6 ms·

Or could have a header saying this is not adult-only content, and a parentally-controlled device will block things that don't participate.

Bender 6mo ago
That's a good idea. There could be two headers, the existing RTA header that adult sites use today [1] and another static header that explicitly states there shall be no adult content. [1] - https://www.shodan.io/search?query=RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-RTA https://www.shodan.io/search?query=RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-R... [THESE ARE ADULT SITES, NSFW]
- bluGill 6mo ago
  What is adult content? I know parents who have no problem with their kids seeing porn. I know parents who give their kids a beer. I know parents who take their kids to violent movies. I used to know parents who will give their kids cigarettes. Most parents I know will disagree with their kids doing one of the above. I know songs that were played on the radio in 1960 that would not be allowed today, even though today we allow some swearing on the radio.
  - Bender 6mo ago
    That's between parents and their local governments. Yes when I was a kid my mom let me watch whatever and go wherever. The parent in my example ultimately decides what a kid may or may not do which is in alignment with existing laws. If the parent is endangering their kid that is up to them and their government to sort out. Point being, put the controls entirely into the hands of the device owner. Options can be to default to: - Block everything by default unless header states otherwise. - Block only sites that state they are adult. - Do nothing. Obey the operator. (Controls disabled on child accounts or make them an adult or otherwise unrestricted account on the device). I think the options are just limited to our imagination.
    - ryandrake 6mo ago
      > - Block only sites that state they are adult. This is the problem. What is an "adult" web site? Websites that show porn? Websites that show gore? Websites that show violence? Websites that show non-porn naked people? Websites that have curse words? Websites that promote cults and alternate religions? Why is it the site's responsibility to "state" that they are adult, given whatever parameters they dream up? Why is it the government's responsibility to say "This is adult content, but that isn't adult content?" Shouldn't the parent get to decide which categories of content count as "adult"?
      - xp84 6mo ago
        Let’s not pretend like this is a brand new problem. Even pre-Internet, there have always (well, let’s just say definitely the whole lifetime of anyone GenX or younger) been tons of first-amendment-protected content falling under all 3 of these categories: “obviously fine for children” (e.g. Sesame Street, Paw Patrol), “obviously not appropriate for children” (Hustler magazine, Pornhub), and “Controversial / maybe ok for teens / still probably not okay for 6-year-olds” (e.g. sex ed, depictions of rape, graphic violence). This last category is obviously one where Opinions May Vary, but the way we have handled it in the past has been laws. Nearly every state has statutes prohibiting sale, display, rental, or distribution to minors of material deemed “harmful to minors” - the distinction between the second and third categories is determined by a court if it really has to be. This has worked fine in the offline sphere, and it’s why I couldn’t walk into a video store when I was 8 and rent a stack of porn tapes. At minimum, it would be a reasonable legislation topic to at minimum mandate that websites publishing obviously “Harmful to minors” content tag it as such[1]. And also it would be ideal to create some kind of campaign to tag the first category as safe (honestly Apple and Google ought to be working together on that one). If you in good faith operate a site in the controversial category, that would be no different than selling books on sex ed in a Barnes & Noble - protected. Parents could then choose, with simple device controls: - Allow only “tagged safe” pages (parents with very young kids, or who have a hard time monitoring use) - Allow safe + no-tag (open-minded parents who choose to err on the side of allow, and monitor the controversial stuff themselves) - Allow all (parents who want to be solely responsible to regulate it) I find it frustrating that people are talking like we have to either have a completely “no rules” Internet where obviously any kindergartener is going to stumble upon super disgusting stuff, or this gross surveillance state Internet, where people have to show ID to use any site. Neither of those are how things were before the Internet and it doesn’t have to be how things are now. [1] you might ask, what do we do when say, a Russian porn site doesn’t want to comply with this tagging. In my opinion, it seems reasonable that someone could put obviously bad faith sites like that into a block list database. In a place like the UK I would expect that to be a government regulator, but there’s no reason why that couldn’t just be something private companies do in the US. As a parent, I would pay two bucks a month to subscribe to a service like that if it were integrated into the operating systems my kids use.
  - aqme28 6mo ago
    Then those parents can turn off their browser/client’s age protections. I think that’s actually a decent argument for the solution posed by this thread.
    - traderj0e 6mo ago
      There is such a thing as making the "kid ok" header so rare or "18+" so eager that nobody takes it seriously, so that'd need to be kept in mind.
  - tristor 6mo ago
    > I know parents who have no problem with their kids seeing porn. I don't agree with showing actual children porn, but I also totally expect teenagers to find some way to get access to it in the age of the Internet. Part of the challenge with this is cultural. Different places in the world think about sex, sexuality, and even the concept of what is a child differently. In the US, showing a woman's bare breasts to a person under 18 is generally considered wrong, and in many cases is illegal. In most of Europe it wouldn't even raise an eyebrow, because bare breasts are on television, sometimes in commercials even. Set aside for a moment the question of age verification and age limits, we cannot even agree in any sort of universal sense what even qualifies as porn or adult content, and at what age someone should be able to see it. There's a difference between a 7 year old and a 17 year old seeing the same type of content, and there's also a difference between a photographic nude and a video of people engaged in coitus. The story is basically the same for everything else you listed. These age verification laws in many ways are trying to use the most heavy-handed mechanism possible to enforce American cultural norms on the entire planet. That's clearly wrong to do. What the GP suggested using RTA headers though puts the control into the parent's hands, which is as it should be.
    - traderj0e 6mo ago
