No sex please, we're British!

  • Page

    of 9 First / Last

    Previous
  • Tom_Servo 22 Jul 2013 07:26:28 17,297 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    This morning's big headline to kick off the week (Great timing. Just as I hit post, Kate goes into labour)

    So, the PM has revealed plans to curb the viewing of porn online. Pretty big news to start filtering content as standard in UK homes, especially as an opt-out. Unworkable, thin end of the wedge, or is it about time?

    Personally, I'm pretty sure this can't actually work. I remember my old phone used to have a pretty strict content filter when you were using the mobile web, and it did my nut in because of how often it blocked me accessing perfectly un-naughty websites. Of course, I was also far too embarrassed to phone up and ask for the filter to be turned off because I didn't want to sound like Alan Partridge in his hotel room.

    Even if this could actually work (and hey, maybe it can for all I know), surely parents should just figure out how to use their computers properly, or at least be a bit more active in keeping tabs on what their kids are doing online (although, then again, if my parents had demanded doing something like moving the PC into the living room when I was growing up it probably wouldn't have gone down well)? This sort of sounds like an excuse for lazy parenting to me, and we'll all be paying the price.

    Anyway, let's have your say.

    Edited by Tom_Servo at 08:05:10 22-07-2013
  • Deleted user 22 July 2013 07:38:28
    I don't think it is fair to call it lazy parenting. It runs the risk of typical Internet nerds thinking everyone else in the world is a clued up and patient with pcs as them. I don't like it but the arguments against bit seem to stem from this lovely notion that we have an inherent right to view what we want on the Internet, because it started that way. Which in itself is nonsense.
  • Fab4 22 Jul 2013 07:42:19 5,976 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I thought this was a thread for Royal baby coming :)
  • Deleted user 22 July 2013 07:43:42
    Tom_Servo wrote:
    Even if this could actually work ... surely parents should just figure out how to use their computers properly, or at least be a bit more active in keeping tabs on what their kids are doing online
    Although I don't agree with the news at all, and I can't see it being enforced whatsoever, I think the reason for this plan is slightly more than just trying to stop kids accidentally finding porn. Rather, it's quite the opposite and it's trying to stop the adults finding kiddy porn.

    Irrespective of the semantics though, it seems over-bearing to make it opt-out (as far as I understand from the news this morning this is an option), in effect tarring everyone with the 'deviant' tag for doing so.

    EDIT: oh, and excellent thread title BTW :)

    Edited by Ironlungs76 at 07:44:13 22-07-2013
  • GuiltySpark 22 Jul 2013 07:47:19 6,320 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Might as well just cut my hands off now.

    Get bent.

  • Tom_Servo 22 Jul 2013 07:49:19 17,297 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    As far I'm aware there are plenty of programs you can install on your computer where you can set your own filters. If a parent feels they don't want their kid viewing porn (which, you know, is fair enough), then I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable for them to sit down and spend a bit of time figuring out how it works. I'm sure there will be plenty of layman's terms guides out there on how to set something like that up.

    However, a lot of parents probably aren't aware programs like that even exist, so maybe government could draw attention to them instead of wishing to set up filters for everyone?

    Of course, this is all written with the assumption that these filters are at all effective, and I'm not convinced they are. A lot of the talk from experts and ISPs seems to be "This can't actually work".
  • jonsaan 22 Jul 2013 07:49:32 25,326 posts
    Seen 20 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    If you want the porn you can still get it. The question is really what qualifies as porn. A paper like the mail thrives on all the quick links to stories about z list celebs' boobs falling out etc. Seems like a slippery slope.

    FCUTA!

  • Trafford 22 Jul 2013 07:50:39 5,611 posts
    Seen 4 seconds ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I think it's a good thing. I am sure newsagents will agree.

    Over exposure to porn can only warp kids minds.
  • Fab4 22 Jul 2013 07:52:42 5,976 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Good! When we were kids we had to find our porn in hedge-rows.
  • ecureuil 22 Jul 2013 07:56:01 76,488 posts
    Seen 17 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    This is nothing to do with protecting the children, it's about the government controlling the internet.
  • Tom_Servo 22 Jul 2013 07:58:24 17,297 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Ironlungs: If you look at the PM's comments in the link, it seems to be because of kids looking stuff up. There's a few different proposals on the agenda, but I didn't think anyone would really object to the other ones.

    Anyway, if a filter that worked perfectly was possible and it was opt-in, I think we could probably all get behind it (ahem). The point I'm raising here is that it, by all accounts, it won't work and, further to that, it isn't technically possible to do so effectively. A bit worrying to have a government that doesn't appear to understand how the internet works, no?
  • Fake_Blood 22 Jul 2013 07:59:03 4,061 posts
    Seen 9 seconds ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    But porn is such an essential part of growing up.

    /remembers stealing dirty mags
  • Waffleaber 22 Jul 2013 08:09:38 374 posts
    Seen 12 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Well intentioned but unworkable. If the controls work anything like the current safe search protocols you get in workplaces and the like 99% of households will opt out when it starts blocking Facebook pages with the words sex or fuck on them.
  • Deleted user 22 July 2013 08:10:29
    @Tom_Servo - yeah I saw the BBC site, I also saw Breakfast news on BBC1 that covered the same story in slightly more depth than the online version.

    The 'reasoning' for the move would, of course, be to 'protect the kids' but any parent of even moderate intelligence would surely know how to set up parental controls on their PC, so I'm struggling to believe that this is the sole reason for the move, although it does make the government sound very caring.

