UK to have "opt out" Porn filters

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076

David Cameron has persuaded the four biggest ISP's in the UK to move to "opt out" filters for pornography rather than "opt in" ones.

Worth pointing out - he said he'd do this in 2007, so this is a Minister following through on a pledge he made (shocking).

Aside from that, I can't help feeling that most people will "opt out" and that the only "losers" will be teenage boys and young men in rented accommodation who have to ask the landlord to "opt out".

I'm trying to muster some indignation about privacy and freedom of information - but I'm really struggling here. There's no new law, Cameron has basically convinced the ISP's this will look better for them than fighting the government.

An ancillery issue is a ban on owning "rape" pornography.

Obviously, most of the existing pornography will not be filtered out. There's a lot more to pornography than Brazzers and Naughty America. Most people don't look up porn by googling "porn".

What a waste of time.

THIS IS WHY YOU NEED FIREARMS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Obviously, most of the existing pornography will not be filtered out. There's a lot more to pornography than Brazzers and Naughty America. Most people don't look up porn by googling "porn".

What a waste of time.

---

Or it goes the other way - and BBC iPlayer gets filtered out when it runs Basic Instinct.

I'm not convinced this isn't just publicity, so that the government makes everyone aware of the filters, and then walks back and makes them "opt in" at the last minute.

IT'S HAPPENING!

Quote:

---

Or it goes the other way - and BBC iPlayer gets filtered out when it runs Basic Instinct.

---

Or Moonlight Kingdom. :eyebrows:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Or it goes the other way - and BBC iPlayer gets filtered out when it runs Basic Instinct.

---

Urgh... It is basically boiling down to this.

Many governments are scrambling to gain control of the internet after the Arab Spring. It's (in my opinion) an excuse to place control of the internet into government hands, should such an event happen here (not that it would).

Pornography is just the excuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

An ancillery issue is a ban on owning "rape" pornography.

---

Which is a de-facto ban on Japanese pron. :bounce:

How could this happen in a supposedly First World nation? It would seem more appropriate in a Third World Middle Eastern dictatorship.

I support the ban on porn because it will clearly reduce the occurrences of drug addiction, child abuse and human trafficking. Pre-internet era studies prove this

Now if only the UK would ban fat people we might solve the World Death Crisis once and for all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

How could this happen in a supposedly First World nation? It would seem more appropriate in a Third World Middle Eastern dictatorship.

---

Well, I guess that multiculturalism policy seems to be working.....

From my warm sweaty hands

The outrage here should be on the idiotic waste of time and money.

Every single porn filter ever created will fail spectacularly. Why? Because no person on earth is smarter than the collective sex drive of all the teenage boys of a given country.

Boys will have their porn, no matter what Cameron thinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Urgh... It is basically boiling down to this.

Many governments are scrambling to gain control of the internet after the Arab Spring. It's (in my opinion) an excuse to place control of the internet into government hands, should such an event happen here (not that it would).

Pornography is just the excuse.

---

Call me a conspiracy theorists if you must, but those thoughts crossed my mind as well.

Under the guise of protecting the youth against the evil pornography, they try to control the internet.

I hope some smart kid manages to hack David Camerons' personal website and places porn on it.

Quote:

---

Alex Deane, the Head of Public Affairs at Weber Shandwick, looked red in the face on yesterday’s #SkyPapers when he criticised David Cameron and Claire Perry’s plans to block pornography in households unless there is an opt-in submission to have access.

He was of course right: if we are genuinely concerned about the problems that pornography is causing young people then it is a family issue to control – not a role for the state to police.

But that’s irrelevant, because using the moral argument can only get you so far in our sorry state of contemporary British Politics. What is not irrelevant is that this policy announcement does not have a hope in hell of being successful.

If you’re slightly savvy with a computer you would have heard about web proxies. A proxy server is an invisible filter that acts as an intermediary between a user’s computer and the Internet so that the individual or business can ensure security, administrative control, and caching service – or anonymity.


With a few clicks on a search engine, you can use a proxy which is based in the Cayman Islands, India, or Japan to search for anything with a hidden IP address. And, to put it bluntly, there is nothing the government can do to stop you from accessing any site you wish – including pornography.

To see how hard it is to block off the internet, we need to look across to the UAE, where restrictions are put in place on pornography and gambling. I worked as a Journalist in Bahrain last year, and from my time spent in the UAE, I know from first hand experience that many people living there use proxies to play online poker, for example. States are trying, but are failing, to block off the web.

Christina Patterson, Alex Deane’s ‘opponent’ on Sky Papers, argued that only a minority of people will know about proxies, and therefore the government’s plan would work. She was in a sense correct: Britain has taken quite a liberal approach to internet freedom, and as such, users have no reason to use a proxy as the vast majority of the internet is free to see. So of course, to begin with, only a minority will be aware of blocked website bypassing techniques – but that will soon change when the state realises that all men watch porn. Even so, when it comes to the children – the very people who this policy is supposed to protect – how long do we think it will be before one computer savvy kid in each school finds out how to use a proxy, and then the entire school knows? It really is not very difficult to do.

A recent example in music pirating shows how easy it is: Earlier this year, the High Court declared that internet blocks were to be put in place on KickassTorrents, Fenopy and H33T – due to illegal music sharing. What is interesting is that traffic on those websites did not drop massively even with the blocks in place.

Companies such as BT, Sky, Virgin Media, O2, EE, and TalkTalk were told by the court to block subscriber access to KickassTorrents, Fenopy and H33T, and when they did so, users immediately searched for alternative methods to enter these websites. One notable example was the sudden surge in people searching for “KickassTorrents proxy” through Google, which will supply you with a wealth of proxies through which you can access the website. And an even more extreme example is that of PirateBay, which saw its traffic increase after blocks were put in place.

Methods have been introduced by governments to remove proxy servers across the internet – for obvious reasons. So if you are having trouble accessing KickassTorrents, or whatever it may be, you can use come.in, which is a website dedicated to providing the latest and most up to date proxy servers to these sorts of websites.