      We don't need to care what France or China thinks when we make our laws that are about our own citizens. They do the same over there. > These age verification laws in many ways are trying to use the most heavy-handed mechanism possible to enforce American cultural norms on the entire planet. That's clearly wrong to do. Yes there's a chance our rules spill over there naturally, and I don't consider that wrong either.
    - hirvi74 6mo ago
      I considered many of the same points you mentioned. Though, one area I am still struggling to grasp is the harm that governments are trying to mitigate. If a child were to see inappropriate material, then what harm can truly arise? Also, why do governments need to enact such laws when the onus of protecting children should be on their parents? I am not trying to start any kind of flame war, but I really cannot see any other basis for all this prohibition that is not somehow traceable back to Western religious beliefs and the societies born and molded from such beliefs.
  - traderj0e 6mo ago
    There are already laws defining this. Had to draw the line somewhere, and they did.
    - lokar 6mo ago
      In which legal jurisdiction and culture? Many or most website are have users from many locations. Is the header a json encoded map from country code to age rating?
      - traderj0e 6mo ago
        The US. If they want to serve users in other countries, or if certain states make their own rules, it's business as usual whether to serve different content there or serve a different header or take the legal risk.
        lokar 6mo ago
        That seems unworkable and a practical matter
        traderj0e 6mo ago
        They already do this, like there's Victoria's Secret's US website vs Qatar.
        fc417fc802 6mo ago
        It's the exact same problem that age verification faces. There are different laws in different jurisdictions and operators have to figure out how to comply with the ones that matter to them. Think of the (current) header as meaning "we would have blocked you if we saw you were under 18" or whatever equivalent and it should make sense.
  - mikestorrent 6mo ago
    > I know parents who have no problem with their kids seeing porn. Surely you mean at least teenagers, and not literally children, right? Consider the prevalence of violence, racial stereotyping, and escalation of fetishism into degeneracy that clearly exists within this medium; what's the line that these parents draw? Are they making sure it's only something vanilla? Or is there no line whatsoever?
    - bluGill 6mo ago
      They don't care. The kids won't think to ask until they are teens, and they are not showing it until then, but it is technically available.
  - briffle 6mo ago
    That was our struggle with implementing "blocking" tech at a school I worked at. Is a kid looking up how to do a breast self exam porn? What about a self testicular exam.. What about actual Sex Ed kinds of sites?
  - thin_carapace 6mo ago
    i can make arguments as to potential merits of kids having a beer/cigarette, listening to swear words, or witnessing casual violence. i cant make an argument for letting kids see hardcore pornography in any capacity.
    - jenadine 6mo ago
      I have hard time imagining what is that argument, that apply to the thing you mention but that doesn't apply to hardcore pornography. Or do you also think we should forbid hardcore pornography also for adults?
      - traderj0e 6mo ago
        Swear words and violence don't cause addiction, alcohol can but it's way less likely and also easier to restrict... idk why a kid should have cigs even once though
      - thin_carapace 6mo ago
        there may be valid use cases in certain demographics eg the disabled. to me it is evidently advantageous teaching a teenager how to have a smoke or have a drink properly , so that they don't go overboard with self directed learning for a valid activity (loosening social inhibition). we could totally teach teenagers the generation and consumption of dispassionate violent relationship simulacra. may I ask what would be advantageous about this ?
    - bdangubic 6mo ago
      it is literally always the same thing - who gets to make these decisions? if you come from a family of alcholics (there are many) you will view alcohol for what it is, one of the most dangerous drugs that someone decide should be "legal." if you come from family that lost loved ones to smoking - same thing with smokes. hardcode porn, eh, they will eventually start putting this into practice ("hard" part is personal preference) so while probably not the greatest thing to have kids exposed to who makes these decisions? Personally, if you gave me a choice between smokes and porn and I had to choose one for my kid - I would choose hardcode porn. the core issue as always - who is making decisions on what kids should or shouldn't be exposed to?! and what do you do when whenever someone else gets that power then decides that reading or math or fishing or camping or ... is not allowed?
Induane 6mo ago
I always love seeing pros and cons of whitelist vs blacklist sorts of strategies in different scenarios.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- traderj0e 6mo ago
  Yeah, and this is a good one. Blacklist is less likely to be ignored by parents. Both have risks of corps doing CYA strats, but less so with the blacklist. Whitelist has the advantage of being more feasible without an actual law, and also better matching how parenting works. Generally kids are given whitelists irl.
fc417fc802 6mo ago
Yes, the RTA header was primarily a solution specific to porn sites. The broader problem is that parental controls don't have reliable standardized signals to filter on which has led to the current nonfunctional mess. So ideally you want a standardized header that can be used to self classify content into any number of arbitrary and potentially overlapping categories. The presence of that header should then be legally mandated with specific categories required to be marked as either present or absent. So for example HN might be "user generated T, social media T, porn F" or similar with operators being free to include arbitrary additional categories (but we know from experience that most of them won't). While this would be required by law, I imagine browser vendors might also drop support to load sites that don't send the header in order to coerce global compliance.
- Bender 6mo ago
  Just an opinion which I know is not super valuable but categories won't help with most sites. Anything that permits user contributed content can become any rating at any minute unless all content would require approval by a moderator before anyone could see it. A few forums support that concept but it requires a proportionate number of moderators or I suppose a very accurate and reliable AI moderator if that is even a thing. I think it's easier and probably legally safer to just tag anything that is not guaranteed to be 100% child safe at all times as adult and let parents decide if they with to approve-list the site in parental controls.

