The UK "Porn" Filter Blocks Kids' Access To Tech, Civil Liberties Websites(bsdly.blogspot.co.uk)
bsdly.blogspot.co.uk
The UK "Porn" Filter Blocks Kids' Access To Tech, Civil Liberties Websites
http://bsdly.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-uk-porn-filter-blocks-kids-access.html
75 comments
Although it is not The 'porn' filter itself as promoted by the goverment, it is the exact same thing, under the exact same logic, as implemented by the ISP instead of having been forced by the goverment. So when the legislation comes into effect the particular ISPs will already be compliant with it and the ones currently not having any such filters will have to set them up.
Does changing the settings in BT require any passport details, sex details or UK driving licence number? Also is blocked access to filtered content limited to the content providers the ISP has a commercial relationship with?
Reason for asking is the above applies for the Giff Gaff network(running on top of O2) if you want to have the filter lifted. http://i.imgur.com/Y3BEKEU.png
What is sad is that Giff Gaff is supposed to be run by it's own users(i.e. like a cooperative) yet checking at the forums this change was unannounced. Furthermore people that do not have a UK passport or driving licence but live in the UK simply can't lift the filter... http://community.giffgaff.com/t5/Submit-Great-giffgaff-Ideas...
Curiously the URL I was blocked on was a link in the WayBackMachine for a biography of Alfred Bester(sci-fi writer) http://web.archive.org/web/20120722084039/http://www.empmuse...
Does changing the settings in BT require any passport details, sex details or UK driving licence number? Also is blocked access to filtered content limited to the content providers the ISP has a commercial relationship with?
Reason for asking is the above applies for the Giff Gaff network(running on top of O2) if you want to have the filter lifted. http://i.imgur.com/Y3BEKEU.png
What is sad is that Giff Gaff is supposed to be run by it's own users(i.e. like a cooperative) yet checking at the forums this change was unannounced. Furthermore people that do not have a UK passport or driving licence but live in the UK simply can't lift the filter... http://community.giffgaff.com/t5/Submit-Great-giffgaff-Ideas...
Curiously the URL I was blocked on was a link in the WayBackMachine for a biography of Alfred Bester(sci-fi writer) http://web.archive.org/web/20120722084039/http://www.empmuse...
> it is the exact same thing, under the exact same logic, as implemented by the ISP instead of having been forced by the goverment
No it isn't. That is an optional opt in feature available to customers of O2. A customer has to explicitly opt for the Under 12 filter to be applied to their account. O2 do have an adult content filter that is enabled by default (which requires identity verification to disable) but that does not block access to tech and civil liberty websites, it blocks access to pornography, it is not what this article talks about. There are 2 filters, adult content (default on O2 accounts), U12 (opt in). This article uses the filter status of websites on the U12 list (a whitelist) that has existed for many years and has nothing to do with the government as evidence that the government filter is oppressing children. They have no connection.
I get it, this country wide opt-out filter requirement is bad and it shouldn't be happening, I agree, but whining about something that has nothing to do with it makes absolutely no sense. The O2 U12 filter is fundamentally different, it's an optional extra customers can opt in to. This article has nothing to do with the "porn filter". Nothing!
No it isn't. That is an optional opt in feature available to customers of O2. A customer has to explicitly opt for the Under 12 filter to be applied to their account. O2 do have an adult content filter that is enabled by default (which requires identity verification to disable) but that does not block access to tech and civil liberty websites, it blocks access to pornography, it is not what this article talks about. There are 2 filters, adult content (default on O2 accounts), U12 (opt in). This article uses the filter status of websites on the U12 list (a whitelist) that has existed for many years and has nothing to do with the government as evidence that the government filter is oppressing children. They have no connection.
I get it, this country wide opt-out filter requirement is bad and it shouldn't be happening, I agree, but whining about something that has nothing to do with it makes absolutely no sense. The O2 U12 filter is fundamentally different, it's an optional extra customers can opt in to. This article has nothing to do with the "porn filter". Nothing!
First of all, it is about blocking by default and opting out(as you mention yourself at least for O2 before editing it to 'opt in', furthemore different providers provide either in or out by default). Then if you look at the img you posted yourself at http://i.imgur.com/dWxORfJ.png you will see that it is not only about pornography but a dozen other things including areas such as 'Obscene and Tasteless'(?).
The government's job making a law of(and therefore enforcing) the above is easy to justify under the rationale that this thing existed for years(with a few specific ISPs). Now everyone will have to do it, and on top of that it will be the government that will be defining what is 'Obscene and Tasteless' as opposed to a mere ISP.
I understand what you mean too, but my disagreement genuinely has to do with me seeing that both filtering schemes are identical to each other and have the same purpose and effect. Both are opt-out and both do not have to do with pornography only. I sincerely do not see how these can be different.