It is naïve that the government believes it can regulate the internet; it is far too open to ever be curtailed. A fantastic example which proves this is the black market economy, of which the notorious Silk Road website is a major player. Silk Road is essentially an underground Ebay website – but you cannot access it via Google, and the government seemingly cannot do anything about it either.


Silk Road lets users purchase drugs of almost any source – even heroin – anonymously. The company produced $22 million in sales in 2012. These transactions are performed using Bitcoin and sellers are given a recommendation rating like they might receive on Ebay. You can have MDMA sent to your house – and it is practically impossible to stop.

Examples like these highlight the flawed agenda of the government. Cameron and Perry’s plans to regulate households is not a role for the government, it is immoral that the state should assume the role of the parent in a family environment, but what’s more is that this policy will fall flat on its face. It cannot work. It is completely redundant and will damage the government’s credibility as a lawmaker when it inevitably fails – and the tech generation knows it too.

---

http://thebackbencher.co.uk/the-gove...ch-generation/

That is all.

There was a similar blacklist setup in Aus. Except legit businesses were being added and not notified and a school kid showed how to bypass the filter pretty before any of the ISPs implemented it... Most of them refused and the most vocal opponents have only got more business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

How could this happen in a supposedly First World nation? It would seem more appropriate in a Third World Middle Eastern dictatorship.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Well, I guess that multiculturalism policy seems to be working.....

---

This is the UK we're talking about. Everything is done thinking of the children and moral outrage is a national past time.

It's also the precursor to the USA. Now you understand where your conservatives get their ideas from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Call me a conspiracy theorists if you must, but those thoughts crossed my mind as well.

---

It's power landgrab alright, but I don't doubt that it was done purely and solely to stop the "evils" out there. Unfortunately your or my idea of the "evils" out there is somewhat more limited than what conservatives can conceive of.

Quote:

---

I hope some smart kid manages to hack David Camerons' personal website and places porn on it.

---

I hope not. Remember it is the UK we're talking about, knickers in twists is the least of your worries. Next thing you know there will be draconian laws passed banning the use of the Internet by teenagers with more wherewithal than a lobotomised lobster entirely.

The british government has one of the largest porn collections itself given that GCHQ stores all incoming traffic for three months.
Maybe they want to save on hard disk drives.

Either way I'm looking forward to official statistics about where Britain's porn capitals are based on the opt-outs.

I find the idea of a list of 'abhorrent search terms' to be the most worrying aspect of this

Politician announces politically correct moralistic PR campaign.
‪#‎truthfulreporting‬

I am very happy with this development. I don't doubt that as a policy it will be limited in its effectiveness - the most important thing for me is the recognition that internet porn is damaging and that it is having a corrupting influence upon younger generations.

Lads mags have to be concealed in supermarket isles to prevent children picking them up. If parents left pornographic material lying around in their house, social work would take issue with that, and few would contest that it would be right to do so. I do not see why things should be any different with the internet.

The 'moral' argument, that regulation ought to be left to parents, has itself clearly failed and for obvious reasons. Parents often just aren't as up to date with what goes on, never mind how to control it. The first time I seen porn was when I was maybe 10 or so when I would get pop-ups on the computer while doing homework (never the full act IIRC, just nudity etc). I expect this is true of a lot of the current generation. I thought it was cool at the time, but I don't think its good for you and kids should not be seeing that sort of stuff.

I find the notion that this is somehow a step towards tyranny to be hilarious. This measure does not require any innovations that the government could use for more nefarious purposes. And the only precedent it sets is that the government may play some role in protecting children from outright offensive material - a precedent that was set a long time ago, and would I think be accepted by any sane person as an entirely appropriate role for a government to play. It does not in any way set a precedent for the government to censor political or other sorts of material.

As for the comments about this being more befitting of a Third World Dictatorship, it is worth noting that in Iceland there is a serious discussion on whether or not internet porn should be banned entirely. I think it is no coincidence that this discussion is taking place in one of the most secular, liberal nations on the planet. When you remove the partisan narrative of religious moralism or tyrannical governments, I think people tend to recognise that porn is inherently damaging to society, since it both reflects and perpetrates its ills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

The 'moral' argument, that regulation ought to be left to parents, has itself clearly failed and for obvious reasons. Parents often just aren't as up to date with what goes on, never mind how to control it. The first time I seen porn was when I was maybe 10 or so when I would get pop-ups on the computer while doing homework (never the full act IIRC, just nudity etc). I expect this is true of a lot of the current generation. I thought it was cool at the time, but I don't think its good for you and kids should not be seeing that sort of stuff.

---

I do not accept to be limited in my choices or somehow "deputized" in the raising of other people's children.
I do not want to raise a child, and because of that I didn´t make one...... therefore other people's children shouldn´t affect my life.
if the parents can´t control their child's internet usage, then don´t give them a computer, cellphone etc, or get educated on it....but once again, not my problem.

Wrong on almost every point, Rhy.

Most substantially: Porn is only damaging to society as a function of its effect on individual neurophysiology, an effect which is difficult to differentiate from Internet usage in general.

While there are certainly people out there who think the Internet as a whole should be brought down or curtailed due to its neurophysiological impact, even the utter and everlasting removal of pornography from the Internet (through magical means, say) would do precious little to mitigate the damage of the Internet itself.

Alcohol and coffee carry health risks. They also carry health benefits. It's always a trade-off. IMO the Internet, despite its ills, is too valuable to dismantle unless we are prepared to return entirely to a Neolithic (or even more 'primitive') lifestyle. And even porn alone, it seems, is not empty of value. It can be implicated as a contributing factor in the decline of sexual and violent crime across the Western hemisphere over the past two decades.

Same old moralism, Rhy - and it doesn't hold up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

How could this happen in a supposedly First World nation? It would seem more appropriate in a Third World Middle Eastern dictatorship.

---

It was going to happen in Australia too but there was enough public outcry that it was eventually cancelled. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens in this case.

EDIT: Also, assuming Labour oppose it (though surely some would cross the floor to support this), and assuming the Lib Dems aren't once again going to commit political suicide by supporting this (which they probably will, but for the sake of argument let's say they won't)... how will this even pass? This would be a huge thing to propose without a really confident Whip count.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Wrong on almost every point, Rhy.

