EH, not that I'm in support of rampant pornography on the 'net, but this seems like another shift in burden from parents to companies. I agree with software that parents can purchase to protect their children, but to require browser manufacturers to develop and make these standard features is asking to cater a little to much to one demographic, isn't it? The best solution is parents who practice good parenting, not parents who rely on companies to parent for them.

I think the google technique of analyzing who links to whom should be able to "grade" out pornagrapic sites. If we could pay them to maintain a list I think they'd be great at it. If my site links to porn, then I deserve the scarlet letter. Its easy to ID 80% of the porn sites, and then the cross-links will tell the rest of the story.

Define "porn"?

Is a web site discussing breast cancer porn (there was a time when such talk was blocked).

Is a web site giving accurate information on sexual health porn? What if it's straight, or gay?

Who gets to decide? You? Me? A political/religious nut trying to whip up a controversy?

BTW, to the best of my knowledge, neither porn sites nor for-kids sites use SSL certificates.

^ Many sites, porn or not, are fairly straightforward about the content they provide or their intended audience. They know whether they contain "artistic depictions of nudity", "graphic sexual acts", "public awareness material", or otherwise. They also know who they want browsing their sites (porn sites can't make money off those who don't get paid, like children). Those who don't know or aren't honest can be omitted.

Similarly, the authority (parent or public venue) knows what they want to permit through their filters. It's possible to agree on allowed content without passing serious judgment. If one service seems to have a lenient scope, there surely is another that looks more stringently upon the web.