posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 06:53 PM
I can understand Sir Tim's argument to an extent but any kind of scheme that attempts to accredit web sites will deservedly fail.
Whilst I trust Sir Tim's altruism, I'm not comfortable with the idea of some body deciding what's 'truth' and what isn't, even in the realms of
academia and science. Take history and science, for example. Whilst dates &c might generally agreed on, it's rare that different countries agree on
events that span the world stage. Isn't it said that 'history is written by the victors'? I'm fairly sure that the 'losers' will see the same
events fairly differently. Which version of events is really true and which is really false? This kind is agreement isn't even limited to history as
many current events give two versions of the same events. In science, whilst there are often competing theories to explain events, even in areas where
there might be generally a single idea, it's a given that science is provisional and subject to change.
How would this be practical? Can you imagine the scale of this? Is some agency going to patrol and scour the internet looking for web sites to approve
or disapprove? Or will every web site be expected to apply for this kind of accreditation? What happens if someone disagrees with the result and
refuses to display their negative approval? What about countries beyond Europe or America who generally have a 'meh!' attitude to the way
foot-stamping demands of the west - like China and Russia - are they really going to care or even agree with the findings of some regulation body.
Look at the way China like to manage information going in and out of the country; are they going to agree with what the west says?
What about web designers and commercial websites? Are they really going to want to have to include some symbol of some kind on a website?
As I said at the start, I appreciate what Sir Tim's saying, but I don't understand how this could work at all.