---

Nonsense, the vast majority of them are just plainly stated facts. If I may go through them one by one, maybe you could tell me which ones you contest? Would it be:

1. That measures are taken in public places to protect children from pornographic material (eg having to cover lads mags and place them on the top shelf)?
2. That parents overwhelmingly fail to protect their children from porn, and that for most children, they are first exposed to it online?
3. That censorship has always existed in some form even in our modern liberal democracies, without leading to tyranny?
4. That the country seriously debating banning all porn completely, Iceland, is in fact not a Third World dictatorship but rather a very secular, liberal demoracy?

So, no, I don't believe I am wrong on any of my points. Although I do see a very lazy complacency on the part of the opposition. But anyway, to address the point that you actually discussed rather than just declaring to be wrong...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Most substantially: Porn is only damaging to society as a function of its effect on individual neurophysiology, an effect which is difficult to differentiate from Internet usage in general.

While there are certainly people out there who think the Internet as a whole should be brought down or curtailed due to its neurophysiological impact, even the utter and everlasting removal of pornography from the Internet (through magical means, say) would do precious little to mitigate the damage of the Internet itself.

Alcohol and coffee carry health risks. They also carry health benefits. It's always a trade-off. IMO the Internet, despite its ills, is too valuable to dismantle unless we are prepared to return entirely to a Neolithic (or even more 'primitive') lifestyle. And even porn alone, it seems, is not empty of value. It can be implicated as a contributing factor in the decline of sexual and violent crime across the Western hemisphere over the past two decades.

---

Firstly, I don't see how on earth this can be seen as "dismantling" the internet. You get a one-time choice when you get a subscription about whether or not you want to opt-out of basic parental guidance, a decision which I assume you can change if you wish. Not unlike how you can pick what you subscribe to with the TV.

Secondly, this policy is not concerned with the "neurophysiological impact" of the internet in general, its aims are no more that what they are stated to be - to allow households to have automatic filters in place to protect children from content that is inappropriate for them. And like I said the effectiveness of this law will of course be very limited - the point is the gesture.

And finally, any link between the rise of porn and a decline in sexual violence is, as you are no doubt well aware, highly tentative at best. And there are a whole host of factors that would better explain such trends. Eg progression of women in all sorts of social life whether it be politics or the workplace etc - a trend against which the world of porn stands in stark contrast. If anything, I think the evidence tends to indicate that there are links between porn and violent, and especially sexually violent, behaviour, although they are by no means conclusive. Going by a basic wiki link, at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Same old moralism, Rhy - and it doesn't hold up.

---

If not allowing instant and unchallenged access to pornographic material in the homes of children is regarded as moralism, then I will happily be charged with it, and hold that such moralism has its place in political policy.

I find it strange that I am seen as being the unpractical, idealistic one, when people come out with stuff like this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

I do not accept to be limited in my choices or somehow "deputized" in the raising of other people's children.
I do not want to raise a child, and because of that I didn´t make one...... therefore other people's children shouldn´t affect my life.
if the parents can´t control their child's internet usage, then don´t give them a computer, cellphone etc, or get educated on it....but once again, not my problem.

---

This is just libertarian idealism (in the context of this discussion, I would go as far as to say dangerous fanaticism), divorced from reality.

As Montmorency said there is always a trade-off. Because of the practical realities (and indeed, failures) of relying on parents to protect children from porn, this policy has been deemed necessary. Sure, parents could opt-in for filters rather than have porn-fans opt-out, but the reality is that it is just easier to do it the way we are doing it since most households will want them in place. Do you feel that you are being "limited in your choices" when you walk into a supermarket and the lads mags are on the top shelf behind a plain covering? Are you being unfairly ""deputized" in the raising of other people's children" when this happens?

In short, your having to opt-in to receive porn is an acceptable trade-off for protecting children from being exposed to it.

Way I see it this will not do anything, the porn wont be going anywhere and access is but a google search away, filters or no. "Best" case scenario: a miniscule portion of technologicaly disabled kids will ends up finding about porn at age 13 instead of age 12.

Whether or not it happens is irrelevant to nigh all of us, the only concern worth noting is if our tax money will be wasted maintaining these filters.

Quote:

---

Nonsense, the vast majority of them are just plainly stated facts.

---

Well, I'll go by the original post.

Quote:

---

internet porn is damaging and that it is having a corrupting influence upon younger generations.

---

The substance of my previous post dealt with this.

Quote:

---

If parents left pornographic material lying around in their house, social work would take issue with that, and few would contest that it would be right to do so.

---

I was skimming anatomy books when I was 5. There's far more worrisome content in those than in most pornography, unless it's the snuff or torture kind. In fact, I expect that widespread exposure to pornography - as part of exposure to sexual realities more generally - would be extremely beneficial to young children, who don't tend to receive proper sex ed from their parents anyway. Proper sex ed would include treatment of pornography. Since you discount the neurophysiological effects for broader ones of 'social corruption', I will just mention that they closely mimic those of addictive syndromes, and reduce capacity for attention and impulse control. With that said, why do kids get into porn? Mostly, it's because their friends tell them about it, because there's a certain mystery to it, a sense of the forbidden. If children were familiarized with pornography at a young age, they would not be, uh, enthralled by it so easily. Being furthermore conditioned with extensive education on gender issues and sexual politics, they would be resistant to any putative pernicious effect that may stem from the nature of the content. And I'm not so sure that this even now is a significant effect. You mentioned

Quote:

---

a trend against which the world of porn stands in stark contrast.

---

I'm of the opinion that the character of pornography available today is almost entirely epiphenomenal, and so has almost no effect on society in itself - rather the reverse. The character of a country's or civilization's pornography merely reflects the underlying social mores. As for children, I can assure you that entertainment media, parents, and peers have a far more substantial impact on their understanding of gender issues than pornography does. We won't be seeing Jim Carrey starring in any films entitled "The Porn User", if you know what I mean...