The government's job making a law of(and therefore enforcing) the above is easy to justify under the rationale that this thing existed for years(with a few specific ISPs). Now everyone will have to do it, and on top of that it will be the government that will be defining what is 'Obscene and Tasteless' as opposed to a mere ISP.
I understand what you mean too, but my disagreement genuinely has to do with me seeing that both filtering schemes are identical to each other and have the same purpose and effect. Both are opt-out and both do not have to do with pornography only. I sincerely do not see how these can be different.
> Both are opt-out and both do not have to do with pornography only. I sincerely do not see how these can be different.
No they are not. The filtering scheme covered in the submission is the Under 12 O2 filter, that is a filter designed for parents to enable (it's opt in, not opt out) when they wish to give their children access to a mobile device. That filter scheme uses a whitelist, every single website is blocked by default until a person at O2 adds it to the whitelist. This service has existed for many many years and has absolutely nothing to do with the government, it's a feature that O2 added for their customers. O2 do also operate a porn filter, but it is not what this article talks about, it does not block tech articles and civil liberty websites.
The article that you have submitted is FUD. Read this: http://news.o2.co.uk/2013/12/24/parental-control-questions-a...
No they are not. The filtering scheme covered in the submission is the Under 12 O2 filter, that is a filter designed for parents to enable (it's opt in, not opt out) when they wish to give their children access to a mobile device. That filter scheme uses a whitelist, every single website is blocked by default until a person at O2 adds it to the whitelist. This service has existed for many many years and has absolutely nothing to do with the government, it's a feature that O2 added for their customers. O2 do also operate a porn filter, but it is not what this article talks about, it does not block tech articles and civil liberty websites.
The article that you have submitted is FUD. Read this: http://news.o2.co.uk/2013/12/24/parental-control-questions-a...
Sorry but in your original post you specified opt-in. In any event, different providers are either opt-in or opt-out, O2 is not the only ISP in UK and the link you share is just the boilerplate text on O2's parental controls policy, so what?
I feel I explained my rationale and there can be no more constructive conversation in the particular thread. As for the article being FUD, sorry darling I guess we'll have to disagree on this one.
I feel I explained my rationale and there can be no more constructive conversation in the particular thread. As for the article being FUD, sorry darling I guess we'll have to disagree on this one.
> I believe legislation will be in effect countrywide in early 2014
Source.
My understanding is that the current filters are part of a voluntary agreement with the big-4 ISPs. There was no legislation passed. And even if they started now, there would be very little chance of such legislation being passed such that it would be effective in this parliament, let alone 'early 2014'.
Source.
My understanding is that the current filters are part of a voluntary agreement with the big-4 ISPs. There was no legislation passed. And even if they started now, there would be very little chance of such legislation being passed such that it would be effective in this parliament, let alone 'early 2014'.
My impression was that it is set for early 2014, I did some searching online and the closest I could find on a date online is http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2372833/Internet-por... which generally sets this to happen in 2014 based on the PM's pledge/plan and not legislation.
If the Daily Mail ran a story saying that the sky is blue, I'd go to the window and check it hadn't changed.
The legislation that would back this has received only a single reading so far. Still in the Lords.
This is simply not true. I live in the UK, don't have a UK passport or driver's licence,use GiffGaff and was able to remove the filter by typing in my Polish passport number just fine!
I do not intent to provide my own passport details, but you may want to go to the forum page and give your feedback to the people that had the problem.
If you look further into that thread there are other people saying that they could get their access unlocked using EU passports just fine.
Yep but if you look even further into the thread it has this reply from Giff Gaff and people are still not able to lift the filter(EU or not)
"Thanks for contacting me about removing your adult bar. Don't worry I'll look into this for you now.
Unfortunately due to a change in process recently we are only able to remove the adult content bar with a full driving license number or with a valid UK passport."
"Thanks for contacting me about removing your adult bar. Don't worry I'll look into this for you now.
Unfortunately due to a change in process recently we are only able to remove the adult content bar with a full driving license number or with a valid UK passport."
Giff Gaff allow you to lift the filter if you have a UK credit card. They make a charge and refund it (or something similar).
I agree that the filter, and its implementation, is hopeless and stupid.
I agree that the filter, and its implementation, is hopeless and stupid.
[deleted]
Except on several you have to enter credit card details to remove the filter. Which is loaded and wrong.
You're the customer. They already have some form of payment detail for you. They also have your correct id and address.
They use a credit card because those are limited to people over 18.
Why is that loaded and wrong?
They use a credit card because those are limited to people over 18.
Why is that loaded and wrong?
In general, using credit card details as a form of identification is a bad idea since it's exactly the sort of behaviour phishers and scummy "free sample" rebillers are trying to encourage. These attack vectors are much less successful if the median internet user believes "anybody asking for my credit card details when I haven't agreed to pay for something is a scammer"
That's a good point.
Assuming the filters stay: what's a reasonable method to check age?
Assuming the filters stay: what's a reasonable method to check age?
