IP: From Dyson -- Re:Summit to Discuss Global System for Rating Internet Content

[David Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> To: David Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
> From: edyson () edventure com (Esther Dyson)
>
>
> My response (which you can post to IP if you want). I'm speaking here;
> Teresa Peters is also here..
>
> Esther
>
> Response to Bertelsmann Foundation memo
>
> This response is my personal reaction to the Bertelsmann Foundation
> Memorandum on "Self-Regulation on the Internet."  I applaud the Foundation's
> attempts to deal with a tough issue, and this response is intended
> helpfully, not destructively.  Like it or not, many forces want to "regulate
> the Net," whatever that means, and "self" regulation is probably better than
> regulation by some "non-self" authority.  However, it's not clear who the
> "self" is to be in this case……
>
> Overall, the document leaves me feeling distinctly queasy.  So much of it
> defers details for  implementation later.  Such and such must be done: Who
> will do it?  Illegal content: Sure, we're all against illegal content, but
> who decides what is illegal? There are too many questions left open to be
> answered by some legitimate authority later on.
>
> The basic problem is that the group is attempting to come up with a global
> solution, topdown.  But the nature of the world is that it is a collection
> of sometimes interacting communities, not a single global administration to
> be governed top-down. In some spheres there is need for coordination and
> collaboration, but it does not necessarily need to be governed globally.
>
> Of course, the idea is that the system for Net content regulation would be
> run by well-meaning, enlightened individuals who know what is best for
> everyone. But what happened to the notion that people know what is best for
> themselves and their children? What happened to regulation by citizens
> themselves of the content they choose for themselves or their children,
> rather than regulation by a "self" of industry entities beholden to their
> governments?
>
> The document proposes the creation of a full, broadly integrated set of
> institutions that can "protect" us all from the problem of illegal content.
> I fear that we will end up with a worldwide bureaucracy always forced to
> take the "safe" route, calling for the removal of questionable content.
> ISPs are properly relieved of responsibility for actions against their
> customers; let the worldwide content-rating system take the heat. It will
> take the heat, and dismiss it, because after all it is protecting the
> public, and a few mistakes here and there are inevitable.
>
> Now let me consider some details.
>
> Illegal content
>
>
> What is illegal content? Throughout the document, the writers (not named)
> refer to "illlegal content such as child pornography."  If there is any
> content other than child pornography that they think should be  illegal, the
> authors should have the courage to specify what they mean. They make one
> broader reference: "….racist and discriminatory web sites, child pornography
> material exchanged in certain newsgroups and chatrooms and 'how to'-guides
> on terrorist activity are too disturbing to ignore. Mechanisms have to be
> developed to deal with illegal content, to protect children online as well
> as free speech."  But that is all.
>
> Later, there is some expectation that "illegality" of content will be
> determined in the home territory of the publishing Website, and will be
> taken down in accordance with that territory's laws - and presumably by its
> law-enforcement officials.  But in the  world of the Internet, with mirror
> sites, anonymous e-mail and the like, this may not be feasible - fortunately!
>
>
> The proposed rating system
>
> The proposed rating system, with its three layers, is nicely designed.  The
> idea is to encourage sites to rate themselves, using some common vocabulary,
> and then to encourage second parties to create rating "templates" with
> combinations of various metrics and that vocabulary to reflect their values.
> Finally, a third set of raters should make specific whitelists of acceptable
> sites - acceptable to children, mostly - beyond the more abstract criteria
> of the second layer. In theory, that neatly eliminates the value issue from
> self-rating.
>
> However…… First, in the more detailed rating section, the authors propose
> that the vocabulary be created by an international group of experts of high
> integrity: "In addition to experts on civil liberties and Internet policy,
> the board should include social scientists who can advise about what kinds
> of content are more and less harmful to children."  What are these social
> scientists doing defining a value-free vocabulary? Surely they belong only
> in the second layer…
>
> Second, a global vocabulary is inherently limiting and too constrained.
> It's a matter of emphasis, but the value is in the third layer, where people
> make editorial choices. Otherwise, where's the appreciation of quality, of a
> sense of humor, respect for the truth?  Surely children need to be protected
> from bland junk as well as from trashy or harmful junk.
>
> Moreover, the focus on protecting children seems excessive. Perhaps it is
> this focus that makes the idea of almost universal filtering politically
> palatable. Surely people will have other motivations for filtering, but they
> might not want to use a filtering system as blunt as this one.  Personally,
> I'd like to see a rating system for truthfulness, for disclosure of
> advertising relationships, for bias, for political leaning, for assumed
> audience.  (Is the site for techies or for consumers?)
>
> At least there's a provision that unrated sites would not automatically be
> excluded by most filters.
>
> Child pornography vs. children viewing pornography
>
> The report seems to gloss over the distinction between child pornography, a
> legal term that connotes the use of children in pornography, which is
> (almost) universally illegal. This generally involves abuse of actual
> children, and content on the Net is evidence of the actual abuse of
> children. This is quite different from the viewing of pornography (on or off
> the Net) by children, which is almost certainly harmful in excess (like
> almost anything in excess) but is quite a different matter.
>
> Privacy issues
>
> I also have some concerns over the report's attitude to privacy protection -
> and implicitly, to anonymity. It is important to catch criminals, but we
> need to maintain a balance among society's various needs.  There is a
> suggestion that the Internet industry (broadly defined) should "tak[e] all
> commercially reasonable steps to verify the identity of subscribers, while
> protecting subscribers' privacy."  That does not seem to be necessary:
> Abusers can be shut off without their identities being known; persistent
> abusers will eventually become identifiable.
>
> Constructive criticism
>
> So what are alternative, positive approaches?  First of all, private groups
> such as the Bertelsmann Foundation are doing the right thing by getting
> involved in this debate.  They should raise people's awareness of the issues
> and encourage them to think for themselves - and to pick content for
> themselves and to offer content-rating services or choices to others.
> Bertelsmann should encourage private groups and companies to develop and
> promote rating services, not just for porn or violence, but for quality,
> advertising disclosure, data-collection-and-use practices, and the like.
> These services, like many services designed to "solve problems," are a huge
> business opportunity.
>
> Bertelsmann should also encourage widespread consumer-education campaigns,
> led not just by foundations and governments, but also by companies (known as
> "advertising").    Just as consumers look for price, nutritional
> information, fabric content, care instructions, warranties and and other
> information on products, so should they be encouraged to look for similar
> meta-information on Websites.
>
> In short,  let's look at the role that informed, empowered citizens can play
> in keeping the Net a place they want to live in.
>
>
>
>
>
> At 06:38 pm 09/09/1999 -0400, David Farber wrote:
> > > > September 9, 1999
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Summit to Discuss Global System for Rating Internet Content
>
>
> Esther Dyson                   Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
> edyson () edventure com
> 1 (212) 924-8800
> 1 (212) 924-0240 fax
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.com                    http://www.icann.org
>
> High-Tech Forum in Europe:  24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
> PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
> Book:  "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"