Take Japanese pornography - clearly, the existing pornography is merely created by individuals steeped in a patriarchal and chauvinistic culture wherein women by expectation have no sexual agency, and for the very same sorts of individuals. Remember a few years back, when UN pressure got Japan to explicitly ban drawn child pornography? Even now, this sort of "hentai" continues to be produced, either secretly or under loopholes. Would you really conclude that this genre of porn was inducing pedophilia in developing young Japanese (boys), rather than that this was merely created to appeal to a culture overly infatuated with youthfulness in women? And after all, who could have less sexual agency than pre-adolescent minors, eh? Myself, I got into Japanese porn, both live and drawn, around age 13. It shaped quite a lot of my sexual appetite. Then, as I became more educated, I realized, 'Hey, this is pretty creepy', and dropped it around 17. Now of course I'm not so sensitive on those terms, but it still makes me vaguely uneasy to watch it - so I don't.

While American porn is a far cry from whatever goes on in Japan, to be sure you could find that most of it is perhaps regressive in content, or even outright demeaning or exploitative. Even softcore could be charged. However...

Quote:

---

it is worth noting that in Iceland there is a serious discussion on whether or not internet porn should be banned entirely. I think it is no coincidence that this discussion is taking place in one of the most secular, liberal nations on the planet.

---

It is indeed no surprise, considering that in Iceland organized feminism has reached a perigee. The problem is that organized feminism tends to think of pornography as a problem, and one that ought to be solved with bans. It's a very backward mindset, and unfortunately many of the same individuals would endorse banning racial slurs in a nugatory and perhaps even counter-productive attempt to reduce racism. In truth, since Iceland is apparently so sexually enlightened, they should be taking it upon themselves to improve pornography. They should be striving to become leaders in global directing and production of pornography, but now with more sensitivity toward women. They could be using pornography as a tool to advance women's rights, squeezing out whatever cultural impact pornography is capable of and directing it toward their own ends. Just how much less effective, though, is 'Don't do that, it's bad' than 'Don't do that, it's bad. Now here's how you do it'? Trying to ban pornography is definitely counterproductive, as could only be so when one attempts to destroy rather than innovate. I mean, have you seen all the aggressively sexist comments engendered throughout the Internet

Feminists need to realize that they must bend social phenomena to their cause, not merely attempt to suppress them. Suppression is something which organized feminism in the world simply does not have sufficient power, and attempts at it merely damage their own political and moral capital.

As with Panzer and his aggressively barbaric and self-interest harming ideology of international relations, anti-porn feminists must seriously reconsider their position: their goals, and their means. There's nothing I abhor more than complacent, self-defeating self-righteousness. It's just so annoying.

Quote:

---

And the only precedent it sets is that the government may play some role in protecting children from outright offensive material - a precedent that was set a long time ago, and would I think be accepted by any sane person as an entirely appropriate role for a government to play.

---

You probably won't be surprised to hear from me that I take this to be a rather jejune precedent and a poor use of the government's time and resources.

Quote:

---

I think people tend to recognise that porn is inherently damaging to society, since it both reflects and perpetrates its ills.

---

Yes, it is damaging, but only as an extension of the Internet, which as a whole surely is more damaging.

I would also contend that the majority of humans, male and female, are either ambivalent or positive toward pornography.

As I noted previously, pornography is almost entirely reflective and can really have very little impact with respect to perpetuation of anything.

Now, for your reply more properly.

Quote:

---

Firstly, I don't see how on earth this can be seen as "dismantling" the internet.

---

No, what I said is that Internet pornography has the aforementioned neurophysiological effects of Internet usage more generally, and so there's not much point in keeping one while declaring a fruitless war on the other - despite, as I mentioned, the small number of reactionaries who genuinely aspire to dismantle modern civilization, meaning no Internet, powered transportation, enhanced agricultural techniques, and however many other modern amenities you can think of.

Quote:

---

And like I said the effectiveness of this law will of course be very limited - the point is the gesture.

---

Gestures from states are an incredible waste of time and money unless they are used as tokens to pacify targeted demographics. To be honest, I don't think there are very many of your ilk in the UK, especially among the working class, and I also doubt that you or your ilk would cause extensive national turmoil and property damage through massive riots or whatnot, should the legislation fall through. So, uh, this is definitely just a waste of time and money.

Quote:

---

since most households will want them in place.

---

On what basis do you think so?

Quote:

---

And finally, any link between the rise of porn and a decline in sexual violence is, as you are no doubt well aware, highly tentative at best.

---

We're all just speculating here. Insofar as pornography increases sexual satiety and fantasy fulfilment, it decreases the impetus for many males to violate strangers, friends, and/or family.

I'll also speculate that FPS proliferation has lowered the incidence of violent crime among young males in the West, even as they have heightened aggressive impulses and so on.

There's always a trade-off, and I certainly do not see that the balance is very far into the negative, even as I see a potential for a modest positive net.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33-bACeB8C0

Can't wait until the hackers grab the opt-out lists and match them with Tory MPs' names.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Wrong on almost every point, Rhy.

Most substantially: Porn is only damaging to society as a function of its effect on individual neurophysiology, an effect which is difficult to differentiate from Internet usage in general.

---

The argument runs that the violent porn normalises abuse of women. 13 year old boys see a porn actress pretending to get thrown into a wall and then they do it to their girlfriend, or they force themselves on a girl because they think girls like that.

Having spent the last few daces pushing "no means no" we now have a generation exposed to exactly the opposite, and parents have entirely given up on sex education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Whether or not it happens is irrelevant to nigh all of us, the only concern worth noting is if our tax money will be wasted maintaining these filters.

---

I made this really big because it's wrong.

The "Big Four" ISP's have agreed to this, some smaller ISP's have refused.

Imagine the headlines if they hadn't, "BT Refuses Cameron Request to block Porn".

A few facts:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23403068


The basic point: we're moving to the ISP's enforcing the same standards as youtube.

Quote:

---

The argument runs that the violent porn normalises abuse of women.

---

Most porn is not violent, and anyway even non-violent pornography can be degrading to the actresses - or indeed the actors.

Quote:

---

violent porn normalises abuse of women.

---

Porn doesn't substantially normalize anything, because porn itself is merely a reflection of the norms in which the creators are steeped. Anyway, as I said boys do not get most of their cues from porn; they get them from their parents, their peers, and the entertainment media. If a boy grows up to think that corporal abuse is A-OK, then it's probably a result of his 200,000-hour upbringing and the culture in which he was immersed far more than the result of all 100 hours of questionable porno he ever watched.

