - including harsh language and, on occasion, sexual comments - but for anyone who uses filtering software, the ratings are in place and if an article exceeds the user's boundaries, that user won't be able to access it.

There's no third party involved here, except for RSAC (which only sets the rating guidelines) - the author is free to write whatever he (or she - sorry, Zane!) feels is called for, I provide the actual rating of the content as I make the page, and you folks at home get to choose your tolerance level. This is responsible free speech, not censorship; control of the blocking technology is exclusively in the hands of the user.

First, the use of PICS becomes universal; providing a uniform method for content rating.

Universal? Tell that to Joe Newbie, who's just made his first web page and doesn't know PICS from X-rated pix. PICS tags are still a fairly advanced part of HTML; people don't learn about them in the same way they learn about other tags. That's not to say PICS tags are hard, just that they're not commonly taught as beginning-level HTML. I'll be discussing PICS syntax next week, though.

Next, one or two rating systems dominate the market and become the de facto standard for the Internet.

RSACi is quickly becoming the de facto standard rating system (primarily because it works well), but compliance is by no means mandated. If I wanted to strip all the ratings from GOTC, nobody could stop me.

PICS and the dominant rating(s) system are built into Internet software as an automatic default.

Automatic default. That's an interesting phrase. First of all, not everybody wants to enable ratings in their browser. Secondly, the Orwellian notion that the ratings software will be turned on originally has numerous problems. The first of these is the original ratings setting - with RSACi, there are five different values on each of four different axes, yielding (I think) 256 different settings. Which one do you make the default? Then there's the question of disabling unrated content; this is a separate matter altogether.

Unrated speech on the Internet is effectively blocked by these defaults.

Let's examine Microsoft's Internet Explorer on this and the previous matter, okay? It seems that a good dose of factual information is called for, and that's as good a place as any to begin. IE comes with the ratings module enabled, but not activated. This means that you have to go in and manually turn on the ratings, and at the same time you decide whether or not to view unrated sites. If you never access this module, you'll get to see anything and everything you can find.

Search engines refuse to report on the existence of unrated or "unacceptably" rated sites.

If they try this, I can guarantee you that either new search engines would spring up to fill the void (the Internet's funny that way) or the search engines would be so inundated with complaints that the practice would cease. Either way, this is a false concern.

Governments frustrated by "indecency" still on the Internet make self-rating mandatory and mis-rating a crime.

The problem of volume again rears its head - with millions of websites out there, how could the government (or anyone else) possibly monitor them all? Even search engines like Alta Vista, which deliberately set out to catalog the entire web, were running at least a three-month lag time last time I checked...which means that at any given time, several of the sites they list as "up" are gone.

The scenario is, for now, theoretical - but inevitable. It is clear that any scheme that allows access to unrated speech will fall afoul of the government-coerced push for a "family friendly" Internet. We are moving inexorably toward a system that blocks speech simply because it is unrated and makes criminals of those who mis-rate.

Here's their big mistake. Despite certain errors in their postulates, the ACLU has used them anyway and is leaping to the conclusion that their "possible" future is in fact inevitable. Yes, the future they paint looks grim - but it's based on false data.

The writers here at GOTC - myself included - have more freedom of speech here than we would in any printed newspaper; thanks to self-rating, we can say whatever we want. I've also set up GOTC so that search engines do not index the articles, so the only rating a search engine will see is the straight-zero "family-friendly" front page. Once someone gets here, the search engine is no longer a factor, and they can see whatever interests them.

GOTC was founded on the principle that some things need to be said, regardless of the political climate. If the other columnists and I have anything to say about it, we won't be going away for a long time.

Despite the Supreme Court's strong rejection of a broadcast analogy for the Internet, government and industry leaders alike are now inching toward the dangerous and incorrect position that the Internet is like television, and should berated [sic] and censored accordingly.

Interesting concept, considering the very recent nature of TV ratings (and NBC's refusal to adopt them). When I saw the TV rating proposal, do you know what I said? "Yes! Finally, networks will be able to air movies without having to edit them for content! Just rate them properly and be done with it!" I guess it's a different perspective....

Is Cyberspace burning? Not yet, perhaps. But where there's smoke, there's fire.

Sometimes, when there's smoke, there's just a smoke screen - like the one the ACLU's trying to throw in front of the facts of self-rating.

The ACLU argued, and the Supreme Court agreed, that the CDA was unconstitutional because, although aimed at protecting minors, it effectively banned speech among adults. Similarly, many of the rating and blocking proposals, though designed to limit minors' access, will inevitably restrict the ability of adults to communicate on the Internet. In addition, such proposals will restrict the rights of older minors to gain access to material that clearly has value for them.

There's that mistaken concept again: that ratings will "inevitably restrict" adult communication. Did the NC-17 rating on Showgirls prohibit any adult from seeing it? (Well, maybe a few who didn't bring proper ID and were turned away for that reason.) If the current state of affairs is any indicator - and it's certainly more reliable than the ACLU's imagination in that respect - then self-rating is a good thing and the ACLU is simply being rather paranoid.

We call on industry leaders, Internet users, policy makers and parents groups to engage in a genuine debate about the free speech ramifications of the rating and blocking schemes being proposed.

Such is my intent here. I'm an Internet user and a content provider; hopefully my experience means something. Let's see if the ACLU is really interested in a "genuine debate," eh?

To open the door to a meaningful discussion, we offer the following recommendations and principles:

Recommendations and Principles

Internet users know best. The primary responsibility for determining what speech to access should remain with the individual Internet user; parents should take primary responsibility for determining what their children should access.

Default setting on free speech. Industry should not develop products that require speakers to rate their own speech or be blocked by default.

And they do not do so. The default behavior of rating software is not to block unrated sites, though that setting is an option.

Buyers beware. The producers of user-based software programs should make their lists of blocked speech available to consumers. The industry should develop products that provide maximum user control.

The RSACi ratings are freely available at http://www.rsac.org - in fact, I've got 'em bookmarked for easy reference, and I'll be linking to the actual ratings and definitions in next week's article. With the RSACi system, there's no need for obsolete "keyword blocking" or "banned lists" - the browser checks each page as it's accessed.

No government coercion or censorship. The First Amendment prevents the government from imposing, or from coercing industry into imposing, a mandatory Internet ratings scheme.

I wonder if the ACLU has considered the coercion which is being applied to NBC in an attempt to force them to participate in television ratings? If not, why not - and if so, why aren't they denouncing that coercion?

Libraries are free speech zones. The First Amendment prevents the government, including public libraries, from mandating the use of user-based blocking software.

So users should be unable to decide to filter sites from a library terminal and libraries should be unable to decide what online content to "stock"? Kind of backwards, isn't it?

Next week: I tackle the ACLU's "Six Reasons Why Self-Rating Schemes Are Wrong for the Internet". Bring popcorn.

Is It Just Me, Or...?

by Rev. Bob

Minister of Contempt

Rating Cyberspace

Part One of Three