Admittedly, I stole the concept from GoodReads.I thought they already were. Goodreads does something like that, and when you look for books they are in different sections.
This is jumping off of the Pink thread where @Slartibartfast suggested that books be rated like movie ratings to determine what is age appropriate for kids. What do you all think?
You had me until this. Movie and other ratings in the US do not come from the government.hat is, a government agent should have read them and given them the rating.
a trained and supervised LLM or NLP system could rip through these pretty quickly. At least the ones in digital form.Sure, why not? It's unreasonable to expect parents to read every book before giving it to their children to read.
Not every book should require a rating before being published. My main concern here is the volume of books, and the expense of employing government regulators to verify publisher's ratings. But the books which are rated, should be reliably so. That is, a government agent should have read them and given them the rating.
You had me until this. Movie and other ratings in the US do not come from the government.
It immediately violates the First Amendment.And that's a problem. The standard of violence and "adult themes" is continually being ratcheted down, by distributors seeking the widest possible market.
There is no reason that censorship services must come at "government prices." There are plenty of professionals who were going to read the book anyway, just to stay abreast of the junior literature market (and it's obvious potential for much more lucrative cartoon or movie adaptations.) They would co-operate with government rating schemes, for very little money.
I think we need another rating below G. We need infant ratings, 5-7 ratings, and so on. Parents have a legitimate grievance if their kid watches Nemo and refuses to eat fish!
a trained and supervised LLM or NLP system could rip through these pretty quickly. At least the ones in digital form.
It immediately violates the First Amendment.
Seems like a reasonable idea.This is jumping off of the Pink thread where @Slartibartfast suggested that books be rated like movie ratings to determine what is age appropriate for kids. What do you all think?
I would agree. The technical piece of doing this is pretty well known at this point.Indeed. Pretty much every manuscript is submitted in digital form.
I'm still thinking of ratings as being a premium feature, which publishers would willingly attach to the book. To make it more attractive to parents. If many publishers agreed on the same (algorithmic) standard, it would have credibility and not require government regulation.
Seems like a reasonable idea.
They are privately rated.Yet movies are rated. Does that "immediately violate" the First Amendment?
Sure, why not? It's unreasonable to expect parents to read every book before giving it to their children to read.
Not every book should require a rating before being published. My main concern here is the volume of books, and the expense of employing government regulators to verify publisher's ratings. But the books which are rated, should be reliably so. That is, a government agent should have read them and given them the rating.
Movies are rated by the MPAA, which is a private organization, not the government.Yet movies are rated. Does that "immediately violate" the First Amendment?
That's pretty much my standpoint except maybe not a government agency but something different.
I like to use "common sense media" as a guide. Read what other people and even kids have to say about it. Movies are nice because there are ratings, I know anything over R rated I need to see why it received that rating and if it's appropriate or not for my kid to consume.
It's just weird we could all agree something like the movie 'House of 1000 corpses' shouldn't be shown to a fourth grader but then some people will be like but if it's a book version it should totally be available for anyone.
I would agree. The technical piece of doing this is pretty well known at this point.
The oversight piece ... that's the doozy.
Movies are rated by the MPAA, which is a private organization, not the government.
I like them too, but I don't think we need anything more than what they already offer?I like to use "common sense media" as a guide. Read what other people and even kids have to say about it. Movies are nice because there are ratings, I know anything over R rated I need to see why it received that rating and if it's appropriate or not for my kid to consume.
But house of 1000 corpses IS totally available for everyone, it is only theaters that impose their own rules around access. Books and DVDs are both often obtained in the same way.It's just weird we could all agree something like the movie 'House of 1000 corpses' shouldn't be shown to a fourth grader but then some people will be like but if it's a book version it should totally be available for anyone.
I like them too, but I don't think we need anything more than what they already offer?
But house of 1000 corpses IS totally available for everyone, it is only theaters that impose their own rules around access. Books and DVDs are both often obtained in the same way.
So outside of some label going on the outside of books, what would this even accomplish? Or is that the final goal that you would want but not changing how they can be accessed in any way?
I've personally never liked the ratings system because it artists often arbitrarily contort their work to fit into a certain category to meet a rating.
That is certainly a detail to work out. I would prefer it taking a more democratized form.So you're OK with publishers charging a huge overhead on publishing books (due to their control of the supply chain, rather than any value add like proof reading) but when I suggest some of general revenue going to an independent rating of a few percent of books, to keep the publisher's ratings fair ... that's a "doozy"?
Let's just leave it to the free market shall we? Publishers won't under-rate books to seek the widest possible market, because they're good guys. Oh, right.
As I might have mentioned, I think publisher-side rating could still work. IF they agree on a common standard, giving up competition for market share. But still this must be judiciable: government should be able to intervene early and correct their ratings. The alternative is leaving it to civil courts, which will bump up the cost of children's books far worse.
“Whining” about constitutionally protected rights. Kind of a stupid comment, but I’ll support our rights every day and let people like you line for the authoritarian government you seem to crave.The film industry was smart enough to self-regulate. The alternative was being censored by LOCAL governments, which like most things local government does, was ridiculously underfunded and mangled their movies so badly that it cost them customers.
I expect there were people like you, whining about the infringement of First Amendment rights. But unlike you, they probably wanted free access to porn.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?