On TechRepublic: Google Easter Eggs, Pranks, & Oddities
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 1 of 30:
Next »
Are these pages suitable for children?
Are these images suitable for .xxx or not?
(Non pornographic, but not suitable for children):

This (horror movie):
http://j-walkblog.com/index.php?/weblog/posts/celebrity_zombies/

Or this (monk protests by burning self):
http://www.rantradio.com/shows/sktfm/pics/photoshop/show036/36-coppertop-Conviction_Power_of_one.jpg

Or this (war images):
http://www.awitness.org/journal/real_iraq_war.html


You see the problem, you want to make the web child friendly, but the definition as to what is child friendly is in the eyes of the parent and its usually far more than porn. CNN, BBC and news outlets are also unsuitable viewing for small children.

I'd like to suggest (yeh, one more time) server side filtering:
http://www.nigeljohnstone.com/archives/2006/02/server_side_fil.html

The parent could request a filtered ISP connection, and either lock it down to just a trusted set of sites, or the web minus pornography, or the web minus news+porn, or web-new & porn & religion or whatever they want.

Every wacky religious group, e.g. "Christian advocacy group" could make their own filter list and people could opt to subscribe to it or not.

Server side, because client side can be bypassed.
Server side because the list is automatically updated.
Server side because parents are not computer experts children are.
The option of 'restrict to trusted sites' for extra security, if the parent doesn't trust the list provider to keep it up to date.
Also the parent could login to a web screen and change the settings as they wish, if they want to supervise their child.

I don't see the problem with this, it seems to be the best solution.

Just my 2 cents.
Posted by: Nigel Johnstone   Posted on: 03/17/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Are these pages suitable for children?  Nigel Johnstone | 03/17/06
Violence is ok, it;'s the human body thats's the problem.  jinko | 03/17/06
Let's take a great idea and screw it all up!!!  nucrash | 03/17/06
You know, that's one of the best ideas I've heard.  mobrien_12@... | 03/19/06
Only in America (land of the Puritan)  B.O.F.H. | 03/17/06
You're partially correct.  ac2_z | 03/17/06
You are also partially correct  Leria | 03/17/06
Dead on on both accounts  nucrash | 03/18/06
Violence is more acceptable than sex in America.  B.O.F.H. | 03/17/06
few things..  5th Limb in the Kisser | 03/17/06
someone think of the children!!!  Maverick Hunter | 03/17/06
What about other areas that I don't like?  agramont@... | 03/17/06
From An Experienced Parent  jcj52436999 | 03/17/06
Censoring the idiots?  imetcyndi | 03/17/06
Sure.. let's get more regulations!!!  nucrash | 03/18/06
Critics of XXX Miss the Point  savatar | 03/18/06
I agree  fnash | 03/20/06
I need this  Desaunay | 03/19/06
TVs and PCs are not babysitters.  GaryN | 03/20/06
why do parents choose to not take responsibility?  B.O.F.H. | 03/19/06
because apparently..  5th Limb in the Kisser | 03/19/06
Filtering products already work  Ich Bin Anonymous | 03/20/06
I am sure your missing the point  hglenni | 03/21/06
Governement Dilema  gt90v12 | 03/17/06
Interesting  mtabholt | 03/18/06
Don't hide behind your children  Nigel Johnstone | 03/18/06
It COULD work  Roger Ramjet | 03/20/06
Quite frankly... Bull****  test99939 | 03/20/06
Test no, guess yes?  Ynona | 03/21/06
Protecting Children is the PARENT'S responsibility!!!  atlantisjordan | 03/21/06

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here