Bender 6mo ago

That's a good idea. There could be two headers, the existing RTA header that adult sites use today [1] and another static header that explicitly states there shall be no adult content. [1] - https://www.shodan.io/search?query=RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-RTA https://www.shodan.io/search?query=RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-R... [THESE ARE ADULT SITES, NSFW]

bluGill 6mo ago
What is adult content? I know parents who have no problem with their kids seeing porn. I know parents who give their kids a beer. I know parents who take their kids to violent movies. I used to know parents who will give their kids cigarettes. Most parents I know will disagree with their kids doing one of the above. I know songs that were played on the radio in 1960 that would not be allowed today, even though today we allow some swearing on the radio.
- Bender 6mo ago
  That's between parents and their local governments. Yes when I was a kid my mom let me watch whatever and go wherever. The parent in my example ultimately decides what a kid may or may not do which is in alignment with existing laws. If the parent is endangering their kid that is up to them and their government to sort out. Point being, put the controls entirely into the hands of the device owner. Options can be to default to: - Block everything by default unless header states otherwise. - Block only sites that state they are adult. - Do nothing. Obey the operator. (Controls disabled on child accounts or make them an adult or otherwise unrestricted account on the device). I think the options are just limited to our imagination.
  - ryandrake 6mo ago
    > - Block only sites that state they are adult. This is the problem. What is an "adult" web site? Websites that show porn? Websites that show gore? Websites that show violence? Websites that show non-porn naked people? Websites that have curse words? Websites that promote cults and alternate religions? Why is it the site's responsibility to "state" that they are adult, given whatever parameters they dream up? Why is it the government's responsibility to say "This is adult content, but that isn't adult content?" Shouldn't the parent get to decide which categories of content count as "adult"?
    - xp84 6mo ago
      Let’s not pretend like this is a brand new problem. Even pre-Internet, there have always (well, let’s just say definitely the whole lifetime of anyone GenX or younger) been tons of first-amendment-protected content falling under all 3 of these categories: “obviously fine for children” (e.g. Sesame Street, Paw Patrol), “obviously not appropriate for children” (Hustler magazine, Pornhub), and “Controversial / maybe ok for teens / still probably not okay for 6-year-olds” (e.g. sex ed, depictions of rape, graphic violence). This last category is obviously one where Opinions May Vary, but the way we have handled it in the past has been laws. Nearly every state has statutes prohibiting sale, display, rental, or distribution to minors of material deemed “harmful to minors” - the distinction between the second and third categories is determined by a court if it really has to be. This has worked fine in the offline sphere, and it’s why I couldn’t walk into a video store when I was 8 and rent a stack of porn tapes. At minimum, it would be a reasonable legislation topic to at minimum mandate that websites publishing obviously “Harmful to minors” content tag it as such[1]. And also it would be ideal to create some kind of campaign to tag the first category as safe (honestly Apple and Google ought to be working together on that one). If you in good faith operate a site in the controversial category, that would be no different than selling books on sex ed in a Barnes & Noble - protected. Parents could then choose, with simple device controls: - Allow only “tagged safe” pages (parents with very young kids, or who have a hard time monitoring use) - Allow safe + no-tag (open-minded parents who choose to err on the side of allow, and monitor the controversial stuff themselves) - Allow all (parents who want to be solely responsible to regulate it) I find it frustrating that people are talking like we have to either have a completely “no rules” Internet where obviously any kindergartener is going to stumble upon super disgusting stuff, or this gross surveillance state Internet, where people have to show ID to use any site. Neither of those are how things were before the Internet and it doesn’t have to be how things are now. [1] you might ask, what do we do when say, a Russian porn site doesn’t want to comply with this tagging. In my opinion, it seems reasonable that someone could put obviously bad faith sites like that into a block list database. In a place like the UK I would expect that to be a government regulator, but there’s no reason why that couldn’t just be something private companies do in the US. As a parent, I would pay two bucks a month to subscribe to a service like that if it were integrated into the operating systems my kids use.
- aqme28 6mo ago
  Then those parents can turn off their browser/client’s age protections. I think that’s actually a decent argument for the solution posed by this thread.
  - traderj0e 6mo ago
    There is such a thing as making the "kid ok" header so rare or "18+" so eager that nobody takes it seriously, so that'd need to be kept in mind.
- tristor 6mo ago
