I largely agree, but the RTA header doesn't seem to be good enough for most websites to use. When a website wants to block browsers with parental controls on, but it isn't porn and it shouldn't be blocked by SafeSearch, what do they do?

https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/140733/how-to...

▲

Bender 2 hours ago | parent [-]

what do they do?

They stop trying to put everything in a different category and treat RTA as the person under the age of consent must get approval from their parent or legal guardian. Keep it simple.

▲

skybrian 2 hours ago | parent [-]

That's too simple to get much adoption. It's unreasonable to expect websites to drop out of Google search.

▲

inetknght 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> It's unreasonable to expect websites to drop out of Google search.

Google's doing that for them though.

▲

Bender 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Google and others can adapt. RTA header? Added to potential adult or user-contributed category.

▲

skybrian 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I imagine Google wants to distinguish between websites that want to be blocked by SafeSearch, versus websites that want to be blocked when parental controls are on? There's no reason to leave that ambiguous. Plenty of adults have SafeSearch on.

Defining a new header isn't hard; the hard part is getting consensus and adoption.

	▲	Bender 23 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		For what it's worth this header has been around for a long time. It's predecessor (PICS ICRA) was too complicated and started using topics. After a while they added so many topics that even being an abbreviated header it was still massive and confusing. There were websites that people could select all the topics and what not but even then the adoption was low due to complexity and topics constantly changing on sites. It turned out the internet was too dynamic so the RTA header was created to just say "adult".

▲

lazyasciiart an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Right, no news sites for kids.

▲

Bender an hour ago | parent [-]

Right, no news sites for kids.

Correct. Until parent or guardian puts in password next to the text that says "Approve this site, forever."

You gave me an idea. Maybe there could be categories similar in concept to those that exist in corporate firewalls today that say things like:

- News Category (Known to be SFW)

- News Category (That may be NSFW)

- Child friendly sites

- Social media sites

... and so on.

This could be crowd sourced, ideally in a way that can not be gamed. The masses could flag/report false claims. That, or just keep it simple. ad-hoc input of permitted sites by parent.

▲

lazyasciiart an hour ago | parent [-]

This is a terrible idea and your proposed society is terrible. It doesn’t matter if it’s safe for work; you asked to identify sites with content that can change. Either the parent has seen and approved the content or not.

	▲	Bender an hour ago \| parent [-]
		This is a terrible idea and your proposed society is terrible. I think I know what you meant and sure we can keep it simple. Site is approved by a parent or it isn't.