Community-based parental controls

Abstract

The present disclosure includes a method of maintaining rating groups and receiving, from a first user, a selection of a first rating group, from among the rating groups, to be applied to a set of users associated with the first user. Next, method includes receiving, from a user, a request for a piece of content from the content and determining that the user from which the request was received belongs to the set of users associated with the first user. The method also includes accessing information associated with the first rating group and determining whether the first rating group includes a rating for the requested piece of content. The method also includes determining whether or not to provide information to the requesting user conditioned on the indication or absence of a rating for the requested piece of content within the first rating group.

What is claimed is: 
     
         1 . A method comprising:
 receiving, from a first user, electronic content;   providing, to one or more third-party raters, the electronic content;   receiving, from the one or more third-party raters, ratings for the electronic content;   determining, based on the ratings associated with the electronic content, whether the electronic content is objectionable;   if the electronic content is determined objectionable providing, to a second user, the electronic content and information indicating that the electronic content is objectionable; and   if the electronic content is not determined objectionable, providing, to the second user, the electronic content without the information indicating that the electronic content is objectionable.   
     
     
         2 . The method as recited in  claim 1 , wherein determining whether the electronic content is objectionable comprises weighting each of the ratings. 
     
     
         3 . The method as recited in  claim 2 , wherein weighting each of the ratings comprises:
 identifying one or more characteristics associated with a third-party rater who submitted a rating; and   calculating a weight for the rating based on the one or more characteristics.   
     
     
         4 . The method as recited in  claim 3 , wherein the one or more characteristics associated with the third-party rater comprise one or more of a relationship between the third-party rater and the first user or the second user, a rating history associated with the third-party rater, or an activity level associated with the third-party rater. 
     
     
         5 . The method as recited in  claim 4 , wherein determining whether the electronic content is objectionable further comprises:
 totaling the weighted ratings; and   using the total of the weighted ratings to determine whether the electronic content is objectionable.   
     
     
         6 . The method as recited in  claim 1 , wherein providing, to the second user, the electronic content and information indicating that the electronic content is objectionable comprises:
 identifying one or more characteristics of the second user; and   configuring the information to indicate why, based on the one or more characteristics of the second user, the electronic content is objectionable.   
     
     
         7 . The method as recited in  claim 6 , wherein identifying the one or more characteristics of the second user comprises one or more of identifying a relationship between the second user and the first user, identifying an activity history associated with the second user, or identifying a profile associated with the second user. 
     
     
         8 . The method as recited in  claim 1 , further comprising:
 receiving an indication, from the second user, of a third-party rater; and   using a rating from the third-party rater to determine whether the electronic content is objectionable.   
     
     
         9 . A system comprising:
 at least one processor; and   at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:   receive, from a first user, electronic content;   provide, to one or more third-party raters, the electronic content;   receive, from the one or more third-party raters, ratings for the electronic content;   determine, based on the ratings, whether the electronic content is objectionable;   if the electronic content is determined objectionable provide, to a second user, the electronic content and information indicating that the electronic content is objectionable; and   if the electronic content is not determined objectionable, provide, to the second user, the electronic content without the information indicating that the electronic content is objectionable.   
     
     
         10 . The system as recited in  claim 9 , wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to determine whether the electronic content is objectionable by:
 identifying third-party raters from the one or more third-party raters having a relationship with the second user; and   using ratings from the third-party raters having a relationship with the second user to determine whether the electronic content is objectionable.   
     
     
         11 . The system as recited in  claim 9 , wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to provide an option that allows the second user to confirm whether the electronic content is objectionable. 
     
     
         12 . The system as recited in  claim 11 , wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
 determine a number of ratings that indicate that the electronic content is objectionable; and   determine whether the electronic content is objectionable based on the determined number of ratings that indicate that the electronic content is objectionable.   
     
     
         13 . The system as recited in  claim 9 , wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to provide a summary of the electronic content and an indication that the electronic content may contain objectionable content. 
     
     
         14 . The system as recited in  claim 9 , wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
 identify one or more characteristics of the second user; and   determine, based on the ratings and the one or more characteristics of the second user, whether the electronic content is objectionable.   
     
     
         15 . The system as recited in  claim 14 , wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to identify the one or more characteristics of the second user by identifying one or more of a relationship between the second user and the first user, identifying an activity history associated with the second user, or identifying a profile associated with the second user. 
     
     
         16 . The system as recited in  claim 9 , further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
 determine that a third-party rater consistently rates electronic content items in opposition to a majority of the one or more third-party raters; and   exclude ratings from the third-party rater from the ratings used to determine whether the electronic content is objectionable.   
     
     
         17 . A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computer system to perform steps comprising:
 receiving, from a first user, electronic content;   providing, to one or more third-party raters, the electronic content;   receiving, from the one or more third-party raters, ratings for the electronic content;   determining, based on the ratings associated with the electronic content, whether the electronic content is objectionable;   if the electronic content is determined objectionable providing, to a second user, the electronic content and information indicating that the electronic content is objectionable; and   if the electronic content is not determined objectionable, providing, to the second user, the electronic content without the information indicating that the electronic content is objectionable.   
     
     
         18 . The non-transitory computer-readable medium as recited in  claim 17 , wherein determining, based on the ratings associated with the electronic content, whether the electronic content is objectionable comprises:
 determining one or more characteristics of the second user;   determining one or more characteristics of the one or more third-party raters; and   using ratings from third-party raters having a characteristic in common with the second user to determine whether the electronic content is objectionable.   
     
     
         19 . The non-transitory computer-readable medium as recited in  claim 18 , wherein using ratings from third-party raters having a characteristic in common with the second user to determine whether the electronic content is objectionable comprises: weighting ratings from third-party raters having the characteristic in common with the second user higher than ratings from third-party raters not having a characteristic in common with the second user. 
     
     
         20 . The non-transitory computer-readable medium as recited in  claim 19 , further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computer system to perform a step comprising providing an option that allows the second user to confirm whether the electronic content is objectionable.