Generally speaking, in ethics there is a difference between leaving
something
the status quo and making a change. That there are no
TLDs making it easier to
do censorship is the status quo. Deciding
to change this status quo would indeed
be a social policy choice. In
other words, creating a .kids TLD would be deciding
to assist a
specific viewpoint, instead of leaving that viewpoint in the same
situation
as everyone else. (A setup making it more difficult to
do censorship has been
a part of the Internet from very close to
its beginnings (albeit not in the ARPA
days); I've been a part of
that, directly or indirectly, since 1988.)Moreover,
I sometimes publish material that I wish children to see,
that others may deem
inappropriate for children. (Examples include
on polyamory and paganism.) If children
(or anyone else) is being
restricted in what information that I (or groups that
I support) wish
to make available to them, then we are indeed being harmed. Otherwise,
one
could have freedom of the press to _print_ information but it
could then be blocked
from being _read_ - which would be no freedom at
all. In other words, I (or groups
that I support) would be harmed if
we are not able to publish material (material
directed at children) on
the .kids TLD. (I would still be arguing against the
.kids TLD even
if this weren't the case, BTW.) -Allen
|
|
|