TL;DR:
- Proposed internet censorship measures raise concerns about effectiveness and potential harm.
- “Take down times” and ISP-level filtering are impractical and could lead to overblocking.
- The PICS standard offers a more flexible and user-centric approach but should remain optional.
Apparently, discussions are taking place between the British and U.S. governments about new ways to protect children from harmful content on the internet. While the goal is commendable, many of the proposed solutions seem to warrant further consideration to ensure they are both effective and respect individual liberties.
Apparently, members of the British government have been talking with members of the U.S. Obama transition team to come up with some new thoughts on how to censor (protect children from) the Internet.
As with many of the past suggestions, most of these thoughts are not well thought-out, would be nearly impossible to implement, and, if implemented, would cause many more problems than they would resolve.
Take this suggestion as an example:
“[Andy] Burnham [Britain’s minister for culture], who has three young children, pointed to the example of a 9 p.m. television ‘watershed’ in Britain before which certain material, like violence, cannot be broadcast, and said better controls were needed for the Internet.” (Online Computer Tips)
“The minister wants new industry-wide ‘take down times’ so that websites like YouTube or Facebook would have to remove offensive or harmful content within a specified time once it is brought to their attention.” (ZeeNews)
The concept of industry-wide “take down times” raises questions about feasibility and potential unintended consequences. While it might be workable for large platforms with geographically specific portals, it’s less practical for the vast majority of websites. Enforcing such a system could be complex and might inadvertently lead to blocking legitimate content or limiting access for adults during certain hours.
Internet service providers could also be forced to offer services where the only sites accessible are those deemed suitable for children, [The Daily Telegraph] said. (Online Computer Tips)
Another proposal involves requiring ISPs to offer filtered internet services, accessible only to children. While this approach aims to protect children, it raises concerns about over-blocking and limiting access to information for adults. It’s also worth considering that tech-savvy children often find ways to bypass such filters.
There is one idea that seems to offer a more balanced approach:
“The kind of ratings used for films could be applied to websites in a bid to better police the Internet and protect children from harmful and offensive material, Britain’s minister for culture has said.” (Times of Malta)(ZeeNews)
This is laughable, because since shortly after adult content, spam, and other material that some people have objected to started appearing on the Net, people have been trying to filter out the stuff. Expecting ISPs to be able to filter sites any better after a law like this is passed is ludicris. If ISPs are forced to comply or risk punishment, then the only choice they will have is to block all sites with even a slight possibility of having this type of content on it. Say goodbye to Google, Yahoo, and Wikipedia.
Think about how the Great Firewall of China is so offensive for blocking sites that go against the government’s wishes. For people in China, the Internet is severely crippled. Even worse, consider Internet users in Iran and several other Muslim countries where they attempt this type of draconian limited access. Many of the most popular and useful sites on the Web are blocked by those national firewalls. This plan would mandate that for the U.S. and the U.K. No thank you!
Not only that, it would be mostly ineffective. Look again at the firewalled countries, and see who it is who figures out ways to hack out past the firewall and still access the blocked content… statistically high numbers of those users are children under 18. And the ones who are left without access? Many less technically savvy adults. Again, a useless idea that would cause more problems than it would solve.
There is only one good thing mentioned in this article:
The kind of ratings used for films could be applied to websites in a bid to better police the Internet and protect children from harmful and offensive material, Britain’s minister for culture has said.
This idea isn’t entirely new. The PICS standard, which has been around for years, allows website owners to label their content according to various criteria. This empowers parents to make informed choices about what their children can access online, without imposing blanket restrictions on everyone.
However, even with PICS, there are challenges. Relying on website owners to accurately rate their content might be problematic, and some ratings could be subjective. It’s crucial to ensure that any rating system is transparent and accountable.
Protecting children online requires a balanced approach that prioritizes both safety and freedom of access. Rather than imposing overly restrictive measures, we should focus on empowering parents with the tools and information they need to make informed choices for their families. Additionally, promoting digital literacy and critical thinking skills can help children navigate the online world safely and responsibly.
In conclusion, while the desire to protect children online is understandable, it’s important to carefully consider the potential consequences of any proposed solutions. Let’s strive for a balanced approach that safeguards children without unduly limiting access to information or infringing on individual liberties.
The header image was generated by Midjourney by Will Murray (Willscrlt) and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0
license. It is available for public remixing per Midjourney’s terms and conditions.