[Got a bounce first time due to list management software command]
What would be sensible is third party ratings.
If a given country wants to censor things (Germans and French certain
writings, other governments other writings), just let them create their
rating service and allow their citizens to use it.
Then let all the fights hapen amongst owners of rating services about what
gets to go on their lists. The rest of us can just ignore the rating
services (or perhaps even choose to use a useful, non government run one).
This Crews fellow probably doesn't understand that virtual community
standards (views of data filtered by user selected third party ratings) are
not exclusive, and don't require segregated networks.
Adam
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:45:15AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> [...]
> Crews is taking the Good Idea of self-protection and self-selection
> and perverting it into a mandated (one assumes, else the "idea" is
> just rehashing existing things) ghettoization.
>
> I expect that he will probably come around and will say that
> intentional communties was all he was ever suggesting in the first
> place. Well, we've had them since the start of the Net, back in the
> late 60s, early 70s. And before.