  > I know parents who have no problem with their kids seeing porn. I don't agree with showing actual children porn, but I also totally expect teenagers to find some way to get access to it in the age of the Internet. Part of the challenge with this is cultural. Different places in the world think about sex, sexuality, and even the concept of what is a child differently. In the US, showing a woman's bare breasts to a person under 18 is generally considered wrong, and in many cases is illegal. In most of Europe it wouldn't even raise an eyebrow, because bare breasts are on television, sometimes in commercials even. Set aside for a moment the question of age verification and age limits, we cannot even agree in any sort of universal sense what even qualifies as porn or adult content, and at what age someone should be able to see it. There's a difference between a 7 year old and a 17 year old seeing the same type of content, and there's also a difference between a photographic nude and a video of people engaged in coitus. The story is basically the same for everything else you listed. These age verification laws in many ways are trying to use the most heavy-handed mechanism possible to enforce American cultural norms on the entire planet. That's clearly wrong to do. What the GP suggested using RTA headers though puts the control into the parent's hands, which is as it should be.
  - traderj0e 6mo ago
    We don't need to care what France or China thinks when we make our laws that are about our own citizens. They do the same over there. > These age verification laws in many ways are trying to use the most heavy-handed mechanism possible to enforce American cultural norms on the entire planet. That's clearly wrong to do. Yes there's a chance our rules spill over there naturally, and I don't consider that wrong either.
  - hirvi74 6mo ago
    I considered many of the same points you mentioned. Though, one area I am still struggling to grasp is the harm that governments are trying to mitigate. If a child were to see inappropriate material, then what harm can truly arise? Also, why do governments need to enact such laws when the onus of protecting children should be on their parents? I am not trying to start any kind of flame war, but I really cannot see any other basis for all this prohibition that is not somehow traceable back to Western religious beliefs and the societies born and molded from such beliefs.
- traderj0e 6mo ago
  There are already laws defining this. Had to draw the line somewhere, and they did.
  - lokar 6mo ago
    In which legal jurisdiction and culture? Many or most website are have users from many locations. Is the header a json encoded map from country code to age rating?
    - traderj0e 6mo ago
      The US. If they want to serve users in other countries, or if certain states make their own rules, it's business as usual whether to serve different content there or serve a different header or take the legal risk.
      - lokar 6mo ago
        That seems unworkable and a practical matter
        traderj0e 6mo ago
        They already do this, like there's Victoria's Secret's US website vs Qatar.
        fc417fc802 6mo ago
        It's the exact same problem that age verification faces. There are different laws in different jurisdictions and operators have to figure out how to comply with the ones that matter to them. Think of the (current) header as meaning "we would have blocked you if we saw you were under 18" or whatever equivalent and it should make sense.
- mikestorrent 6mo ago
  > I know parents who have no problem with their kids seeing porn. Surely you mean at least teenagers, and not literally children, right? Consider the prevalence of violence, racial stereotyping, and escalation of fetishism into degeneracy that clearly exists within this medium; what's the line that these parents draw? Are they making sure it's only something vanilla? Or is there no line whatsoever?
  - bluGill 6mo ago
    They don't care. The kids won't think to ask until they are teens, and they are not showing it until then, but it is technically available.
- briffle 6mo ago
  That was our struggle with implementing "blocking" tech at a school I worked at. Is a kid looking up how to do a breast self exam porn? What about a self testicular exam.. What about actual Sex Ed kinds of sites?
- thin_carapace 6mo ago
  i can make arguments as to potential merits of kids having a beer/cigarette, listening to swear words, or witnessing casual violence. i cant make an argument for letting kids see hardcore pornography in any capacity.
  - jenadine 6mo ago
    I have hard time imagining what is that argument, that apply to the thing you mention but that doesn't apply to hardcore pornography. Or do you also think we should forbid hardcore pornography also for adults?
    - traderj0e 6mo ago
      Swear words and violence don't cause addiction, alcohol can but it's way less likely and also easier to restrict... idk why a kid should have cigs even once though
    - thin_carapace 6mo ago
      there may be valid use cases in certain demographics eg the disabled. to me it is evidently advantageous teaching a teenager how to have a smoke or have a drink properly , so that they don't go overboard with self directed learning for a valid activity (loosening social inhibition). we could totally teach teenagers the generation and consumption of dispassionate violent relationship simulacra. may I ask what would be advantageous about this ?
  - bdangubic 6mo ago
    it is literally always the same thing - who gets to make these decisions? if you come from a family of alcholics (there are many) you will view alcohol for what it is, one of the most dangerous drugs that someone decide should be "legal." if you come from family that lost loved ones to smoking - same thing with smokes. hardcode porn, eh, they will eventually start putting this into practice ("hard" part is personal preference) so while probably not the greatest thing to have kids exposed to who makes these decisions? Personally, if you gave me a choice between smokes and porn and I had to choose one for my kid - I would choose hardcode porn. the core issue as always - who is making decisions on what kids should or shouldn't be exposed to?! and what do you do when whenever someone else gets that power then decides that reading or math or fishing or camping or ... is not allowed?

