A Solution?

Here's my proposed method for a parental guidance system for the Internet that is at least kinda compatible with democracy and free thought. I personally think kids are actually pretty together people, and parents should communicate with them instead of trying to control their world as thoroughly as seems to be popular nowadays. Children are, IMHO, one of the most discriminated-against groups in the United States, and probably the world. Nonetheless, there is this ugly thing called reality, and so:

1. Separate ban lists from parental guidance software

Makers of PG software who also make ban lists have an understandable commercial stake in the lists. In fact, just by compiling a ban list, one gains copyright over that compilation. They don't want the lists getting stolen by some fly-by-night operation that's put together a junky interface. Compiling these lists is a lot of work, and those who compile them deserve credit and compensation.

But it imposes secrecy on an activity that is inescapably civic in its nature and its consequences. The solution for software developers who want to develop software, and not get involved in a horrifying morass of politics, is this: get out of the ban-list making buisness!

Cyber Patrol makes a swell interface, but a lousy, inconsistent ban list. Sooner or later, that crummy list will hurt them. In fact, I'm trying to see that it does, so that they'll wake up and hopefully take my suggestions to heart. If they concentrate on the interface, and rely on step 2. below, things begin to look better for everyone.

2. Put the ban lists where boycotts have always been--in the hands of grassroots movements.

Are you a Fundamentalist Christian, offended by gays, liberals, sex, religions that aren't Christian, and so on? Great! Subscribe to Pat Robertson's Family Values ban list! Are you a liberal, shocked by representations of violence, racism, sexism, and so on? Subscribe to the Perfect World ban list! And so on!

I exaggerate to make a point: there are an incredible number of tastes out there, who would want to have differing ban lists to protect their children or perhaps even themselves. Trying to cater to all of them without offending is impossible and stupid. Let those groups define their own lists. Or, if you think you know them so well, offer to do it for them, for money (or the love of God, I suppose). But don't try to make one overarching, good-for-everybody list. (Inevitably, I suppose that will happen too. But at least this way there will be a choice.)

I propose a universal Ban List Specification. It should be highly extensible, in that new categories can be added at any time (Several levels of subcategories should also be supported). PG software can then look at the list, know what the categories are, and present them as checkboxes--or whatever. The smarter lists would include remarks in the code on why a site, newsgroup, or chat group has been banned, for parental review. Then the list can be encrypted by the PG software to keep away from prying eyes. But even if the kids can see the URL or whatever, with the software in, they can't go there anyway.

Of course, perversely, such lists can also be sold as guides to nasty areas. Vive la difference, say I, and in any case, such lists have been compiled for a long time now. If a group that makes a ban list is paranoid, they can distribute their list pre-encrypted--and caveat emptor.

I hope this proposal catches some entrepeneur's eye and takes off. Please feel free to email me with your comments.