Looking from afar, this type of debate is becoming more interesting to me as a recent parent and as a strong anti-censorship type. As of now I'm thinking that I'll never block my kid from looking at any kind of content. If she happens to come across some nudity or sex and she has questions about it I'll be open and honest and explain it. Life is sex, sex is why we exist, sex is beautiful and sacred. I hope my daughter will have great sex someday, why hide it from her now? The impulse that so many parents have to hide sex from their kids seems like their brain damage that they want to pass on to their kids. And impose it on mine. Their line of thinking is what I wish I could hide from my daughter. But I won't. She'll be exposed to it along with all the other ugly and beautiful things in the real world.
I think the argument (and I don't really believe it, so excuse me if I don't present it convincingly) is that certain materials are just harmful to children (and possibly adults). You have a daughter, but I think that with boys/young men you can point to porn and say that it's addictive and has a lot of negative side effects. In that case, it's not about protecting them from knowing about sex, but instead trying to keep things the way they were before internet porn existed (and the porn on the internet certainly seems different than a playboy or something). I think that's a natural tendency in a lot of areas and it may or may not have any substance to it.
As far as your little girl goes, would you really be okay her stumbling onto a site like liveleak and watched dudes' heads be cut off or whatever messed up thing is on there right now? I'm not even sure of how to answer that question, but I don't think it's absurd to think "no".
So I can at least understand why people would want to block this kind of content from kids. Did they go about it in the right way? Doesn't it seem like it would be easy to abuse? It's an understatement to say that governments haven't exactly earned our trust when it comes to technological issues.
As far as your little girl goes, would you really be okay her stumbling onto a site like liveleak and watched dudes' heads be cut off or whatever messed up thing is on there right now? I'm not even sure of how to answer that question, but I don't think it's absurd to think "no".
So I can at least understand why people would want to block this kind of content from kids. Did they go about it in the right way? Doesn't it seem like it would be easy to abuse? It's an understatement to say that governments haven't exactly earned our trust when it comes to technological issues.
> As of now I'm thinking that I'll never block my kid from
> looking at any kind of content. If she happens to come across
> some nudity or sex and she has questions about it I'll be open
> and honest and explain it.
It's not just about nudity and sex. If it were I'd be less ambivalent. As it is I feel that you're being a bit naive.
> It's not just about nudity and sex.
Agreed. Even the "just sex" vanilla porn is pretty unhealthy for children to see. That way leads to a skewed and unrealistic expectations and understanding of relationships, sex, and bodies.
Agreed. Even the "just sex" vanilla porn is pretty unhealthy for children to see. That way leads to a skewed and unrealistic expectations and understanding of relationships, sex, and bodies.
Media in general gives you skewed and unrealistic expectations about all facets of life. What is special about porn?
It's more so. Anyway that's an argument for restricting other media until the kid is ready, not letting them see porn.
I don't understand why sex became such taboo. Everyone does it, it's nothing to be ashamed of, yet kids must be protected from it by any means necessary. I think this viewpoint creates many more problems than the alternative (young people have sex while uninformed and spread STDs/get pregnant/etc).
I don't see why we can't just treat sex as natural and treat online porn like a Hollywood movie, i.e. "the basic premise is the same, but it doesn't actually happen like that in real life".
I don't see why we can't just treat sex as natural and treat online porn like a Hollywood movie, i.e. "the basic premise is the same, but it doesn't actually happen like that in real life".
Porn isn't "great sex".
Can you see there's a difference between the weird ideas of sex depicted in online porn and actual sex? And that teaching a child about sex in all its diverse forms (and about the hateful nature of a lot of online porn) is not incompatible with wanting to prevent your 7 year old child seeing the extremes shown in online porn?
Can you see there's a difference between the weird ideas of sex depicted in online porn and actual sex? And that teaching a child about sex in all its diverse forms (and about the hateful nature of a lot of online porn) is not incompatible with wanting to prevent your 7 year old child seeing the extremes shown in online porn?
There is such a thing as innocence, the time in your childhood when you can be carefree and not have to consider the terrors and vices of this world. It's natural to want to extend this gestation period, so that a child can meet serious subjects with a more mature mind. At what age would you have your child consider the implications of two girls one cup? Of being in a child militia? Of walking on broken glass?
The protection (along with education and discipline) is the responsibility of parents, not the government. Successful governments have set up constructs to attempt to aid like minded parents (for example the justice system and public schools).
While the porn filters could be construed as an extension of that aid (attempting to delay/soften the introduction to a controversial and mature topic), the ability to censor is at too great a risk for abuse by those with power or influence.
The protection (along with education and discipline) is the responsibility of parents, not the government. Successful governments have set up constructs to attempt to aid like minded parents (for example the justice system and public schools).
While the porn filters could be construed as an extension of that aid (attempting to delay/soften the introduction to a controversial and mature topic), the ability to censor is at too great a risk for abuse by those with power or influence.