Induane 6mo ago

I always love seeing pros and cons of whitelist vs blacklist sorts of strategies in different scenarios.

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
traderj0e 6mo ago
Yeah, and this is a good one. Blacklist is less likely to be ignored by parents. Both have risks of corps doing CYA strats, but less so with the blacklist. Whitelist has the advantage of being more feasible without an actual law, and also better matching how parenting works. Generally kids are given whitelists irl.

fc417fc802 6mo ago

Yes, the RTA header was primarily a solution specific to porn sites. The broader problem is that parental controls don't have reliable standardized signals to filter on which has led to the current nonfunctional mess. So ideally you want a standardized header that can be used to self classify content into any number of arbitrary and potentially overlapping categories. The presence of that header should then be legally mandated with specific categories required to be marked as either present or absent. So for example HN might be "user generated T, social media T, porn F" or similar with operators being free to include arbitrary additional categories (but we know from experience that most of them won't). While this would be required by law, I imagine browser vendors might also drop support to load sites that don't send the header in order to coerce global compliance.

Bender 6mo ago
Just an opinion which I know is not super valuable but categories won't help with most sites. Anything that permits user contributed content can become any rating at any minute unless all content would require approval by a moderator before anyone could see it. A few forums support that concept but it requires a proportionate number of moderators or I suppose a very accurate and reliable AI moderator if that is even a thing. I think it's easier and probably legally safer to just tag anything that is not guaranteed to be 100% child safe at all times as adult and let parents decide if they with to approve-list the site in parental controls.