And finally, if we do differentiate between "violent" porn, and degrading porn in general, well, why do you think that very many men people prefer to consume violent porn to all the rest? It's honestly not a very big niche. And why are you suddenly singling out violent porn if this legislation is supposed to pertain to porn in general?

Quote:

---

and parents have entirely given up on sex education.

---

The situation is far from optimal, but it certainly has improved. To think that it's worse now than it was in, say, the 50s is surely...

Quote:

---

Having spent the last few daces pushing "no means no" we now have a generation exposed to exactly the opposite

---

They are exposed to it far more readily in television and film. They should really be explicitly taught this in school. Come on, they already tell us to try not to hate people who are different than us, right?

Quote:

---

Imagine the headlines if they hadn't, "BT Refuses Cameron Request to block Porn".

---

You believe more than a tiny minority would have given it a second thought, let alone expressed outrage?

Quote:

---

we're moving to the ISP's enforcing the same standards as youtube.

---

Youtube allows no pornography at all, technically, under any circumstances. There is no opt-in to YouPorn, the porn side of Youtube.

I still think that

A. Familiarizing children with all things reproductive and genderific should commence from early childhood, and this includes the concept (and even examples) of pornography.

B. The feminists should appropriate pornography for themselves and "clean it up", so to speak. If many of them believe that pornography is not merely epiphenomenal of culture, then surely this is the best way to nullify its 'evils': to make it 'good'.

are good ideas. Do you have a rebuttal?

If porn is banned on the internet you are going to have a lot more pregnancies and STD's going around. You have millions of 16-24 year olds (men and women) who are more or less slaves to their sexual appetite. That's not me being judgmental, as I am part of that group, that's just biology. If I didn't have porn as a release I wouldn't be here spending my free time reading and sharing ideas on the org. I would be clubbing every single night or even worse, using my imagination to get the job done. Young people are gonna be sexual, and I think that only the most socially isolated actually believe that porn is anything like real life.

Basically, implementing a porn filter is one tenant of an abstinence-only policy. All you Europeans love to criticize the US, yet you have seemed to over look the stupidity of American sex education in many places.

I think it also depends on the society. I think in the Catholic, socially backwards Asian island where I am currently visiting, legalizing porn and removing the filters could possibly have a damaging effect on society. The rape rate here is very high, the incest/child abuse rate among locals is out of control, alcoholism in an epidemic and people here are generally very uneducated about sex as the schools teach NOTHING and expect parents to do it all.... ya know, those alcoholic parents with 8 children.

But rolling back the clock in a place like the UK would just be silly

This is all about normalizing government censorship of the internet.

The whole porn issue is invented as a means to get the government's foot in the door in terms of beginning censorship with the support of righteous moralists who think it right all of society be forced into something to allegedly protect "the children".

Governments and bureaucrats, once granted an immense power - internet censorship - have never and will never simply stop at the initial extent of the law. They will always push for more power, more control, and more censorship (in this case) of things they deem bad. After all, if censorship of one thing is good, then surely they are other things they can censor for "the greater good".

I mean, look at the growth of the US security state for crying out loud.

CR

“All you Europeans love to criticize the US, yet you have seemed to over look the stupidity of American sex education in many places.” If we could pick ideas only for sex education! :shame:
I was wondering how this Puritans 19th Century Government would try to ban sex, after Alcohol and Cigarettes. Job done!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Basically, implementing a porn filter is one tenant of an abstinence-only policy. All you Europeans love to criticize the US, yet you have seemed to over look the stupidity of American sex education in many places.

---

Eh, Europeans?
This is happening in Britain, the only European country that's 60% European, 40% American and believes itself to be 100% unique island.

Our legalized and not regulated (thus self-regulating) prostitution is apparently not something people want to praise either, supposedly it breeds forced prostitution and human trafficking. Why would the porn industry be any different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

This is all about normalizing government censorship of the internet.

The whole porn issue is invented as a means to get the government's foot in the door in terms of beginning censorship with the support of righteous moralists who think it right all of society be forced into something to allegedly protect "the children".

Governments and bureaucrats, once granted an immense power - internet censorship - have never and will never simply stop at the initial extent of the law. They will always push for more power, more control, and more censorship (in this case) of things they deem bad. After all, if censorship of one thing is good, then surely they are other things they can censor for "the greater good".

I mean, look at the growth of the US security state for crying out loud.

CR

---

And yet - the government is not imposing these filters - not making a change to the law.

The only proposed change to the law is to make "rape porn" illegal.

As far as government "pushing for more". Like everything else - this is the fault of the electorate. The people cry "do something" and that requires passing new laws.

Claire Perry, who suggested this imbecilic idea, has made a bit of a chump of herself. Total ignoramus of how computers and the internet function. Moreover, these people make our laws and they don't know how things work.

Another case of politicians being the problem not the solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

And yet - the government is not imposing these filters - not making a change to the law.

---

They aren't pressuring ISPs into compliance? Whether through the legislature or not, the government is the force behind this. The ISPs didn't think this up on their own.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

They aren't pressuring ISPs into compliance? Whether through the legislature or not, the government is the force behind this. The ISPs didn't think this up on their own.

CR

---

Smaller ISP's have refused to do it - such pressure as has been applied has been of the PR variety. If the Big Four ISP's had refused they would have struggled to spin it as anything other than "neglecting the children". That would have left a gap for the mid-size ISP's to market themselves as "family friendly" and steal market share.

Basically - this measure is in line with the public mood.

It's also important to understand that these filters are already in place, all that is happening is that the default is being set to "on" like on websites like YouTube.

In this case - the government is not the force behind this, they are riding the wave of public feeling. This debate about access to pornography has been going this way for at least half a decade - which is about how long the talking heads have been demanding action. As action goes this is very restrained - no new laws - just ISP's being persuaded to bow to public pressure.

