5 ms·

That's too simple to get much adoption. It's unreasonable to expect websites to drop out of Google search.

by skybrian 5mo ago

Bender 5mo ago
Google and others can adapt. RTA header? Added to potential adult or user-contributed category.
- lazyasciiart 5mo ago
  Right, no news sites for kids.
  - Bender 5mo ago
    Right, no news sites for kids. Correct. Until parent or guardian puts in password next to the text that says "Approve this site, forever." You gave me an idea. Maybe there could be categories similar in concept to those that exist in corporate firewalls today that say things like: - News Category (Known to be SFW) - News Category (That may be NSFW) - Child friendly sites - Social media sites ... and so on. This could be crowd sourced, ideally in a way that can not be gamed. The masses could flag/report false claims. That, or just keep it simple. ad-hoc input of permitted sites by parent.
    - lazyasciiart 5mo ago
      This is a terrible idea and your proposed society is terrible. It doesn’t matter if it’s safe for work; you asked to identify sites with content that can change. Either the parent has seen and approved the content or not.
      - Bender 5mo ago
        This is a terrible idea and your proposed society is terrible. I think I know what you meant and sure we can keep it simple. Site is approved by a parent or it isn't.
    - dotancohen 5mo ago
      What is [N]SFW under your definition? I don't think anybody has a problem with children seeing an adult heterosexual couple kissing, but what about a teenage couple? A homosexual couple? A mixed-race couple? A couple with a 40 year age gap? Audible moaning? Groping under clothes? Implied but not explicit hands touching genitals? Dripping saliva and face licking? The problem with defining categories is that artists will do their best to defy categorization. That has been the nature of art for as long as humans have been making art.
      - Bender 5mo ago
        What is [N]SFW under your definition? I do not have a proposal for that. I'm only covering the issue of sharing any personal attributes of a child or anyone with any corporations as they have proven time and time again they can not be trusted with it. If anything they have proven beyond any shadow of doubt they can not be trusted with anything. I will leave the NSFW definitions to yourself and others. Since the W stands for Work I guess company management and HR get some say in it too. I don't know where they get their standards from. Ages ago I worked for a company that hosted porn and their standards were uniquely liberal.
  - jonathantf2 5mo ago
    There are news sites tailored for kids, like BBC Newsround (https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround)
- skybrian 5mo ago
  I imagine Google wants to distinguish between websites that want to be blocked by SafeSearch, versus websites that want to be blocked when parental controls are on? There's no reason to leave that ambiguous. Plenty of adults have SafeSearch on. Defining a new header isn't hard; the hard part is getting consensus and adoption.
  - Bender 5mo ago
    For what it's worth this header has been around for a long time. It's predecessor (PICS ICRA) was too complicated and started using topics. After a while they added so many topics that even being an abbreviated header it was still massive and confusing. There were websites that people could select all the topics and what not but even then the adoption was low due to complexity and topics constantly changing on sites. Are today's videos beheading's without blood, with blood, with or without anguish, with nudity, without nudity, etc... After a while it gets out of hand. It turned out the internet was too dynamic so the RTA header was created to just say "adult".
inetknght 5mo ago
> It's unreasonable to expect websites to drop out of Google search. Google's doing that for them though.

That's too simple to get much adoption. It's unreasonable to expect websites to drop out of Google search.

Bender 5mo ago

Google and others can adapt. RTA header? Added to potential adult or user-contributed category.

lazyasciiart 5mo ago
Right, no news sites for kids.
- Bender 5mo ago
  Right, no news sites for kids. Correct. Until parent or guardian puts in password next to the text that says "Approve this site, forever." You gave me an idea. Maybe there could be categories similar in concept to those that exist in corporate firewalls today that say things like: - News Category (Known to be SFW) - News Category (That may be NSFW) - Child friendly sites - Social media sites ... and so on. This could be crowd sourced, ideally in a way that can not be gamed. The masses could flag/report false claims. That, or just keep it simple. ad-hoc input of permitted sites by parent.
  - lazyasciiart 5mo ago
    This is a terrible idea and your proposed society is terrible. It doesn’t matter if it’s safe for work; you asked to identify sites with content that can change. Either the parent has seen and approved the content or not.
    - Bender 5mo ago
      This is a terrible idea and your proposed society is terrible. I think I know what you meant and sure we can keep it simple. Site is approved by a parent or it isn't.
  - dotancohen 5mo ago
    What is [N]SFW under your definition? I don't think anybody has a problem with children seeing an adult heterosexual couple kissing, but what about a teenage couple? A homosexual couple? A mixed-race couple? A couple with a 40 year age gap? Audible moaning? Groping under clothes? Implied but not explicit hands touching genitals? Dripping saliva and face licking? The problem with defining categories is that artists will do their best to defy categorization. That has been the nature of art for as long as humans have been making art.
    - Bender 5mo ago
      What is [N]SFW under your definition? I do not have a proposal for that. I'm only covering the issue of sharing any personal attributes of a child or anyone with any corporations as they have proven time and time again they can not be trusted with it. If anything they have proven beyond any shadow of doubt they can not be trusted with anything. I will leave the NSFW definitions to yourself and others. Since the W stands for Work I guess company management and HR get some say in it too. I don't know where they get their standards from. Ages ago I worked for a company that hosted porn and their standards were uniquely liberal.
- jonathantf2 5mo ago
  There are news sites tailored for kids, like BBC Newsround (https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround)
skybrian 5mo ago
I imagine Google wants to distinguish between websites that want to be blocked by SafeSearch, versus websites that want to be blocked when parental controls are on? There's no reason to leave that ambiguous. Plenty of adults have SafeSearch on. Defining a new header isn't hard; the hard part is getting consensus and adoption.
- Bender 5mo ago
  For what it's worth this header has been around for a long time. It's predecessor (PICS ICRA) was too complicated and started using topics. After a while they added so many topics that even being an abbreviated header it was still massive and confusing. There were websites that people could select all the topics and what not but even then the adoption was low due to complexity and topics constantly changing on sites. Are today's videos beheading's without blood, with blood, with or without anguish, with nudity, without nudity, etc... After a while it gets out of hand. It turned out the internet was too dynamic so the RTA header was created to just say "adult".

inetknght 5mo ago

> It's unreasonable to expect websites to drop out of Google search. Google's doing that for them though.