> As of now I'm thinking that I'll never block my kid from looking at any kind of content. If she happens to come across some nudity or sex and she has questions about it I'll be open and honest and explain it. Life is sex, sex is why we exist, sex is beautiful and sacred. I hope my daughter will have great sex someday, why hide it from her now?
Spoken like an intelligent and thoughtful person. Posts like this ultimately keep me coming back to HN and make me realize that most people here are true one-percenters when it comes to intelligence and the ability to think rationally.
Most people in this world are complete dumbasses and morons and that's part of the reason why the world is in the state it is right now.
Spoken like an intelligent and thoughtful person. Posts like this ultimately keep me coming back to HN and make me realize that most people here are true one-percenters when it comes to intelligence and the ability to think rationally.
Most people in this world are complete dumbasses and morons and that's part of the reason why the world is in the state it is right now.
Ridiculous article. Firstly there is no single "UK Porn Filter". Each ISP does their own thing in their own way. Secondly, the writer of this article is apparently surprised that none of the sites they're checking are on a WHITELIST of websites for children under 12, and concluding from this that "The UK Porn Filter Blocks Kids' Access To Tech ... Websites", etc. That's such a complete misunderstanding of the true situation that it's impossible to believe it has been made in error. Drawing the conclusion from this, as some of the article's commenters have, that "the UK Government must really hate open source" is a level of stupidity that has no place on HN.
Make no mistake about what the (non-existent) "UK Porn Filter" is - it's a political stunt from the right-wingers currently in power. As yet it has no legal basis or enforcement and is just a "strong suggestion" from politicians to private businesses. There are ISPs who don't engage in this filtering, and even for those that do, it is not mandatory. (The "on by default" is something that even the compliant ISPs said they would not do, and the politicians announced it anyway. Even where it is implemented and on by default that is only for NEW customers, and the "do you want this filter" question is part of the initial setup.)
I'm strongly opposed to filtering and censorship too, and as I've said before, publicity-seeking politicians wanting to display their "family values" by getting big businesses to "voluntarily" introduce such filtering IS the thin end of the wedge. But, at least now, it's still optional and voluntary, and you absolutely have the freedom to sign up with an ISP who offers no such filter, if you wish to take that stand. (The UK broadband market is pretty open compared to other countries - you're not restricted to one or two ISPs based on your location or phone company, in most cases you can pick any ISP you want to provide you with a service.)
Make no mistake about what the (non-existent) "UK Porn Filter" is - it's a political stunt from the right-wingers currently in power. As yet it has no legal basis or enforcement and is just a "strong suggestion" from politicians to private businesses. There are ISPs who don't engage in this filtering, and even for those that do, it is not mandatory. (The "on by default" is something that even the compliant ISPs said they would not do, and the politicians announced it anyway. Even where it is implemented and on by default that is only for NEW customers, and the "do you want this filter" question is part of the initial setup.)
I'm strongly opposed to filtering and censorship too, and as I've said before, publicity-seeking politicians wanting to display their "family values" by getting big businesses to "voluntarily" introduce such filtering IS the thin end of the wedge. But, at least now, it's still optional and voluntary, and you absolutely have the freedom to sign up with an ISP who offers no such filter, if you wish to take that stand. (The UK broadband market is pretty open compared to other countries - you're not restricted to one or two ISPs based on your location or phone company, in most cases you can pick any ISP you want to provide you with a service.)
This is nothing to do with what he dubs the 'Nanny Tory' initiative.
O2's parental controls is an opt-in whitelist. Only sites like Disney.com etc are allowed. It is presumably intended for when children are left alone with devices like tablets. Seems like a useful service to me.
O2's parental controls is an opt-in whitelist. Only sites like Disney.com etc are allowed. It is presumably intended for when children are left alone with devices like tablets. Seems like a useful service to me.
When it comes to parents approving such measures, I feel it is mostly an easy way out for them either due to inefficient parenting or extreme insecurity/protectionism.
If the kid is too young and not too knowledgeable about the world then perhaps it would make sense to not be left alone with an -online- tablet. If the kid is older then parents should have by that time invested time and talked with their child and let it know of what dangers may await online.
Finally and with regards to the 'indecent'/'porn' aspect of the filter, if a child is traumatized after viewing a pair of boobs or a vagina then there is something wrong with the upbringing the parents gave to it. Having sexual education websites blocked by the filter makes the matter all the more worst.
If the kid is too young and not too knowledgeable about the world then perhaps it would make sense to not be left alone with an -online- tablet. If the kid is older then parents should have by that time invested time and talked with their child and let it know of what dangers may await online.
Finally and with regards to the 'indecent'/'porn' aspect of the filter, if a child is traumatized after viewing a pair of boobs or a vagina then there is something wrong with the upbringing the parents gave to it. Having sexual education websites blocked by the filter makes the matter all the more worst.
> if a child is traumatized after viewing a pair of boobs or a vagina
It's like people on HN have never seen online pornography, which is usually much more than just an unclothed boob. Let's not pretend online pornography is all like this...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Sandro_Bo...
