4 ms·

> Might be hard to enforce the safe content header... You don't need to enforce it. Sites without this header will not be accessible from a browser when "safe

> Might be hard to enforce the safe content header... You don't need to enforce it. Sites without this header will not be accessible from a browser when "safe content" setting is active. > Need to agree on what is safe and what isn't There are ratings for games and movies, let's consider "safe content" to be a content which a 12-year old can watch.

gs17 3y ago
And when sites outside of the jurisdictions that can take legal action put "safe-content: very yes" on whatever non-safe content?
- codedokode 3y ago
  Let there be an government-assigned organization that verifies website owner, content and issues a cryptographic signature proving that the site has been verified. The browser shall not open any page without the signature.
  - adverbly 3y ago
    This is what I mean by enforcement though. It is going to be hard to enforce for that government assisted organization. They either allow everyone who wants to set the header to do it, in which case they need to spend a lot on policing, or they need to actually have someone review. Either case, it is a huge undertaking with a lot of staff and regulations and decisions to be made about how to handle gray areas. Additionally, things can change over time and sites kind of evolve . You need to decide what would trigger a new review.
JohnFen 3y ago
> There are ratings for games and movies, let's consider "safe content" to be a content which a 12-year old can watch. The existing ratings are terrible, though, and as a parent I think they allow things that I very much object to my children seeing, and prohibit things that I don't.
- codedokode 3y ago
  Having imperfect restrictions for children is better than having none.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    That's a bit of a false dichotomy. The choice doesn't have to be between blanket restrictions that are bad or no restrictions at all. There's also the option of giving some sort of mechanism to allow parents to set the restrictions they consider appropriate.

gs17 3y ago

And when sites outside of the jurisdictions that can take legal action put "safe-content: very yes" on whatever non-safe content?

codedokode 3y ago
Let there be an government-assigned organization that verifies website owner, content and issues a cryptographic signature proving that the site has been verified. The browser shall not open any page without the signature.
- adverbly 3y ago
  This is what I mean by enforcement though. It is going to be hard to enforce for that government assisted organization. They either allow everyone who wants to set the header to do it, in which case they need to spend a lot on policing, or they need to actually have someone review. Either case, it is a huge undertaking with a lot of staff and regulations and decisions to be made about how to handle gray areas. Additionally, things can change over time and sites kind of evolve . You need to decide what would trigger a new review.

JohnFen 3y ago

> There are ratings for games and movies, let's consider "safe content" to be a content which a 12-year old can watch. The existing ratings are terrible, though, and as a parent I think they allow things that I very much object to my children seeing, and prohibit things that I don't.

codedokode 3y ago
Having imperfect restrictions for children is better than having none.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  That's a bit of a false dichotomy. The choice doesn't have to be between blanket restrictions that are bad or no restrictions at all. There's also the option of giving some sort of mechanism to allow parents to set the restrictions they consider appropriate.