>For example, some programs tend to block entire directories of Web
pages simply
>because they contain a single "adult" file. That means that large
numbers of
>innocuous Web pages are blocked merely because they are located near
some
>other page with adult content. Indeed, it appears that some programs
block
>entire domains, including all of the sites hosted by particular
Internet
>service providers. This is highly annoying to affected content
providers. It
>may be a temporary glitch, though; over time, it's plausible that the
most
>successful rating services will -- properly -- label each document
separately.
I think this is an overly optimistic view of the practice of site
blocking. To
my mind, site-blocking because of some adult pages seems analogous to
Christian
groups boycotting hotels that show adult films. The issue is not their
own
viewing or their children's, since all hotels allow blocking on a per
room
basis. Instead, they're trying to use their economic power to force
their
morality on others.
If I'm an ISP, do I want to risk that all my Web hosting customers
could be
blocked (lowering the value of my "virtual real estate") or do I just
want to go
ahead and self-censor those sites that someone might find offensive?
- dan
- --
Daniel Kohn <dan@teledesic.com>
Teledesic Corporation
+1-206-803-1411 (voice) 803-1404 (fax)
http://www.teledesic.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5
iQCVAgUBMxITbfFg3R5hKd1tAQGv/gP/Y9+CiUfj2L/yh/s6ImyRiE9DBR9s8L9v
u4q7UBFeXNyplmInPCLfnu9skDNVWVsWTnozTOerTc1hSW1o2+D6RiQebJEosBfY
kT+9DbpC7lWl8e2FGTb/o67oF3yaycbLrO5CWsWKdFxR8g16BTBcN8tOy7rsXkaH
sz8BeA+NmSg=
=SOJ5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----