Nice

[andrewducker]

Of all the stupid ideas to finish out the year with, the British government is considering age ratings for websites. I really do hope that this is the random thought of one person, rather than something serious.

Does anyone actually need me to explain why this is impossible?  Or ridiculously stupid?  Or can I take it as read?

Edit: I have nothing against self-certification. ICRA metadata is absolutely fine by me. It's just clear that it shouldn't be mandatory. Now, if it was _assumed_ by a "kid browser" that all sites were purveyors of filth, unless they self-certified as being porn-free/violence-free/etc. then I could live with that, because adults wouldn't surf with filters on. That's the only technical solution I can think of that has a hope in hell of working.

Comments

[the-locster.livejournal.com]

The thing with politicians is I can never tell if they're being ignorant or that they're perfectly aware of the failings of their ideas but put them in manifestos anyway as a vote winner.

1. Make up a stupid yet popular law that can't possible work.
2. Get elected on back of idea.
3. Now they have to do something, so make up some silly law that has barely anything to do with the original idea/promise.

Perhaps there should be ???? and Profit! steps in there also.

Sadly I think they're both ignorant *and* aware the idea is rubbish and only useable as a vote winner. Occam's Razor sort of applies.