> If the kid is too young and not too knowledgeable about the world then perhaps it would make sense to not be left alone with an -online- tablet. If the kid is older then parents should have by that time invested time and talked with their child and let it know of what dangers may await online.
Sure. http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/9cltv/has_anybody_seen_...
Are you honestly that naive?
It's like people on HN have never seen online pornography, which is usually much more than just an unclothed boob. Let's not pretend online pornography is all like this...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Sandro_Bo...
> If the kid is too young and not too knowledgeable about the world then perhaps it would make sense to not be left alone with an -online- tablet. If the kid is older then parents should have by that time invested time and talked with their child and let it know of what dangers may await online.
Sure. http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/9cltv/has_anybody_seen_...
Are you honestly that naive?
The problem is that your children will now grow up thinking that a great firewall is something that those in positions authority normally maintain. How are you going to explain to these children that the Chinese firewall is bad? Would such children have protested SOPA or PIPA?
So really, the question here is not, "Should we protect children?" but rather, "What should we teach children about freedom of speech?"
So really, the question here is not, "Should we protect children?" but rather, "What should we teach children about freedom of speech?"
This is in the context of the uk where we don't have freedom of speech.
It's a useful discussion, but this filter doesn't. Hange the need for it. It does provide some nice examples of why filtering is problematic.
It's a useful discussion, but this filter doesn't. Hange the need for it. It does provide some nice examples of why filtering is problematic.
1. Yeah, so were you traumatized when you first saw a porn flick or beat off to it? How old were you? 18? Come on..
2. There are some really sick people out there I get it. Are you saying that kids should not be told/prepared that such people exist out there and be instructed on how to react when encountering something like this? (e.g. leave the page, call mom etc).
2. There are some really sick people out there I get it. Are you saying that kids should not be told/prepared that such people exist out there and be instructed on how to react when encountering something like this? (e.g. leave the page, call mom etc).
If hardcore pornography and animal abuse are the targets, then how the hell are educational sites getting dragged into the fray?
Because the filters are useless.
You greatly underestimate the breadth and depth of the prudishness that motivates the creation of content filters.
Except we're talking about a variety of filters. The filter in the op is an extreme form of filter that is perhaps useful for a locked down kiosk like environment. (Not as good as doing that properly, obviously) and so that filter is very broad, be because it wants to catch everything and allow owners to whitelist exceptions.
The ukgov porn filter will suffer from some of that, but also the Scunthorpe problem.
Having had blood test results delayed because my surname has the word COCKS In it was frustrating.
The ukgov porn filter will suffer from some of that, but also the Scunthorpe problem.
Having had blood test results delayed because my surname has the word COCKS In it was frustrating.
> If the kid is too young and not too knowledgeable about the world then perhaps it would make sense to not be left alone with an -online- tablet.
Why is it okay to revoke internet access entirely, but not selectively? If the argument is that filtering a child's internet is bad parenting, then disabling it ought to be just as bad as limiting it.
Why is it okay to revoke internet access entirely, but not selectively? If the argument is that filtering a child's internet is bad parenting, then disabling it ought to be just as bad as limiting it.
This has everything to do with the Nanny Tory initiative! If you read the article, the point he is making is not that Porn is good, or that O2 are censors, but that: UK Parents are failing at parenthood! And that is exactly the condition that the UK Nanny state is expecting to exploit with such initiatives - and any corporation setting up to serve their government masters is part of the problem. The problem, being, that people do not want to be responsible parents and monitor what their children are doing online.
Or maybe it's that parents tried to monitor what their children were doing online, but failed only because asshole marketers refuse to believe that anyone has a right to refuse their spam and were sending graphic pornography to children.
This has not been a problem for a very long time now. We have spam filters and ad blockers -- basically, marketers do not get to show you anything if you do not want them to.
I don't really see what's so useful about giving parents tools to block their children from accessing sites like Childline.
Irrelevant. The point at hand is that the article is completely inaccurate. Whether or not parents should restrict their kids' internet use is a different question entirely.
You should bookmark this so you can come back and laugh at yourself when you have kids of your own.
You do know what Childline is, right? It's a counselling service run by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children that deals with child abuse, teenage pregnancy, bullying etc.
As a parent, why would you want to block that?! I know I wouldn't.
As a parent, why would you want to block that?! I know I wouldn't.
[deleted]
UK has turned into an Orwellian surveillance state (I live in Ireland)
Hell I am watching news now and they are about to setup a centralised database of every woman who got breast implants, you couldn't make this shit up!
Hell I am watching news now and they are about to setup a centralised database of every woman who got breast implants, you couldn't make this shit up!
Here is the truth - watch too much porn and you get erectile dysfunction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU
Why did it take me decades to find someone able to present that reasonably plausible reason as to why I should definitely not want to watch porn under any circumstances whatsoever?
