3 ms·

For what its worth this header has been around for a very long time. It's actually the second iteration and much simpler than it's predecessor. Parents today

by Bender 5mo ago

For what its worth this header has been around for a very long time. It's actually the second iteration and much simpler than it's predecessor. Parents today can accomplish what you are suggesting by installing parental control software and only allowing access to things they explicitly approve. This can also be done via headers explicit blocking of all the things and was suggested in another thread. [1] Some people liked the idea. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47952999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47952999

codedokode 5mo ago
The point is that it is unrealistic to expect millions of people to mark the content. Also, the header is better than the metatag because it can be added to images, videos and other non-HTML content as well.
- Bender 5mo ago
  The header (for videos and other) was mentioned in [1]. I agree that is the way to go. Adding a header to a web server or load balancer or app server if done globally can be done in a minute or two. Maybe 5 minutes for the intern not counting QA testing. But you are right, the inverse is easier. I like that too. That was debated in the other recent thread. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47950091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47950091
- farley13 5mo ago
  I tend to agree - making folks intending to interact with minors comply makes more sense. That said, outside of the merits of this approach, I am dubious of any actual implementation given 2 points. 1) Protecting the youths will always be a leaky bucket. With disadvantaged youths possibly more at risk. Those exposed to non-compliant parents ("cool" parents who are ok with sharing unsuitable content) or lacking strong parental involvement, likely won't benefit a great deal from any implementation. 2) Anti privacy social networks stand to gain the most from targeting ads utilizing signals from most child safety acts. They also might be able to reduce some costs from moderation if they can make it someone else's problem. I'd argue the net social impact from these social networks is likely both more normalized and strongly negative for our youths than any smut. On the balance I'd say we are better off investing our energy in other places.
  - nodar86 5mo ago
    > "cool" parents who are ok with sharing unsuitable content Or simply parents who won’t agree with the government on what is suitable for their children. We already have parental control on all mainstream operating systems, why cannot this simply be the responsibility of the parent as are so many other things regarding what children do, watch, eat etc?
    - throwaway173738 5mo ago
      Because what parents have access to now is extremely ineffective unless they prevent their kids from going outside or going to school. Right now the onus is entirely on parents too keep their kids off the Internet equivalent of smoking cigarettes, and it’s a losing battle. What we’re looking for is for the liability to shift off the parent and onto the people intentionally communicating with children. Frankly the proposal above was very reasonable. If you don’t want to intentionally communicate with kids then do nothing and you have no liability.
      - wizzwizz4 5mo ago
        I want to intentionally communicate with kids, because kids have always been valued members of the online communities I frequent. Right now, it is easy for social media giants to exploit children, easy for child predators to get access to abuse children, and increasingly-difficult to maintain online spaces in which children are allowed to safely exist. That is surely not what we are intending to accomplish, here.
    - tardedmeme 5mo ago
      We don't have parental control on any mainstream operating system that actually works. In fact, California just removed the law that said operating systems have to have working parental control.
- nemomarx 5mo ago
  Do you need them to? Treat everything unmarked as unsafe. Websites intended for kids will mark themselves in time.
Ajedi32 5mo ago
Again, RTA header doesn't work because it's a blacklist, not a whitelist, and also because it's only granular enough to say "this is a porn website" and nothing else.
- Bender 5mo ago
  Again, RTA header doesn't work because it's a blacklist, not a whitelist, and also because it's only granular enough to say "this is a porn website" and nothing else. None of that is true. Not even close. It will work if there are laws with big teeth as the government can have contractors that scan for the header. Header missing? Adult content? User provided adult content even if it violates the rules? Well darn, there goes 10% of revenue. Also it is not "this is a porn site". RTA stands for restricted to adults. That can include literally anything that is not appropriate for small children including but not limited to social media, forums, gallery sites meant to be SFW but users content is not pre-moderated meaning people can see it before a moderator does. What Restricted to Adults ultimately means will depend oh the laws behind it.
  - Ajedi32 5mo ago
    That's incorrect. The existing RTA header is for marking porn as porn.[1][2] (In case English isn't your first language, "adult website" is a euphemism.) An actually useful standard would need to be much more granular, and be designed as a whitelist not a blacklist, as I and previous commenters said. [1]: https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/MetaExtensions#:~:text=Restricted%20to%20Adults%20label%20%28RTA%29 https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/MetaExtensions#:~:text=Restrict... [2]: https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/q/140733 https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/q/140733
    - Bender 5mo ago
      I disagree. Restricted To Adults means Restricted To Adults. The header can literally be used on any website that one is self describing as for adults. One could put it on a site that sells firearms for example. It could be applied to a siteThere are no restrictions. Team Dang could put it on news.ycombinator.com if they so desired. There is nothing and nobody that could stop them. I put it on my blogs even though there is no porn. The header can be used on anything that serves up HTTP and the meta tag can be put on any HTML page that may not be appropriate for children. Here [1] is the only external link that is relevant and don't take their banner out of context. This was originally by the adult entertainment industry to self label and self regulate but is now used on any site that is not appropriate for minors. Entertainment could be inappropriate humor for example. That does require porn. I would link to some inappropriate humor but that would be inappropriate. "The RTA Label is free to use, voluntary, and universally available to any website that wishes to clearly and effectively label itself as being inappropriate for viewing by minors." [1] - https://www.rtalabel.org/page.php https://www.rtalabel.org/page.php

by Bender 5mo ago

codedokode 5mo ago

The point is that it is unrealistic to expect millions of people to mark the content. Also, the header is better than the metatag because it can be added to images, videos and other non-HTML content as well.