And once again government time and effort is wasted on futile efforts to tame the untameable. As I said earlier; the only real concern here is how much money was wasted, and fortunately all signs point to zero. There's a bright side to porn filter though: the impression given is that the government is smart enough to take the easy way out; making half measures to appease the moral guardians without annoying anyone else much. Just enough to appear to be doing something but not enough to change the status quo for the worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

This is all about normalizing government censorship of the internet.

The whole porn issue is invented as a means to get the government's foot in the door in terms of beginning censorship with the support of righteous moralists who think it right all of society be forced into something to allegedly protect "the children".

Governments and bureaucrats, once granted an immense power - internet censorship - have never and will never simply stop at the initial extent of the law. They will always push for more power, more control, and more censorship (in this case) of things they deem bad. After all, if censorship of one thing is good, then surely they are other things they can censor for "the greater good".

I mean, look at the growth of the US security state for crying out loud.

CR

---

+1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

I was wondering how this Puritans 19th Century Government would try to ban sex, after Alcohol and Cigarettes. Job done!

---

I doubt labour would have done much different... It's based on harnessing the emissions from morale outrage, bottling it and using it to win elections and at the time see how far the boundaries can be pushed with regard to censorship. Nothing new there.

It won't work of course, because people can use tor or other proxies, and of course they know that anyway, which is why this is tokenism at best. It's there to appease a certain type of tabloid reader and whether it works or not, there are people out there who are stupid enough to appreciate it.

Of course the answer to parents is simple: take some fecking responsibility. It's the same as letting your kid go and play on the railway lines or walk the streets at 2am - the ultimate responsibility lies with the parent to ensure that they know where they are and what they're doing. This kind of censorship simply perpetuates the culture of "it's up to the state to protect us from ourselves"...

Right to porn should be in the constitution.

You may take our lives but you can never take our porn!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asai

Of course the answer to parents is simple: take some fecking responsibility. It's the same as letting your kid go and play on the railway lines or walk the streets at 2am - the ultimate responsibility lies with the parent to ensure that they know where they are and what they're doing. This kind of censorship simply perpetuates the culture of "it's up to the state to protect us from ourselves"...

---

This is the answer to most of the world's problems.

@Montmorency: I'll give you a proper reply soon!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

This is all about normalizing government censorship of the internet.

The whole porn issue is invented as a means to get the government's foot in the door in terms of beginning censorship with the support of righteous moralists who think it right all of society be forced into something to allegedly protect "the children".

Governments and bureaucrats, once granted an immense power - internet censorship - have never and will never simply stop at the initial extent of the law. They will always push for more power, more control, and more censorship (in this case) of things they deem bad. After all, if censorship of one thing is good, then surely they are other things they can censor for "the greater good".

I mean, look at the growth of the US security state for crying out loud.

CR

---

A few points of order...

1. State regulation of the internet is already normalized. It has to be, for example to ban things like abusive porn, animal abuse etc. Or do you think these things should be free and legal?
2. The state already has vastly more invasive laws and regulations in place when it comes to the internet. Unlike the 'war on terror', this adds no new powers, and is actually an example of the state using its given-powers appropriately.
3. While the slippery slope argument of increasing state regulation is a valid one, I think we can all agree that regulation is something to be tamed and minimized, not stamped out completely.
4. The UK is not the USA. The UK has a long history of moderate and limited government, and this seems to be the best protection against tyranny, as the experiences of the more radically liberal/secular/republican USA and France are testimony to. This dogmatic libertarianism (as demonstrated by InsaneApache IMO) that seems to have been imported from the US in the past few years through shared culture/the internet is a foreign and unwelcome innovation, and dangerous to British democracy.

Honestly, I find the general response in this thread to be bizarre. We live in such an artificial world, where the entirely of human life is completely subjected to a whole host of norms and restraints; from the hierarchical to the grassroots to the collective; from the government to the legal system to the corporation; from our social life to our work life to our private life - a thousand factors all mesh and strengthen and accelerate each other, limiting human life more and more till all social relations, all life is shaped entirely by some sort of Leviathan; at once intangible yet all too visible, simultaneously everywhere and nowhere, abstract yet real.

But instead of worrying about that people cry out:

"But no, all that's of no concern! The great tyranny is not having porn automatically accessible in every household with a computer! And what a tyrannical government it is that asks us if we choose to access it or not! We're living in 1984"!

1984... yes, you know what, it is 1984 indeed. Because the whole of humanity can live under such a malicious behemoth, and be so blinded to the superstructure around them, that they deem policies like this to be the most tyrannical and oppressive imaginable. And so they happily consume their opiates and wallow in some sort of outrage/paranoia-based collective stupidity, while their elected government panders to another corporation, another entrepreneur is forced into wage labour, minorities are incarcerated en masse, and the like. Ye blind guides, which straw at a gnat, and swallow a camel!

I hate tyranny as much as anybody in this thread. Ever since Lemur posted that thread with the Brazil song, it keeps popping into my head while I enclose the 1,000th envelope for the day, when I enter number 5,000 onto the database, when I send out that standard response for the 500th time that week. And I do all that not even for a wage, but just the hope that someone might see fit to grant me one, being left destitute of any other means of sustaining myself.

We have tyranny all right, but this opt out system is not it. I have to say, its a strange tyranny that lets you choose whether to opt-in to it or not. Start worrying about the one you are born into whether you like it or not.

Quote:

---

1984... yes, you know what, it is 1984 indeed. Because the whole of humanity can live under such a malicious behemoth, and be so blinded to the superstructure around them, that they deem policies like this to be the most tyrannical and oppressive imaginable. And so they happily consume their opiates and wallow in some sort of outrage/paranoia-based collective stupidity, while their elected government panders to another corporation, another entrepreneur is forced into wage labour, minorities are incarcerated en masse, and the like. Ye blind guides, which straw at a gnat, and swallow a camel!

---

Red herring. Because there are other problems, we should ignore this one?

Quote:

---

We have tyranny all right, but this opt out system is not it.

---

Strawman. I don't see many calling the policy tyrannical in itself.

Quote:

---

While the slippery slope argument of increasing state regulation is a valid one

---

I don't get the sense from their posts that it's regulation in general they're worried about, but censorship in particular.

