3 ms·

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

by 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
    - Ajedi32 5mo ago
      Okay, you're right, I'm overstating my case. Realistically though, in the vast majority of cases where that tag is used it's used for porn. Trying to re-purpose such a tag to label all content that isn't strictly kid friendly isn't viable. (And again, it's not granular, and a blacklist rather than whitelist, which isn't ideal for this use case.)

by 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
  - Ajedi32 5mo ago
    Okay, you're right, I'm overstating my case. Realistically though, in the vast majority of cases where that tag is used it's used for porn. Trying to re-purpose such a tag to label all content that isn't strictly kid friendly isn't viable. (And again, it's not granular, and a blacklist rather than whitelist, which isn't ideal for this use case.)