Forums / Discussion / General

Link to artical

Once again, people are pushing for ISPs to apply filters for pornography.

David Cameron proposed the idea: that people taking out new contracts with internet service providers (ISPs) should have to opt in to being able to "access porn". The idea then was that the "big four" ISPs – BT, TalkTalk, Virgin and Sky, who cover 17.6 million of the more than 19 million broadband users in the UK – would let people tick (or untick) a box when they got a new contract.

That time, the proposal emerged from a Cameron meeting with the Mothers' Union. This time, it came from a breakfast conference. This time, there is also the background mood music of a restive right wing in the Tory party unhappy at setbacks and compromise, and the boombox backing of Claire Perry, a Tory MP who chaired an independent inquiry into online child protection. Perry has been calling loudly for filtering of some sort, saying: "We know the current model is failing [and] we need [the ISPs] to acknowledge there is a problem, and we need to do that quickly."

Questions
1.Do you agree with this proposal?
2.Is this just another lazy way to prevent your child from viewing pornography instead of the parent talking responsibility for the child?

Actually… this is the best proposal I have heard regarding this issue. Congrads Uk, you found a way to have people save themselves and not be corrupt assholes while doing so.

But all the teens in the Uk Will rage at this and their parents.

I'll answer these questions despite the fact that I'm a Yank.

Question one: No.

Question two: Yes.

As you can guess, I don't think this is a good idea.

As if it'll ever work.

1. I wouldn't support a nationwide pornography ban, but I am fine with ISP's providing the options to parents. I.E: They call their ISP, ask for the filter, and that's that. This is what it sounds like, so yes I would support it. Parents are usually the ones that pay for Internet connection, so they have every right to request one.

2. Before someone points out that its the parents responisiblity: today's parents know nothing about technology, and anyone can practically get away with anything online without anyone noticing (aside from the various cases where the FBI arrested someone for doing something stupid online).

I think that by applying the filter, parents are taking responsibility, but they should still talk to their children about it.

Of course, with that in mind, today's tech-savvy generation will probably find a way around it.

>MFW:

Sure, it may piss some teenagers off, but they aren't paying for the internet, so they have no need to be entitled. It's the right of whoever is paying to have these optional filters, so they can control what they get. It's the same deal as parental controls on TV, or child locks on a car.

So, no, I don't hate the proposal, nor do I like it. I'm indifferent, as it doesn't really effect me. Even if I still lived at home it wouldn't.

As for the second question, this is the parents regulating what their child sees, so they don't have to take responsibility. They prevent it from happening, for whatever reason. They're doing their job as a parent by doing what they think is best for their child. I know that sounds like bullshit, as some people could rationalize beating as the best for their child, but that's a stretch, considering we're talking about filtering porn out.

ONE DOES NOT SIMPLY

REGULATE PORNOGRAPHY

That's pretty cool if you are a parent I guess. I wouldn't want my kids getting access to porn at the same age I found it (12). Ultimately though, it doesn't affect me because I live in America.

Stopping kids from accessing porn?

Haha, good luck,

If this succeeds, this will be the end of 4chan.

So, this is Britain's plan to save the ailing pornographic magazine industry?

Or, orrrrrrr

You need to call your ISP provider to get access to it.

At first I saw this and got scared. But then I thought about where I live….

But seriously, should I still be worried about this although I'm living in america?
And is what muffanator said actually something the casual computer user can do?

HAHA THOSE POOR AMERI-

Crap, David Cameron!? God damn Tories!!

Meh, I'm indifferent about the whole issue. As long as people still have access to what they want, why be mad? I know a ton of teens will be butthurt over this, but they have no say about the internet, they don't own the internet.

Well, they're not planning to ban porn, but having to opt in to porn seems pointless because people don't have to watch it anyway, unless kids are involved. Why can't the ISPs just package in filtering software for parents to use on their kids?

Because apparently, modern parents are damn lazy.

Dude, they're not getting in people's lives, they're giving people more options.

Yes, because parents from the 50's had to deal with kids being able to acces hardcore porn from their laptops to their iPhones.

Not a fair comparison. Back then, the only real access was likely magazines(like Playboy) and theaters, both of which would have required an ID to gain access to.

Now, you can anonymously access anything you damn well please. I can understand the fear of the unknown, but change isn't always a bad thing.

Dude, it has nothing to do with this.

Uh, pardon me, but ISPs should control the internet.
Internet Service Provides compose the internet. It is built on their labor, and is kept running by them.
Now, I like the current setup, where they are obligated by law to not give any information gained by this to any parties outside their companies, and are obligated to not use data gathered for commercial gain.
It would be better to say, the government shouldn't control the ISPs.

Actually, government should regulate ISPs, but neither should have much control over the internet.

But this is about giving consumers more options. This bill would increase the amount of choice the people have with their internetting: To filter porn or not

You were the one that made the comparison by saying that parents today are lazy( referring to them watching what their kids do on the Internet). Change isn't always a bad thing, but when a child can find thousands of bestiality, s&m, and other fetish videos by just searching on google, I can't exactly back that kind of change. I'm all for freedom, but giving parents the tool to block porn isn't exactly a bad thing. Unless of course you are a teen.

Then just put an age filter on Google. Have it determine a level of SafeSearch appropriate for the age range of the user in question.

Problem solved.

As if google was the only search engine. Anyways, what is so bad about saying whether or not you want access to porn when you get an Internet provider? You still have the freedom to view porn assuming you are of age and get your own Internet. If you are a kid living with your parents you have no right to be looking up porn on the Internet they pay for.

Can't we just stop looking for excuses to bash governments because you guys think it's cool?

Strawmanning me again, as usual.

You think I don't know that Google isn't the only search engine out there?

However, I do understand what you're saying, I just think this is the wrong way to go about it. Instituting age filters on search engines seems like a much better idea to me. Of course there are ways of bypassing those too, but it's not a bad idea.

How am I straw manning you? I'm saying that age filters on search engines aren't nearly as effective as you think they are, thats it. Am I missing something, my understanding
is that parents will be able to tell their ISP to block porn if they want, nothing more. How exactly is this a bad thing?

Evidently not.
Not even sure why you asked that question.

You implied that I didn't know about other search engines.

You guys know how you used to lie on internet age-checkers back when you were a minor?

Yeah, that's why an age-check for toggling SafeSearch on wouldn't work. There is absolutely no downside to this proposal, as it gives more freedom and options to the person paying for the internet. They're the owns paying, so they have the right to have this filter, and to make this decision. If some teenager gets pissed because his parents turned a filter on, then he's out of luck.

It's an optional feature that ISPs are implementing. It gives freedom, choice, and more utility to the owner of the ISP.

Tell me again how this is bad?

Oh please Thomas, if I have to explain sarcasm to you…
I was just saying that your proposal to use age restrictions on google wasnt the most effective thing in the world.
@ explosive lasers
Couldn't agree with you more. If people honestly think that talking to your kids will keep them from watching porn, they are crazy. Hormones won't permit a pornless adolescence. Also, parents not knowing how to block porn on your computer, iPhone, iPad, PSP, smart phone, PS3, etc. isn't, in my opinion, them failing as parents.

Yeaaahhh, not in this kind of case.

Automatically adding a porn filter does not increase ones "options", for they already have the option to go get one. It makes the option of using a filter more convenient, and the option not to use one less convenient. In other words its pushing an anti-porn agenda, which is a waste of time. People will find a way to access to porn. ISPs do not have to cater to people's prudery, they can allow what they want within the realm of legality.