The argument (with science) in the above TED talk is that if you do watch a lot of porn then you are not going to aroused by real women as much as you should, leading to unsatisfactory bedroom performances. Yep, porn is actually that dangerous.
I might not care for the traditional 'don't watch porn because it is porn'/'think of the children'/'porn exploits women' arguments, however, I do have enlightened self interest and loss of libido is so not what I want to have.
If I was in the UK government I would want to get this message out to kids in schools, not to scare them away from porn for the sake of it, but because they deserve to have 'normal', happy sexual health. By censoring porn they are not going to get this message, in fact they will be further away from it than they are now, doing what they can to get the 'forbidden fruit' instead of knowing why they just should not bother.
Instead of censoring they could have demanded that there be a banner on the pages of porn sites warning that use of porn leads to erectile dysfunction. This would be a proactive move, no harder to get into law than that stupid 'this site uses cookies' directive. They could get the ISPs to do it so porn from outer Mongolia would be suitably warned of too.
We have had a block on mobiles in the UK for some time now. There were no riots in the streets because of this, people are fine with it. The ISPs can take the block off for people and the system just works. This new move is an extension of what we already have, not some Orwell-nightmare-slippery slope thing. The politicians will get their votes, some people will grumble but that will be it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU
Why did it take me decades to find someone able to present that reasonably plausible reason as to why I should definitely not want to watch porn under any circumstances whatsoever?
The argument (with science) in the above TED talk is that if you do watch a lot of porn then you are not going to aroused by real women as much as you should, leading to unsatisfactory bedroom performances. Yep, porn is actually that dangerous.
I might not care for the traditional 'don't watch porn because it is porn'/'think of the children'/'porn exploits women' arguments, however, I do have enlightened self interest and loss of libido is so not what I want to have.
If I was in the UK government I would want to get this message out to kids in schools, not to scare them away from porn for the sake of it, but because they deserve to have 'normal', happy sexual health. By censoring porn they are not going to get this message, in fact they will be further away from it than they are now, doing what they can to get the 'forbidden fruit' instead of knowing why they just should not bother.
Instead of censoring they could have demanded that there be a banner on the pages of porn sites warning that use of porn leads to erectile dysfunction. This would be a proactive move, no harder to get into law than that stupid 'this site uses cookies' directive. They could get the ISPs to do it so porn from outer Mongolia would be suitably warned of too.
We have had a block on mobiles in the UK for some time now. There were no riots in the streets because of this, people are fine with it. The ISPs can take the block off for people and the system just works. This new move is an extension of what we already have, not some Orwell-nightmare-slippery slope thing. The politicians will get their votes, some people will grumble but that will be it.
Two things.
1. This is a TEDx talk, not a TED talk. Very different. TED talks are given by experts, TEDx can be anybody who has something to say.
2. The science in this talk felt shaky at best. And frankly, from spending even a short period looking into Gary Wilson and his website yourbrainonporn.com, he comes off as an anti-porn conspiracy nut.
I think you need to apply more skepticism to the argument.
1. This is a TEDx talk, not a TED talk. Very different. TED talks are given by experts, TEDx can be anybody who has something to say.
2. The science in this talk felt shaky at best. And frankly, from spending even a short period looking into Gary Wilson and his website yourbrainonporn.com, he comes off as an anti-porn conspiracy nut.
I think you need to apply more skepticism to the argument.
Points taken. However his talk was the first time that dots were connected for me in a way that made sense to me.
I am far from against banning porn, however, in certain situations some people can get addicted to porn. They may not be physically addicted as per heroin addiction, however, some addiction to porn has crept up on a couple of friends, to have a negative effect on their relationships. At the time I lacked anything helpful to say, a warning that 'erectile dysfunction' is the result of porn addiction might have made things easier.
There are lots of people on the lecture circuit that go on and on and on about one thing. Dawkins is a bit like that, he irritates the hell out of me. Yet, despite his presentation, he is correct.
There are others that have the opinion that porn has a negative effect on male libido, Gary Wilson does actually quote some science in his talk.
I am far from against banning porn, however, in certain situations some people can get addicted to porn. They may not be physically addicted as per heroin addiction, however, some addiction to porn has crept up on a couple of friends, to have a negative effect on their relationships. At the time I lacked anything helpful to say, a warning that 'erectile dysfunction' is the result of porn addiction might have made things easier.
There are lots of people on the lecture circuit that go on and on and on about one thing. Dawkins is a bit like that, he irritates the hell out of me. Yet, despite his presentation, he is correct.
There are others that have the opinion that porn has a negative effect on male libido, Gary Wilson does actually quote some science in his talk.
Original poster here, in my opinion the best article I've found online so far showcasing clearly the effects of the so called 'porn' filter, and that it is not at all about safety but control. The list of websites blocked and the nature of the websites is just shocking.
This was submitted at least twice last week, does anyone have the link to the original that was on the front page 6 days ago? There were some useful comments.
