arstechnica.com — The United States Senate has unanimously passed a bill that requires the Federal Communications Commission to explore what "advanced blocking technologies" are available to parents to help filter out "indecent or objectionable programming." The "Child Safe Viewing Act" (S. 602) was sponsored by Senator Mark Pryor, Democrat of Arkansas.
Oct 5, 2008 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountOct 6, 2008
engelb15,I never said it was about government censoring the media.Please read the article.If you govern what your children watch, you are censoring.Again, "It's about discovering what technologies that currently exist to help sensitive people censor their own media."By your own admission, you need this research done for you to censor media that comes into you home.
tech42erOct 7, 2008
@noenAs long as it's private censorship, it's perfectly legal. But if the government tries to censor the web, that's wrong and (hopefully) illegal.
tech42erOct 7, 2008
SFW or NSFW?
tech42erOct 7, 2008
And all TV's have the V-chip thanks to legislation from the 90's.
laminarcissusOct 7, 2008
First of all, who pays for G4? It's a basic digital channel.Second, the point of effective filtering under parental control is so that the television in the household does not have to be entirely lowered to a child's level. It give parents guidance so that they can make filtering choices in advance, and properly filter programs they haven't seen.Of course, if I've seen AoTS I would block it for an 8-year-old, but I have 300 channels, and my kid knows how to use the remote. What we need is an effective way for me as the parent to set filtering rules that are implemented automatically for a kid that's flipping through the channels while I'm doing dishes.It's a content firewall - I can explicitly allow shows, explicitly block them, but then have a default rule set for those shows not otherwise defined. Therefore, if I'd never seen AoTS, then a system that provides effective administrative tools for me as the parent would block AoTS automatically, because it already knows my feelings about my 8-year-old watching their "Booty-Shakers of YouTube" feature.
exspasticcomicsOct 7, 2008
no- i read the article.. the blurb here on digg by itself explains the problem I have with this... The United States Senate has unanimously passed a bill that requires the Federal Communications Commission to explore what "advanced blocking technologies" are available to parents to help filter out "indecent or objectionable programming." The "Child Safe Viewing Act" (S. 602) was sponsored by Senator Mark Pryor, Democrat of Arkansas. or... uncle sam gave the FCC money so they could explore 'advanced blocking technologies' i.e. censorship...1) I don't believe my tax dollar should be going towards censoring anything for anybody... & I don't care if it's Mom & Dad doing the censoring or the Pope.2) If there's an actual free market want for censor devices for parents... then the free market should be developing these technologies... not the government. 3) I don't believe government should regulate art. art is the barometer of culture/government/society ... & if it's regulated by the things it's about .. then it's not very good art- is it? thus.. no FCC, MPAA & RIAA.i stand by my previous statement.
Closed AccountOct 7, 2008
My bad, that's what I get for posting while half asleep.
kp340806Oct 13, 2008
"They want the FCC to investigate technology that helps parents stay in control of what their kids watch."I'm sorry, but are you a moron? TECHNOLOGY? It's called a brain; I was under the impression adults were supposed to use them. Turn the damn TV off, instead of having the government "investigate new technology" to help parents stay in control.To me, you sound like the typical lazy and brainwashed simpleton that insists on being hand-fed by the government because they don't want to take personal responsibility. 1) Don't have kids. 2) Don't let them watch things you don't want them to. 3) Turn off/unplug/remove the TV.Problem solved. 100million dollars please.