    I'm all for blocking certain content from the web, I just can't really see exactly how this can be implemented without someone "controlling" the internet, which is impossible, shirley?
  • FWB 22 Jul 2013 08:14:33 43,806 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    They'll try and control it and people will find a way around it. Cameron lives on another planet, one where Tory boys have no contact with the rest of society.

    And it is lazy parenting. You may not know how to filter content, but it is very easy to find out. The new generation of parents have less excuse. They grew up with the net. They know what's on there.
  • Kosmoz 22 Jul 2013 08:17:54 7,589 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Will it not just be like when they blocked the pirate bay and everyone who used it before continued to use it.

    Every girl I ever kissed I was thinking of a pro footballer.

  • FWB 22 Jul 2013 08:22:51 43,806 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    On the plus side, the DM website will get blocked. And considering they pushed for his, it'll be extra beautiful.
  • MrTomFTW Moderator 22 Jul 2013 08:28:20 37,316 posts
    Seen 6 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Oh what's that? Everyone changed their DNS server to one that doesn't block the porn? We couldn't have possibly seen that coming!

    Although I do appreciate the irony in David Cameron lambasting Labour in the past for their "Nanny State" mentality, and then he turns around and does this!

    Follow me on Twitter: @MrTom
    Voted by the community "Best mod" 2011, 2012 and 2013.

  • Shikasama 22 Jul 2013 08:37:28 6,603 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    What about films with particularly heavy sex scenes?

    My first thought of this was 'yep, and if you phone to up to request access you immediately go onto some potential sex offender database.'
  • Alastair 22 Jul 2013 08:39:42 15,431 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Tom_Servo wrote:

    Personally, I'm pretty sure this can't actually work. I remember my old phone used to have a pretty strict content filter when you were using the mobile web, and it did my nut in because of how often it blocked me accessing perfectly un-naughty websites. Of course, I was also far too embarrassed to phone up and ask for the filter to be turned off because I didn't want to sound like Alan Partridge in his hotel room.
    I was relieved to find that the Lottery results were blocked by Vodafone, so felt I had a valid reason to phone customer services and ask for the content block to be removed.

    Not as nice as I used to be

  • Alastair 22 Jul 2013 08:40:17 15,431 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    jonsaan wrote:
    If you want the porn you can still get it. The question is really what qualifies as porn. A paper like the mail thrives on all the quick links to stories about z list celebs' boobs falling out etc. Seems like a slippery slope.
    If it leads to the Daily Mail website being blocked then I am all for it!

    Not as nice as I used to be

  • MrDigital 22 Jul 2013 09:04:13 1,866 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    I'm not sure this is a great idea. I think it overall might be a good thing to restrict kids from porn, based on my experience and slight addiction growing up in the age of unlimited, every type you can imagine, internet porn which completely messed up my idea of what sex would be like. Although I think if you could achieve this kind of filter, it would be great, it's just not feasible. With the internet being the internet, you can easily find what you want if you just try a little, think of the plethora of ThePirateBay proxies, and it will be the same with porn. And if they don't have access to these proxies, I'd guarantee they would find dodgy websites which might offer even more odd/illegal shit that they were able to find on the major streaming sites before. All it will take is the one smart, technically minded kid at school to find access to these, then distribute it among his friends and then you're in a situation worse than before where they've had to go underground for porn.

    Edited by MrDigital at 09:37:31 22-07-2013

    Formerly TheStylishHobo and Geesh.

  • X201 22 Jul 2013 09:08:42 15,126 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Will it stop my children smelling of hammers?

    Edited by X201 at 09:10:50 22-07-2013
  • Aretak 22 Jul 2013 09:10:07 10,345 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Shikasama wrote:
    My first thought of this was 'yep, and if you phone to up to request access you immediately go onto some potential sex offender database.'
    I have absolutely no doubt that everybody who requests the filters to be turned off will be put on some kind of central database.
  • Benno 22 Jul 2013 09:18:40 9,774 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    MrDigital wrote:
    I think it overall might be a good thing to restrict porn to kids
    :S

    EG Hearthstone Tournament

  • PazJohnMitch 22 Jul 2013 09:22:36 7,785 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    If it is anything like China it will a complete disaster.

    Here the internet is filtered heavily but all it really means is that the mainstream sites are blocked. You know the ones that actually filter their content to stop anything really bad and ban uploaders who post dodgy stuff.

    The smaller unregulated sites are still accessible mind. So you essentially get the really bad stuff when you are looking for the regular variety which completely defeats the point of the government intervention.
  • glaeken 22 Jul 2013 09:23:10 11,091 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I think an opt out for porn would be a better option than an opt in. It seems a deliberate attempt to moralise to us over something. I am sure plenty of people will have an embarrassment factor about requesting to opt in. I smell puritans.

    Also will those who opt in be then put onto some sort of list as potentially dodgy? There seems a very real chance of it becoming that sort of slippery slope at some stage. Will ISP's have to provide lists of those who opt in to various government agencies? We know with the GCHQ snooping on as that this type of detail may be something that ends up going against your name.

    I am sure it will pass through though as anyone going against it gets branded as pro-porn. The millipede won't be sticking his head above the parapets for that one.

    Edited by glaeken at 09:25:33 22-07-2013
  • Fake_Blood 22 Jul 2013 09:27:30 4,061 posts
    Seen 9 seconds ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    So does this mean that every ISP is going to have a guy that has to look at all teh pronz and block it?
  • Page

    of 9 First / Last

    Previous
Log in or register to reply