My search skills are failing me righ tnow and all I've found is this one from 5 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6954463
My search skills are failing me righ tnow and all I've found is this one from 5 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6954463
The great firewall of UK.
Even if it's not actually the 'porn law' itself that's causing this (rather O2's blocklist it seems) - the fact is that it's the same attitudes and discourse underlying both. Both are censorship and both are maintained and supported by the government's position and policies.
Customers ask their ISP to supply a blocklist. The ISP supplies a blocklist.
This is what companies should be doing, no?
This is what companies should be doing, no?
yes, the article is confused about opt-in censorship as a service (for parents, demo tablets at supermarkets etc;) vs opt-out censorship.
I gave a scathing comment last time about the ramifications of opt-out censorship, but in my examples of it working properly opt-in was singled out as being ideal.
FYI, this opt-in filter has been around a few years, I dislike that it also filters explicitly pornographic sites unless you call in (yes, I had o2, yes, I tried) but that seems to have been the norm with a few cellular phone providers (such as T-Mobile).
the thinking is probably along the lines of: "We give sim cards away for free, we don't know who will use them, internet costs very little, we should probably stop the worst stuff just in case of complaints"; contracts are instantly unblocked and the same goes for broadband (because getting a contract means you must be over 18 anyway), at that point it's the responsibility of the contract holder to filter internet for any under-age people on the line.
well, that's how it was, the way it's going is... slightly different.
I gave a scathing comment last time about the ramifications of opt-out censorship, but in my examples of it working properly opt-in was singled out as being ideal.
FYI, this opt-in filter has been around a few years, I dislike that it also filters explicitly pornographic sites unless you call in (yes, I had o2, yes, I tried) but that seems to have been the norm with a few cellular phone providers (such as T-Mobile).
the thinking is probably along the lines of: "We give sim cards away for free, we don't know who will use them, internet costs very little, we should probably stop the worst stuff just in case of complaints"; contracts are instantly unblocked and the same goes for broadband (because getting a contract means you must be over 18 anyway), at that point it's the responsibility of the contract holder to filter internet for any under-age people on the line.
well, that's how it was, the way it's going is... slightly different.
Yes, "this opt-in filter has been around a few years" -- since 2008 -- and it's not even specifically British. It was announced by TELEFÓNICA and covers "O2 businesses in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany and the Czech Republic".
http://pressoffice.telefonica.com/documentos/nprensa/PR0808_...
http://pressoffice.telefonica.com/documentos/nprensa/PR0808_...
Right, of course I'm not against an opt-in blocklist; people should have that choice as well.
For something like a SIM, I can also see the business case - but again, that's a corporate decision rather than one that they're obliged to make by law (as they are now) which is a subtle but important distinction, as it represents the removal of choice via censorship.
My issue is with the opt-out censorship and the loud political circus that's been built up around it. It continues the same discourse of 'what have you got to hide' that the NSA business threw up, it's setting a precedent which could be misused later. Who knows if it actually would be, but waiting for the other shoe to drop is not exactly an ideal situation with any kind of censorship.
For something like a SIM, I can also see the business case - but again, that's a corporate decision rather than one that they're obliged to make by law (as they are now) which is a subtle but important distinction, as it represents the removal of choice via censorship.
My issue is with the opt-out censorship and the loud political circus that's been built up around it. It continues the same discourse of 'what have you got to hide' that the NSA business threw up, it's setting a precedent which could be misused later. Who knows if it actually would be, but waiting for the other shoe to drop is not exactly an ideal situation with any kind of censorship.
Opt in or opt out filter. It makes no difference.
Blocking of these sites should be opposed, loudly.
Blocking of these sites should be opposed, loudly.
Absolute complete ignorant arrogant rubbish.
First, an opt out is a declaration of perversion or subversion. And opt in is a genuine choice, which IMHO, should be available.
IMHO, every router in a home should have in its config a tick box which concerned parents can tick if they want to. Along side that should be an "advanced" button or link for more knowledgeable parents to tailor the the filter as they see fit. In a home parents should have an easy way to chose. And dont give me nonsense about installing firewalls and what not. That is way out of most normal people's scope. Even I can't be arsed with that, so I dont see why some single mum who works in a supermarket should either.
I also think there should be a simple system for parents to control mobile devices for their kids too. Not hard to work out something reasonable.
While I despise national and ISP level blanket filters and censorship, I fully respect the choices parents might want to take. I have 6 kids, aged 2 - 20, but personally dont and wont filter or censor. However, I am not arrogant enough to tell other parents what to do. I might be very wrong.
Look, on one level I do not want censorship. If I, as an adult, want to watch porn I dont see why I should be humiliated to do so. However, I also see that parents are left in the shit and are expected to be responsible, but have no help to be so. And no, its not good enough for hackers to offer hacker solutions that are not practical for anyone other than hackers.
