Comment by shevy-java
3 months ago
I understand the rationale - I am still against that. To me it is censorship.
Making it more sophisticated does not change this problem.
The problem is that some want to control other people. I am against this. For similar reasons I stopped using reddit - I finally had enough of random moderators censoring me and others.
I strongly disagree. Having ratings on content isn’t censorship. It’s providing additional information.
Like a nutrition label. It’s your choice (as an adult) what you want to do with that information.
I'm starting to see platevoltage's point. Yes it's additional information, but it is an indirect form of censorship.
Remove one more f-bomb and we'll give you that PG-13 rating you're wanting.
Food labels are easier to justify because they have a very tangible effect on one's health. But even those can be misleading in the end.
I say keep the food labels, but reconsider the movie ratings system. What if it went away? The studios and exhibitors would have to *tell us* who the movie is intended for. What's so hard about that? What is this magic benefit we're getting from a rating system?
But there are no teeth with the movie rating system.
Well, the only place they’re enforced is you being able to enter a movie theater.
But I can see how that affects the earnings for a movie during its theatrical run.
But even R rated movies, I believe if you’re under 13 you just need someone over 17 to take you.
Sure it is. An NC-17 rating is basically a death sentence for any movie.
Consider the alternative - people go with their kids to the latest Popeye movie only to find out that it’s a slasher horror.
The natural result is people push their representatives for something to protect themselves.
Some form of social contract will end up existing.
2 replies →
On the planet I’m from, the pedophile in chief is already intentionally miscategorizing information so it can be censored using mechanisms like this, and is implementing a public playbook explaining how this is one pillar of a platform to force his particular brand of right wing christian “morality” on the rest of the population.
At best, you’re defending coordinated disinformation campaigns, though the article is about attempts to make compliance with the propaganda mandatory.
I’m sorry but I have no idea what you’re even saying.
I’m talking about ratings like we have in movies, tv shows, games, music, apps.
Many facets of our lives.
Or nutrition labels.
To me it is censorship.
If you are a small child it is indeed up to your parents to censor adult content and I am all for that. Kids will be upset but that is part of growing up. When the parents believe the kids are emotionally ready for adult content then I am sure they will get parental controls disabled. Even if that should not come to pass the kids once they are teens will bypass it anyway.
If you are an adult and your followers are adults then this does not really apply to you or your device. This would only hurt groomers, most of whom use video games for that purpose.
I don't think we're talking about whether it's appropriate for kids to see the stuff. I think we're talking about who gets to decide to *mandate* an RTA header on a website. (They can already add it voluntarily so we are talking about a hypothetical mandate.)
Let's say your website mentions the MLK assassination. Or maybe the 9/11 attacks. Just a mention; no disturbing details. Is some government entity now going to force the RTA label? Who gets to decide? An RTA label would be a death sentence to educational sites.
who gets to decide
Each site operator would have to decide what level of legal risk is appropriate based on content rating and that would likely come from their legal team.
An RTA label would be a death sentence to educational sites.
Maybe but not likely. Adult content for the purposes of education used to be protected but that was a grey area and was abused heavily by some art sites such as Deviant art and then social media. CIPA was passed in 2000/2001 and updated in 2011 to provide guidance on content viewed by children. [1] This is of course up to the parents to decide as has been the case for sex education throughout the history of the USA. If a school was going to view content that would be in conflict with CIPA then I would expect they could get parents to sign a permission slip meaning they have adult consent from the parent of each child. Either way I would expect a school to curate content that is appropriate for children and cache/print it locally.
If RTA is not an option then the alternative will likely be to have parents log into a 3rd party site to prove their identiy for each student via some proxy auth site to give the child permission while also sharing personal details of the parent and child to said third party. More laws get involved when logging the child's personal details with a 3rd party but I am thankfully not a lawyer. Here [2] are some more laws specific to states. Laws will vary wildly by country and province or state.
[1] - https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/childrens-internet-prot...
[2] - https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/social-med...
[dead]