Support NeoGAF

[SmokyDave]

The right column...

Damn, I need to start visiting the Mail website.

 

[kurtrussell]

No way, the law shouldn't be used to criminalise anything that feels a bit icky. A consenting 16 year old doesn't need the justice system guarding their naughty bits.

So how about a 15 year old? 14? 13?

Which age feels "a bit icky" but should be criminalised?

 

[Bony Manifesto]

What a victory for them.

Well of course it is, They'd love a world where their 'right-hand column of shame' was the only place on the internet where users without the block would be able to find salacious coverage of the latest nip-slips and the most sexy underage girls.

 

[thetrin]

Le sigh!

A perfectly reasonable suggestion that has been met with the usual hefty dose of GAF hyperbole and salt.

Firstly, before we all implode with rage, let's remember that it's a filter not a block. If you want to watch porn online, opt in. If you feel too embarrassed / ashamed to do so, then you have a much more deep rooted problem that would probably benefit from a few sessions with a therapist.

As a parent, I am very much in favour of this move, particuarly as I feel pornography portrays unrealistic ideals of sex to minds that are still very much impressionable, from both a female and a male perspective. I'm sorry that a few nerds are going to feel uncomfortable calling up and asking for their web filters to be disabled, but this really is for the greater good.

As a human being, you're very much in favor of censorship? I do not understand you. Are you unable to parent your children without the gov't stepping in?

 

[MrKnives]

Ignorance of politicians is a scary thing.

 

[Deaf Spacker]

What a victory for them.

Holy shit.

 

[PJV3]

I'm quite traditional at heart, couldn't we use the old system of circles covering the rude bits. We just need protecting from rude bits exposure, I'm sure somebody in computing could create the solution.

 

[Tnetennba]

The website for their little scaremongering campaign is just the worst thing.

They're calling them Family Friendly Filters? I can't even deal with all of this hyperbole.

 

[Blair]

lol @ shit lazy parents trying to justify this system. Just have the filter as opt in.

 

[Ziltoid]

The website for their little scaremongering campaign is just the worst thing.

"81% of children aged 14 to 18 have viewed adult material online"

No shit.

 

[marvelharvey]

"81% of children aged 14 to 18 have viewed adult material online"

No shit.

And 19% are lying.

 

[Vashetti]

Couldn't you argue that hiding this porn away could lead to underage and potentially unsafe experimentation?

Are we due an influx of underage pregnancies?

 

[SomethingInTheSea]

What a victory for them.

Especially ironic when the right hand side of the page shows a much more insidious and damaging problem.

 

[funkystudent]

Maybe this will lead to more young people having better IT skills as they have to use proxies and VPN's to wack off.

 

[Gregorn]

The website for their little scaremongering campaign is just the worst thing.

They're calling them Family Friendly Filters? I can't even deal with all of this hyperbole.

Whoa, they mean 14-16 year olds? I thought this was about actually children, like a 6 year old watching women choke on dicks. A 14 year old watching porn sounds about right, he'll probably only look at some boobs on google images and be satisfied. Forcing him to dig deeper would make it more likely that he'll find the child porn and gore.

 

[GoddyofAus]

Monumentally dumb. Looks like the Social conservatives and religious lobby groups are whipping the lash on Cameron. This must be their tradeoff for the same sex marriage legislation.

 

[Nicktendo86]

What a victory for them.

This is my new favourite thing ever, too funny.

 

[Infinite_Daremo]

Do we have confirmation we will actually have to call to opt-out? Most of my net settings can be customised via a website. I'd assume this would be the same.

 

[Psychotext]

Ironically I saw porn for the first time at 6 years old because of lazy parenting. I went to a (girl) friend's house for lunch and she wanted to show me a video that she'd found accidentally.

I had fuck all idea what was going on. lol

 

[Walshicus]

Sending this to my MP:

Dear Andrew Tyrie,

Regarding the intentions of the Prime Minister as detailed: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076

I'd like to express my concerns toward the proposals, which I believe expose a shocking lack of understanding of how the internet and similar networks operate. An opt-in will not 'protect' children who are increasingly web-literate; they will find it trivial to utilise proxy servers, alternative DNS', encrypted P2P networks and so forth. By forcing them to use increasingly sophisticated methods to access this kind of material, we risk instigating an arms race that censors cannot win.