Bender 5mo ago
The header (for videos and other) was mentioned in [1]. I agree that is the way to go. Adding a header to a web server or load balancer or app server if done globally can be done in a minute or two. Maybe 5 minutes for the intern not counting QA testing. But you are right, the inverse is easier. I like that too. That was debated in the other recent thread. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47950091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47950091
farley13 5mo ago
I tend to agree - making folks intending to interact with minors comply makes more sense. That said, outside of the merits of this approach, I am dubious of any actual implementation given 2 points. 1) Protecting the youths will always be a leaky bucket. With disadvantaged youths possibly more at risk. Those exposed to non-compliant parents ("cool" parents who are ok with sharing unsuitable content) or lacking strong parental involvement, likely won't benefit a great deal from any implementation. 2) Anti privacy social networks stand to gain the most from targeting ads utilizing signals from most child safety acts. They also might be able to reduce some costs from moderation if they can make it someone else's problem. I'd argue the net social impact from these social networks is likely both more normalized and strongly negative for our youths than any smut. On the balance I'd say we are better off investing our energy in other places.
- nodar86 5mo ago
  > "cool" parents who are ok with sharing unsuitable content Or simply parents who won’t agree with the government on what is suitable for their children. We already have parental control on all mainstream operating systems, why cannot this simply be the responsibility of the parent as are so many other things regarding what children do, watch, eat etc?
  - throwaway173738 5mo ago
    Because what parents have access to now is extremely ineffective unless they prevent their kids from going outside or going to school. Right now the onus is entirely on parents too keep their kids off the Internet equivalent of smoking cigarettes, and it’s a losing battle. What we’re looking for is for the liability to shift off the parent and onto the people intentionally communicating with children. Frankly the proposal above was very reasonable. If you don’t want to intentionally communicate with kids then do nothing and you have no liability.
    - wizzwizz4 5mo ago
      I want to intentionally communicate with kids, because kids have always been valued members of the online communities I frequent. Right now, it is easy for social media giants to exploit children, easy for child predators to get access to abuse children, and increasingly-difficult to maintain online spaces in which children are allowed to safely exist. That is surely not what we are intending to accomplish, here.
  - tardedmeme 5mo ago
    We don't have parental control on any mainstream operating system that actually works. In fact, California just removed the law that said operating systems have to have working parental control.
nemomarx 5mo ago
Do you need them to? Treat everything unmarked as unsafe. Websites intended for kids will mark themselves in time.

Ajedi32 5mo ago

Again, RTA header doesn't work because it's a blacklist, not a whitelist, and also because it's only granular enough to say "this is a porn website" and nothing else.

Bender 5mo ago
Again, RTA header doesn't work because it's a blacklist, not a whitelist, and also because it's only granular enough to say "this is a porn website" and nothing else. None of that is true. Not even close. It will work if there are laws with big teeth as the government can have contractors that scan for the header. Header missing? Adult content? User provided adult content even if it violates the rules? Well darn, there goes 10% of revenue. Also it is not "this is a porn site". RTA stands for restricted to adults. That can include literally anything that is not appropriate for small children including but not limited to social media, forums, gallery sites meant to be SFW but users content is not pre-moderated meaning people can see it before a moderator does. What Restricted to Adults ultimately means will depend oh the laws behind it.
- Ajedi32 5mo ago
  That's incorrect. The existing RTA header is for marking porn as porn.[1][2] (In case English isn't your first language, "adult website" is a euphemism.) An actually useful standard would need to be much more granular, and be designed as a whitelist not a blacklist, as I and previous commenters said. [1]: https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/MetaExtensions#:~:text=Restricted%20to%20Adults%20label%20%28RTA%29 https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/MetaExtensions#:~:text=Restrict... [2]: https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/q/140733 https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/q/140733
  - Bender 5mo ago
    I disagree. Restricted To Adults means Restricted To Adults. The header can literally be used on any website that one is self describing as for adults. One could put it on a site that sells firearms for example. It could be applied to a siteThere are no restrictions. Team Dang could put it on news.ycombinator.com if they so desired. There is nothing and nobody that could stop them. I put it on my blogs even though there is no porn. The header can be used on anything that serves up HTTP and the meta tag can be put on any HTML page that may not be appropriate for children. Here [1] is the only external link that is relevant and don't take their banner out of context. This was originally by the adult entertainment industry to self label and self regulate but is now used on any site that is not appropriate for minors. Entertainment could be inappropriate humor for example. That does require porn. I would link to some inappropriate humor but that would be inappropriate. "The RTA Label is free to use, voluntary, and universally available to any website that wishes to clearly and effectively label itself as being inappropriate for viewing by minors." [1] - https://www.rtalabel.org/page.php https://www.rtalabel.org/page.php