Harmful to minors

From Richard’s blog, I came across Larry Lessig’s H2M proposal (H2M = harmful to minors). Being at a lab without audio, I haven’t watched the video yet, so I can’t quite say what I think. I do like Lessig’s work on Creative Commons and other free culture ideas, but I guess I really shouldn’t comment on an idea when I don’t even know what it is. So I won’t, and I’ll let you do that instead. :)

I’m not very convinced. It seems to me that the big issue here is not that we should be afraid that too much content will be blocked by filters, but rather that not enough is blocked. I support the CP80 initiative–it seems far more straightforward and takes out the free speech issue entirely.

Government regulation in this area is a bad idea, because they have such a strong track record for misunderstanding technology, and wasteful grandstanding to get votes.

Far too much time, effort and tax money is wasted on unconstitutional or otherwise misguided “for the children” legislation that will tie up court resources, only to get struck down for violating the constitution. Politicians keep doing it because it looks good, even if it is a total and utter waste, and the wrong way to go about it.

CP80 is a particularly crap idea (as I’ve commented on Ben’s blog about before), because it creates a black-and-white dichotomy, when no one will agree on just what crosses the line and what doesn’t. Obviously there is a lot that obviously does and obviously doesn’t, but things would get difficult and ugly very quickly. Volunteer is the only viable way to go. Both volunteer notification of the sort “This site contains inappropriate material, click here to confirm you are 18″–which I think is as far as that paradigm should go, and commercial filter software. Filters should not be forced on those who don’t want it, and people should be accountable for themselves, their actions, their computers, their children, their families, etc.

Don’t slough it off on the government and then cry when (a) they do it poorly, expensively, and ineffectually–i.e. a waste of time, money and effort, (b) your kid knows how to find porn anyway. It’s a “user” issue, not a “software” issue, so to speak.

I’ll just invent a magic potion which makes porn self-destruct after 30 seconds of its creation, and it’ll work retroactively on all the porn ever made, too.

If only… :)

I don’t believe it’s a user issue, if the stuff pops up unwanted, un-searched-for, and if websites contain mixed content (which innumerable children’s sites, especially flash game sites, do). That ought to be illegal. It’s a zoning issue. We don’t let porn stores set up shop next to elementary schools–why should we let them do it online?

If they contain mixed content, they are no longer, by definition, “children’s sites,” are they not?

I’m a proponent of the use of commercial filtering software. I’ve seen how overzealous this software can be when put on the higher end of the sensitivity settings, (to the point of blocking many false or innocuous positives–which I think for many is an acceptable trade-off). And even without that, pop-ups are blocked with very good results by any of the major web browser nowadays. Some browsers already offer built-in controls for notifying/filtering/locking pages with objectionable content, configurable based on what type of content is undesirable (e.g. language, violence, sex).

Given this, I simply don’t see how government regulation will improve the situation. I can see how it might, in an ideal scenario in an ideal world, but we don’t live in that world.

The porn store/elementary school scenario is an oversimplification. One of my major points is that not every page is black and white, and there are grades of acceptability. Everyone has different threshold of tolerability, to boot. Now combine that with cross-cultural variation on what is or isn’t taboo, and when we decide to create a “cyberspace red light district”, who gets to decide what’s in and what’s out?

The internet does not belong to any single country. You can’t zone what you don’t control. Even if one country does enact regulations and enforces them with draconian measures, determined to make sure they work, how do you get all the billions upon billions of web pages produced in other countries to obey a law passed by someone with no authority over them? It’s. Not. Going. To. Work.

It’s a waste of time, money, and effort. The only answer that has the potential to be satisfactory to everyone is personal responsibility plus individual solutions. That means filtering software, parental monitoring of children’s internet usage, etc. As long as folks keep buying the software, the market for it will stay around and grow, and the software will improve.

Beyond what I’ve already said, let me also add that those who want the system (concerned parents) should shoulder the cost of the solution (software for their computer, involvement in their child’s life). Don’t make all of the taxpayers share the cost of something that if the government tries to do for you, it is guaranteed to do inefficiently, ineffectively, and ineffectually.

(As I’ve already stated, the U.S. government has an utterly pathetic track record for technology-related legislation. Congress regularly fail to comprehend the issues, and thus tries to pass poorly conceived laws–a series of tubes, anyone?)