There has to be a reasonable balance here. And I say it comes in the form of a simple tick box in the router.
Either that, of we agree to free parents of parental responsibility in both law and society.
First, an opt out is a declaration of perversion or subversion. And opt in is a genuine choice, which IMHO, should be available.
IMHO, every router in a home should have in its config a tick box which concerned parents can tick if they want to. Along side that should be an "advanced" button or link for more knowledgeable parents to tailor the the filter as they see fit. In a home parents should have an easy way to chose. And dont give me nonsense about installing firewalls and what not. That is way out of most normal people's scope. Even I can't be arsed with that, so I dont see why some single mum who works in a supermarket should either.
I also think there should be a simple system for parents to control mobile devices for their kids too. Not hard to work out something reasonable.
While I despise national and ISP level blanket filters and censorship, I fully respect the choices parents might want to take. I have 6 kids, aged 2 - 20, but personally dont and wont filter or censor. However, I am not arrogant enough to tell other parents what to do. I might be very wrong.
Look, on one level I do not want censorship. If I, as an adult, want to watch porn I dont see why I should be humiliated to do so. However, I also see that parents are left in the shit and are expected to be responsible, but have no help to be so. And no, its not good enough for hackers to offer hacker solutions that are not practical for anyone other than hackers.
There has to be a reasonable balance here. And I say it comes in the form of a simple tick box in the router.
Either that, of we agree to free parents of parental responsibility in both law and society.
So Alan, I resent ignorant but i'm definitely arrogant enough to tell you when you're misguided.
"opt in is a genuine choice"; it all boils down to this, opt in to what exactly?
We have no idea and noone is accountable for the list. Given this, it makes no difference whether it's an opt in or an opt out. It should be opposed, loudly.
Whether you think these sites are unsuitable for consumption by your kids, it really doesn't matter.
Whether you think a tick box on a router is not hard to work out. Whether you think that'd be a reasonable balance (maybe it would). Whether you think the only 2 options are "give me my tick box" or "absolve parental responsibility", it's all by-the-bye; in today's situation.
Because there's no accountability for this hidden list. There's no checks or balances. My opinions on list content, like yours, don't mean much in this context. There's a bigger problem to deal with first and it's nothing to do with what sites are on the list.
FWIW my personal view, I'm less convinced these days that there even "has to be a balance". The internet is fundamentally a pull medium, not push (despite advertisers best efforts, i can still just drain the battery). So my current thinking leans heavily towards "you can always just choose not to use it".
[1] "these sites": bsdly.net nuug.no usenix.org ukuug.org flossuk.org eff.org amnesty.org.uk slashdot.org linuxtoday.com nostarch.com blogspot.com arstechnica.com openbsd.org undeadly.org freebsd.org geekculture.com linux.com
"opt in is a genuine choice"; it all boils down to this, opt in to what exactly?
We have no idea and noone is accountable for the list. Given this, it makes no difference whether it's an opt in or an opt out. It should be opposed, loudly.
Whether you think these sites are unsuitable for consumption by your kids, it really doesn't matter.
Whether you think a tick box on a router is not hard to work out. Whether you think that'd be a reasonable balance (maybe it would). Whether you think the only 2 options are "give me my tick box" or "absolve parental responsibility", it's all by-the-bye; in today's situation.
Because there's no accountability for this hidden list. There's no checks or balances. My opinions on list content, like yours, don't mean much in this context. There's a bigger problem to deal with first and it's nothing to do with what sites are on the list.
FWIW my personal view, I'm less convinced these days that there even "has to be a balance". The internet is fundamentally a pull medium, not push (despite advertisers best efforts, i can still just drain the battery). So my current thinking leans heavily towards "you can always just choose not to use it".
[1] "these sites": bsdly.net nuug.no usenix.org ukuug.org flossuk.org eff.org amnesty.org.uk slashdot.org linuxtoday.com nostarch.com blogspot.com arstechnica.com openbsd.org undeadly.org freebsd.org geekculture.com linux.com
[deleted]
it makes a large amount of difference.
see my rant here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6940833
see my rant here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6940833
Get ready for more and more of this sort of thing. Parents are too busy to raise their own children. Better let the government take care of that. Soma anyone?
It seams, that porn, crimes and terrorism are the honeypots of choice for the voters, to lead them into any form of surveillance and mind-control.
Seems legit..
Slippery slope of censorship.
Censorship placed there by Bilderberg group kissing politicians. What is their real agenda?
Map the politicians real group affiliations on nndb.org
Hint the wierd ones almost always: Bilderbergroup, Altalfa, Council on foreign relations, Skull and Bones
Hint the wierd ones almost always: Bilderbergroup, Altalfa, Council on foreign relations, Skull and Bones
Seriously? On HN too?
Here is a screenshot of one of the actual filters recently implemented (by an ISP called BT) with new accounts defaulting to the "Light" pre-set, which customers must opt out of: http://i.imgur.com/dWxORfJ.png