The idea that this information should be regulated is one should be approached with caution, for such concepts could violate the free speech conventions of many areas of the world. One way to "regulate" the flow and content of the information is to initiate the placement of "oversight software" at the client end, along with the provision of some degree or presence, in the case of parents' awareness of their children's Internet access. Otherwise, information should flow freely, and, as in the marketplace, the members of the Internet community should exercise their discernment of what they wish to view.
With that being said, I will submit a page versus page comparison between a
site which is supposed to contain inaccuracies (i.e., false
information), and a site with which I am familiar and therefore qualified to
comment on favorably. The site containing "inaccuracies" is:
www.urbanlegends.com,
a site which explores the concept of "urban legends", those fascinating tales
passed from person to person which almost universally turn out to be false,
although the nature of their transmission gives the receiver the impression
that they are truths. A prominent story on this site involved a long commentary
sent in by a woman in an e-mail which revealed her fears about "Harry Potter
books teaching children about satanism". She had based part of her evidence
for this startling "fact" on a report about Harry Potter contained in (The Onion). This is a site which by
its very nature is filled with spoofs and parodies on issues and personalities
in the news (a type of "inaccuracy based on an inaccuracy perhaps).
I contrast this with my "accurate-information" site, AMC-New Hampshire
the web page of the New Hampshire Chapter of the Appalachian Mountain Club. As
a hiker, backpacker, mountain photographer, naturalist, and conservationist, I
am well aware of the content of the site, from descriptions of "trails of the
week" to depictions of vistas from certain mountain tops. As a long-time
student of the White Mountains and their environs, I can attest that this site
contains truthful information.
There is one proviso-- even on the "accurate" AMC site, how is a novice about hiking to believe that what he or she sees there is actually factual, even though an experienced person can plainly see that fact? Much of what the novice gleans from such a site (whose originating organization has a good reputation) is taken on faith to be accurate. However, what if an author passes on his or her perception of somoe fact of natural history of e.g., Mt. Chocorua, which they believe to be truthful, but which turns out to be a falsehood? Is this a type of "backwoods" urban legend scenario, or, is it a simple error, which gets passed along as a truth to an unwitting novice to these facts? As you can see, the "inaccurate fact as accurate fact" site comparisons can enter a very gray area indeed, and there is no "easy" way to ascertain such differences, depending upon the degree of experience of the web surfer.
As for the filter issue, I believe that a combination of filtering, and some control of access, may work best to keep certain materials away from children. This should be done only at the client end, and, with full cognizance and oversight of an adult. Of course, as in countries where attempts are made to censor access, children will be all the more curious about what they "can't" see, and this makes the local access control issue more complex. I do not believe, however, that we should filter content at any higher level.
My personal take on this issue would not warm the hearts of marketing types in the dot.com world (or any of Madison Avenue for that matter). As with television ads, I tend to ignore ad content completely, although I do hold a certain aesthetic appreciation for a cleverly-designed ad banner, commerical, etc. Most of the time, the sheer repetitiveness of ads gives me total disincentive to investigate the company's offerings, and the more aggressive the "push", the less likely I am to purchase the product or service so presented. I do appreciate art, and placement, but, most ads "loom too large" in the eye of the beholder for my purposes.