If the terrifying Australian example holds true, should we expect to see political or other activist content blocked at the whim of the government of the day? How can anyone who claims to be in favour of free speech and expression support this?

This proposal pre-supposes a moral position that I believe the majority no longer hold. In matters such as this it should be parents and not the state who decide how to treat this subject, and neither should be forced to feel like their choice is 'abnormal'. Further, by putting an opt-in system in place which *will* be broken within minutes of deployment we risk fostering a false sense of security for those parents who *are* concerned about this kind of material.

The only effective method of controlling what children see on the internet and similar networks is parental supervision. With parental supervision all of these proposals are redundant.

I hope very much that you will oppose these dangerous proposals where possible.

http://www.writetothem.com/write

 

[daninthemix]

Wow, this is perhaps the first government decision that makes me both glad and proud to be a UK citizen.

Frankly there's currently no way for an individual to protect themselves or their family if they so choose (got a problem with choice, anyone?) that isn't easily circumvented.

The only solution was going to be a government one, or at least an ISP that actually cared about this issue (and none do, apparently - it's taken a boot up the arse from the PM).

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Ignorance of politicians is a scary thing.

Isn't she the crazy one that wanted to get rid of the BPAS and replace it with Care Confidential? Wasn't she also calling them (BPAS) reprehensible and money hungry?

 

[Walshicus]

Wow, this is perhaps the first government decision that makes me both glad and proud to be a UK citizen.

Frankly there's currently no way for an individual to protect themselves or their family if they so choose (got a problem with choice, anyone?) that isn't easily circumvented.

The only solution was going to be a government one, or at least an ISP that actually cared about this issue (and none do, apparently - it's taken a boot up the arse from the PM).

This will do NOTHING but inconvenience people and push the notion that the government should have control over what you see and do on the internet.

If parents want in on this they should opt in. But let's not pretend that the stupidest kid isn't going to be able to bypass this in minutes of it going out. You *cannot* stop people from accessing pornography on the internet; you can only inconvenience them.

 

[Succinct Verbosity]

On the BBC

"Critics say the policy doesn't go far enough"

What else do they want?

 

[Bo-Locks]

The number of children having sex with adults is beyond belief. If you define a child as anyone under 30, the figure is over 86%.

 

[Psychotext]

The only solution was going to be a government one, or at least an ISP that actually cared about this issue (and none do, apparently - it's taken a boot up the arse from the PM).

Numerous ISPs offer opt-in filtering, and one mobile ISP has opt out filtering.

 

[kurtrussell]

This will do NOTHING but inconvenience people

You know we're talking about restriction of access to pornography, and not running water right?

It's fairly trivial to flick the smut enabler switch if you can't live without it.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

On the BBC

"Critics say the policy doesn't go far enough"

What else do they want?

Fully regulated internet with a committee made up of out of touch idiots deciding which sites are and aren't safe.

 

[Toppot]

Wow, this is perhaps the first government decision that makes me both glad and proud to be a UK citizen.

Frankly there's currently no way for an individual to protect themselves or their family if they so choose (got a problem with choice, anyone?) that isn't easily circumvented.

The only solution was going to be a government one, or at least an ISP that actually cared about this issue (and none do, apparently - it's taken a boot up the arse from the PM).

You think a government issued block will be hard to get around? Just look at the Pirate Bay block. I googled 'get around pirate bay uk' and within seconds I could access Pirate Bay despite the block.

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/5-ways-bypass-uk-pirate-bay-block/
http://blog.tdobson.net/2012/05/howto-access-the-pirate-bay-if-youre-on-virgin-media/

Kids will always find a way round, it will spread and then all you have achieved is inconveniencing people.

 

[Walshicus]

You know we're talking about restriction of access to pornography, and not running water right?

It's fairly trivial to flick the smut enabler switch if you can't live without it.

And it'll be fairly trivial to bypass it even with it enabled. It's a matter of principle.

