[californical]

Come up with a few categories and let the browser/OS decide.

Websites by default are ‘true’ for every category, unless they specify.

Categories are, for example of some: nudity, sexual, violence, etc.

It doesn’t have to be perfect but sites will have to err on the side of caution.

We could even create an html tag <restricted type=violence> for example, and the browser can simply not render that portion of the page of the user has that type disabled.

And we could give companies a pass for best-effort categorization using tech to assess user-generated content, along with allowing users to flag their own content as “safe”

[lokar]

A header is probably better than a tag.

The goal should be to satisfy most reasonable governments. A neutral technical standard and an international organization to maintain the the ontology for content descriptors

[1718627440]

But a HTML document could contain a listing of things, that might or might not fall in to these categorize (a search result). A better option would be to just have it as an attribute to elements, like the "lang=..." attribute. That way an UA could even have a policy of show text tagged, but not images. Or images only when clicked per images. Websites wouldn't need to implement spoilers or blurs then, this could be implemented in the UA.

[californical]

Ah I was proposing the tag as another option - maybe a news article is fine for kids but the comment section is unmoderated. That way they could still read the article but not the comments

[tardedmeme]

Better idea is just tell the server if you want to hide restricted content. Then it can make any changes necessary. Yes it's a fingerprinting bit. Not a new one, because they could already detect whether the restricted tag was rendering or not, anyway.