There is an unfortunate lack of unity for such things. It would work if governments made it easily understandable how to categorize content, but the vast majority is handled by closed boards of people, so no "case law" exists for the difficult edge cases.
Additionally, some jurisdictions have laws based around religious and cultural values which are not immediately obvious, I'm sure many webmasters would be happy to spend 30 minutes or so writing something for such a framework, but the current subsequent obligation of learning the laws of relevant jurisdictions, the decisions of age rating boards, etc. would blow things out to weeks of research and potentially quite a bit of lawyer money.
> There is an unfortunate lack of unity for such things. It would work if governments made it easily understandable how to categorize content, but the vast majority is handled by closed boards of people, so no "case law" exists for the difficult edge cases.
Who cares if some sites get it wrong? It would still be a better scenario than we have now where people either announce who they are, or they hunt for some other site that doesn't enforce age verification. At least if some sites get it wrong, then they're still better than sites that presently out-right refuse to follow all the different laws of the different lands.
> Additionally, some jurisdictions have laws based around religious and cultural values which are not immediately obvious,
The beauty of the GPs suggestion is that site owns don't need to learn that. They just submit what the site content roughly is, and parents get to chose what they want to expose their children to.
Also we already have a jurisdiction problem here were some countries, or even sub-division of such as US states, are passing law that affect the websites and software of people worldwide.
Because liability is likely to be weird in a lot of jurisdictions. I could see incorrectly tagging content as having bigger ramifications than not tagging content.
How does one know what to tag their content as, if they do not know what tags are used by the other party? A standard where every party makes up their own rules as they go along, doesn't exactly work well.
https://web.archive.org/web/20260215201718/https://www.rtala... seems a bother, nevermind the lack of granularity that RTA has. The competing options seem to have a Christian focus as well, from what I recall. There does not seem to be any good option currently.
If one asks "Is the house on 123 Road Street, NJ, taller than the statistical average", then that there is only 1 datapoint for the house on 123 Road Street, NJ. Which is also 100% of the houses on 123 Road Street, NJ.
A clanker doesn't clank? It feels more like an emotional name — a pet name or derogatory name — as opposed to a name that evokes a tool-like view of the thing. A typer? an autocompleter? auto-sed? LLM? All probably would have less emotional feeling to it due to being rooted in the actions performed.
For me, "clanker" sounds funny, not derogatory. In the same way, for me "meatbag" sounds too funny to be an insult.
On the other hand "robot" sounds derogatory for me, as it etymologically suggests a slave who does forced work.
The oldest known term for "robots" was used by Homer in the Iliad, for the metallic (female) robots used by Hephaestus to do his work, and it was "amphipoloi", which is cognate with Latin "ancillae", which also means "servants" or "slaves", like the modern "robots".
I think the nuance is that it is notable historical articles about predictions and discussions of political elections, during a time when politics is quite at the fore-front of many people's minds
reply