 

[Somnid]

So let me guess, anyone who opts in has to be put on a list so that they can actively be monitored for possible child porn searching.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

On the BBC

"Critics say the policy doesn't go far enough"

What else do they want?

They want members of parliament to define a specific list of web sites that no-one can access, based on their own draconian beliefs.

So let me guess, anyone who opts in has to be put on a list so that they can actively be monitored for possible child porn searching.

I'm not sure of the legality, but something akin to that would be likely.

 

[Psychotext]

They want members of parliament to define a specific list of web sites that no-one can access, based on their own draconian beliefs.

It's ok, they get access to the good stuff anyway in the real world.

Four legs good, two legs better!

 

[jakonovski]

It's fairly trivial to flick the smut enabler switch if you can't live without it.

Those filthy smut addicts!

 

[Opus Angelorum]

It's ok, they get access to the good stuff anyway in the real world.

Four legs good, two legs better!

lol

 

[Batigol]

Luckily, I moved from the UK, but this is still bullshit

Vpn will work I assume?

 

[Kinyou]

How is this supposed to fight child pornography? Not like you find that stuff on youporn.

countdown until a hacker hacks an isp and dumps a list of customers who opt out of the ban

Preferably from politicians.

What a victory for them.

Can't make this shit up

 

[Little Old Man]

This 'policy' sums up the coalition government so succinctly: why use evidence or logic when creating policy, when you can use fear mongering and awful circumstances as emotional leverage in order to win political favour with the electorate?

See policies on Europe, immigration, taxation, welfare, drugs, the economy, and now pornography.

 

[NekoFever]

What a victory for them.

She bared her midriff? Society is doomed.

 

[Delusibeta]

Wow, this is perhaps the first government decision that makes me both glad and proud to be a UK citizen.

Frankly there's currently no way for an individual to protect themselves or their family if they so choose (got a problem with choice, anyone?) that isn't easily circumvented.

The only solution was going to be a government one, or at least an ISP that actually cared about this issue (and none do, apparently - it's taken a boot up the arse from the PM).

How to circumvent the filter in five easy steps.

 

[Psychotext]

How to circumvent the filter in five easy steps.

I'm sure it'll only be a matter of time before you're legally forced to use only certain DNS providers. It's for the good of the children.

 

[solarus]

How to circumvent the filter in five easy steps.

Wait, i use google dns and it doesn't allow me to get past the torrent filtering on some sites, for example if I try to visit piratebay a blocked image from virgin media appears, so i have to use proxy sites. How would google dns get around this?

 

[Professor Chaos]

I'm no expert when it comes to stuff like this, but there's no way they are going to be able to catch all of it is there? What about torrents for example? And won't canny websites just hide it behind something else?

 

[Acorn]

Fully regulated internet with a committee made up of out of touch idiots deciding which sites are and aren't safe.

lol

Every webpage will be vetted by a committee chaired by Paul Dacre.

 

[Walshicus]

I'm no expert when it comes to stuff like this, but there's no way they are going to be able to catch all of it is there? What about torrents for example? And won't canny websites just hide it behind something else?

It's an un-winnable arms race, which is why it's better to not bother.


The government should be focusing their energies on aggressively targeting the *people* who are producing and distributing illegal material instead of giving parents a false sense of security and another excuse to abdicate their responsibilities.

 

[arena08]

The number of children having sex with adults is beyond belief. If you define a child as anyone under 30, the figure is over 86%.

 

[Johnlenham]

Bans porn to save the children but fake tits on the third page of one of the biggest shittiest news papers around is still ok?

Daily mail bit remids me of this

 

[Acorn]

Bans porn to save the children but fake tits on the third page of one of the biggest shittiest news papers around is still ok?

Daily mail bit remids me of this

Its fine because its Uncle Rupe.

 

[Portugeezer]

Bans porn to save the children but fake tits on the third page of one of the biggest shittiest news papers around is still ok?

Cameron himself was questioned once about a ban on page 3 and said something about being a responsible parent.

And page 3 is basically page 1, you turn the cover and blam.

 

[solarus]

Ok I'm going to post this again for new page, I use google dns but piratebay is still blocked for me as well as other torrent sites and I have to use proxy sites instead. How come? I'm guessing having google dns will not avoid this block either?