[convolvatron]

the point being that instead of there being a kind of commission to create a schema, there are a whole bunch of different whitelists. so if your religion objects to the existence of mangoes, then you can subscribe to a mango-free internet filter.

and instead of burdening the isp the publisher of mango sorbet recipes with ticking off all the right schema boxes, this can all be enforced at the consumer.

all the rest of these approaches kind of assume that there is 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' content, and that we all mostly agree on the difference. which I think is fundamentally fallacious. do you really think we can agree, as a species, what PG-13 should mean for the entire internet?

[fc417fc802]

I think you've seriously misunderstood the system I described. I'm saying we need first and foremost a standard for communicating such tags. It wouldn't dictate any categories, merely provide a framework for communicating any number of arbitrary categories. It would be immediately useful for the same groups that publish whitelists by providing a standard interoperable way for anyone to communicate categorizations.

Separately, I'm suggesting that the self reporting of certain categories be given legal significance and mandated. Such as porn.

I never said anything about burdening the ISP. Only the publisher, and when you consider the "burden" of self categorizing a few legally defined categories that for the most part already exist I really don't see an issue. What did you think these ID law proposals were for if not restricting access to various legally defined categories?