But fundamentally, aside from the libertarianism of some here, the deal is that we simply don't find your moral strictures congenial.

Quote:

---

is actually an example of the state using its given-powers appropriately.

---

And so, we can by no means agree with this.

I put shortly. How do I make Christian landlord go to the ISP, most likely using the phone, and ask them to turn off Porn-Filters so I can access sites which may possess such things (like the Babe Thread) but their content is unrelated (Like Total War) just so I can view the (Total War) aspects ?

That is why the censorship makes a big difference, especially with the growing numbers in rented accommodation or not having access to the primary means of internet access (so like a university dorm).

Also, I know from public-sector internet, the filters are really restrictive. Facebook, Twitter, Forums, Blogs and Social Communication websites are generally banned. Only things you can actually access are the likes of wikipedia-only. Quite a number of the 'Opt-Out' filters include these.

******************************************reply to 2nd last post************************************************8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Well, I'll go by the original post.

The substance of my previous post dealt with this [that porn is socially damaging].

---

I wouldn't say that you dealt with it as such. You offered a contrary opinion, you didn't debunk my own, and so I think it is fair for it to play a part in my argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I was skimming anatomy books when I was 5. There's far more worrisome content in those than in most pornography, unless it's the snuff or torture kind. In fact, I expect that widespread exposure to pornography - as part of exposure to sexual realities more generally - would be extremely beneficial to young children, who don't tend to receive proper sex ed from their parents anyway. Proper sex ed would include treatment of pornography. Since you discount the neurophysiological effects for broader ones of 'social corruption', I will just mention that they closely mimic those of addictive syndromes, and reduce capacity for attention and impulse control. With that said, why do kids get into porn? Mostly, it's because their friends tell them about it, because there's a certain mystery to it, a sense of the forbidden. If children were familiarized with pornography at a young age, they would not be, uh, enthralled by it so easily. Being furthermore conditioned with extensive education on gender issues and sexual politics, they would be resistant to any putative pernicious effect that may stem from the nature of the content. And I'm not so sure that this even now is a significant effect.

---

Well if the content of these anatomy books is worse than porn, I doubt it is good for kids to see them either. You say you were exposed to them from age 5, and later you admit you had an unhealthy relationship with pornographic material during your teenage years. Maybe this should challenge your notion that early exposure leads to a healthier outlook on sex.

Don't get me wrong, like you say there's a whole host of reasons that lead kids into pornography as they get a bit older. I wouldn't mean to suggest that the curiosity is unnatural. Of course education on whole sorts of aspects of sex and relationships is helpful. But I don't think exposure to the world of online porn is a part of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I'm of the opinion that the character of pornography available today is almost entirely epiphenomenal, and so has almost no effect on society in itself - rather the reverse. The character of a country's or civilization's pornography merely reflects the underlying social mores. As for children, I can assure you that entertainment media, parents, and peers have a far more substantial impact on their understanding of gender issues than pornography does. We won't be seeing Jim Carrey starring in any films entitled "The Porn User", if you know what I mean...

Take Japanese pornography - clearly, the existing pornography is merely created by individuals steeped in a patriarchal and chauvinistic culture wherein women by expectation have no sexual agency, and for the very same sorts of individuals. Remember a few years back, when UN pressure got Japan to explicitly ban drawn child pornography? Even now, this sort of "hentai" continues to be produced, either secretly or under loopholes. Would you really conclude that this genre of porn was inducing pedophilia in developing young Japanese (boys), rather than that this was merely created to appeal to a culture overly infatuated with youthfulness in women? And after all, who could have less sexual agency than pre-adolescent minors, eh? Myself, I got into Japanese porn, both live and drawn, around age 13. It shaped quite a lot of my sexual appetite. Then, as I became more educated, I realized, 'Hey, this is pretty creepy', and dropped it around 17. Now of course I'm not so sensitive on those terms, but it still makes me vaguely uneasy to watch it - so I don't.

While American porn is a far cry from whatever goes on in Japan, to be sure you could find that most of it is perhaps regressive in content, or even outright demeaning or exploitative. Even softcore could be charged.

---

Again, I don't contest that porn reflects the society it comes from. But as far as porn is an expression of that culture, then it naturally strengthens that same culture by manifesting its characteristics in another area of human life. Much as violence begets violence, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

It is indeed no surprise, considering that in Iceland organized feminism has reached a perigee. The problem is that organized feminism tends to think of pornography as a problem, and one that ought to be solved with bans. It's a very backward mindset, and unfortunately many of the same individuals would endorse banning racial slurs in a nugatory and perhaps even counter-productive attempt to reduce racism. In truth, since Iceland is apparently so sexually enlightened, they should be taking it upon themselves to improve pornography. They should be striving to become leaders in global directing and production of pornography, but now with more sensitivity toward women. They could be using pornography as a tool to advance women's rights, squeezing out whatever cultural impact pornography is capable of and directing it toward their own ends. Just how much less effective, though, is 'Don't do that, it's bad' than 'Don't do that, it's bad. Now here's how you do it'? Trying to ban pornography is definitely counterproductive, as could only be so when one attempts to destroy rather than innovate. I mean, have you seen all the aggressively sexist comments engendered throughout the Internet

Feminists need to realize that they must bend social phenomena to their cause, not merely attempt to suppress them. Suppression is something which organized feminism in the world simply does not have sufficient power, and attempts at it merely damage their own political and moral capital.

---

To be clear, I only mentioned Iceland to point out Panzer's incorrect assumption. I don't think we need to get into critiques of Iceland's feminism - my point was simply that regulation/bans on pornography is clearly not the preserve of the hardline religious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

You probably won't be surprised to hear from me that I take this to be a rather jejune precedent and a poor use of the government's time and resources.

---

No, but then its not like they were ever going to use them well anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Yes, it is damaging, but only as an extension of the Internet, which as a whole surely is more damaging.

I would also contend that the majority of humans, male and female, are either ambivalent or positive toward pornography.

As I noted previously, pornography is almost entirely reflective and can really have very little impact with respect to perpetuation of anything.

