3 ms·

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)

by atonse 11mo ago

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.

hedora 11mo ago
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.
- atonse 11mo ago
  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.
platevoltage 11mo ago
Sure it is. An NC-17 rating is basically a death sentence for any movie.
- intended 11mo ago
  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.
  - platevoltage 11mo ago
    Pulling a wild bait and switch like that is also a death sentence for a movie. The parent could easily watch or read a review. I was a kid before the video game rating system came out. Mom wouldn't let me buy Mortal Kombat.
    - intended 11mo ago
      When Popeye entered the public domain, a slasher horror movie was made on the IP. Sure - Parents should pay attention and the trailers would make it obvious. However - under your regime, there is no loss to such movies. They get some extra views from an audience segment they weren’t targeting at all. Replicate this case ad infinitum - people should check and review a multitude of things. Medicines, cosmetics, food, contracts, games etc. Firms use this as a way to offset risk onto the purchaser. I hope we can both agree - that the burden of review of regular folk is now impossible.
MetaWhirledPeas 11mo ago
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?
- atonse 10mo ago
  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.

by atonse 11mo ago

hedora 11mo ago

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.

atonse 11mo ago
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.

platevoltage 11mo ago

Sure it is. An NC-17 rating is basically a death sentence for any movie.

intended 11mo ago
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.
- platevoltage 11mo ago
  Pulling a wild bait and switch like that is also a death sentence for a movie. The parent could easily watch or read a review. I was a kid before the video game rating system came out. Mom wouldn't let me buy Mortal Kombat.
  - intended 11mo ago
    When Popeye entered the public domain, a slasher horror movie was made on the IP. Sure - Parents should pay attention and the trailers would make it obvious. However - under your regime, there is no loss to such movies. They get some extra views from an audience segment they weren’t targeting at all. Replicate this case ad infinitum - people should check and review a multitude of things. Medicines, cosmetics, food, contracts, games etc. Firms use this as a way to offset risk onto the purchaser. I hope we can both agree - that the burden of review of regular folk is now impossible.

MetaWhirledPeas 11mo ago

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?

atonse 10mo ago
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.