---

I don't see the problems of the internet in general as a reason to ignore the problems of pornography in particular. It is easier to single pornography out itself, since unlike the internet more generally, it is not an essential part of how the modern world functions. And anyway, the problems of the general internet are pretty vague and hard to address. With pornography, the aim is clear - take basic measures to protect children from being exposed to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

No, what I said is that Internet pornography has the aforementioned neurophysiological effects of Internet usage more generally, and so there's not much point in keeping one while declaring a fruitless war on the other - despite, as I mentioned, the small number of reactionaries who genuinely aspire to dismantle modern civilization, meaning no Internet, powered transportation, enhanced agricultural techniques, and however many other modern amenities you can think of.

---

Frankly I do often aspire to those latter things you listed, though I do not believe that it is out of reactionary sentiment. Anyway, like I said, pornography is far less essential to the modern world than the internet as a whole, and that distinction alone is I think sufficient grounds for me to dismiss the above argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Gestures from states are an incredible waste of time and money unless they are used as tokens to pacify targeted demographics. To be honest, I don't think there are very many of your ilk in the UK, especially among the working class, and I also doubt that you or your ilk would cause extensive national turmoil and property damage through massive riots or whatnot, should the legislation fall through. So, uh, this is definitely just a waste of time and money.

---

I doubt it will take much time or money to implement in the large scheme of things. If it protects children from being exposed to damaging things, its worth it IMO. Its hardly much hassle at all, is it really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

On what basis do you think so [that most people will want to opt-in for the filters]?

---

Well I'm not sure on that, but beyond those living alone, I think wives will tend to whip their husbands in line on this issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

We're all just speculating here. Insofar as pornography increases sexual satiety and fantasy fulfilment, it decreases the impetus for many males to violate strangers, friends, and/or family.

I'll also speculate that FPS proliferation has lowered the incidence of violent crime among young males in the West, even as they have heightened aggressive impulses and so on.

There's always a trade-off, and I certainly do not see that the balance is very far into the negative, even as I see a potential for a modest positive net.

---

Well I see the reverse. This reminds me of that Cracked article where it pointed out that punching stuff and lashing out when you are angry only actually makes you angrier in the long-term, and you only calm down in the short-term because you are physically tired. We are of course both just speculating here, but I suspect it may be the same with sex.

************************************************reply to last post***************************************************

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Red herring. Because there are other problems, we should ignore this one?

---

It's not a red herring, its a narrative that explains why they focus so much on minor things when there are bigger issues, as well as demonstrating their hypocrisy. Not unlike your own claim that there's no point talking the ills of porn without talking the broader ills of the internet in general.

Their very views on porn and the role of the government are forged by the same beast they claim to tame in protesting these measures. Hence they protest against tyranny by expressive their slavish nature towards it. Porn itself is a product of this age with all its exploitation, pervasiveness throughout society, and perversion of natural human relations. I believe if we were not corrupted so much by this world in general, we wouldn't even desire it.

Of course I know that you disagree with this narrative, but it is not a red herring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Strawman. I don't see many calling the policy tyrannical in itself.

---

They seem to regard it as the beginning of tyranny, part of a conspiracy on the government, where the true motives are indeed a drive at tyranny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I don't get the sense from their posts that it's regulation in general they're worried about, but censorship in particular.

---

I think you're just being nitpicky now. I wouldn't be wrong to say that CR does oppose regulation in a broader sense, although in the context of my post it is primarily about censorship as a form of regulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

But fundamentally, aside from the libertarianism of some here, the deal is that we simply don't find your moral strictures congenial.

And so, we can by no means agree with this [that this policy is appropriate use of government powers].

---

I think that (given overwhelming attitudes in society), the protection of children from porn comes less under the umbrella of "moral strictures" and more under child protection/basic decency/not frightening the horses.

I think we both agree that it is more appropriate for the government to be involved in the latter than the former there, we just disagree on what this topic comes under.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

I put shortly. How do I make Christian landlord go to the ISP, most likely using the phone, and ask them to turn off Porn-Filters so I can access sites which may possess such things (like the Babe Thread) but their content is unrelated (Like Total War) just so I can view the (Total War) aspects ?

---

Step 1:Google proxy server
Step 2:Use any you find to browse internet porn.
Step 3: ???
Step 4:Profit.

Quote:

---

Maybe this should challenge your notion that early exposure leads to a healthier outlook on sex.

---

Earlier exposure guided by parents. My parents would ignore the topic or discuss it jokingly, leaving me with a very childish impression of sexuality.

At age 11, while discussing the pompous behavior of a female classmate with another classmate, the second remarked, "She'll be sucking dicks in a few years anyway."

My response was, "EWWWWW why would she do that?!"

Half a year later, in the next grade, I was prompted to investigate porn sites after constantly hearing about them from a few of my raunchier classmates. I was at first disgusted to see genitalia, but of course I eventually returned - and returned again.

I began masturbating 9 months after this exposure. For the first year or so, I would persistently feel shame after masturbating, as though it were a betrayal of my childhood. Rather silly stuff, fed by a poisonous conception of the coddled and sheltered childhood.

Need I remind you:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

With that said, why do kids get into porn? Mostly, it's because their friends tell them about it, because there's a certain mystery to it, a sense of the forbidden. If children were familiarized with pornography at a young age, they would not be, uh, enthralled by it so easily.

---

It was my very ignorance that led to the 'problem', if we should call it that. And my parents, following adolescence, handled sexuality even more poorly. At first, my father yelled at me for using porn, called me a degenerated and so on. Later, he encouraged me to look at porn to "learn how it works" - to no surprise, I later discovered on his computer no evidence of porn use - and prodded me to "look at women", boasting about how he was already having sex at age 16.

Quote:

---

Again, I don't contest that porn reflects the society it comes from. But as far as porn is an expression of that culture, then it naturally strengthens that same culture by manifesting its characteristics in another area of human life. Much as violence begets violence

---

For some, surely yes. But the sort of people who look at pornography far in excess of the population average, I think, aren't really being 'taught' anything so much as reinforced in their preconceptions. For the rest, such a trivial pastime shouldn't be having very much impact. So my point is that yes, there is some feedback into the society, but really very little.

Quote:

---

its not like they were ever going to use them well anyway.

---

Libertarian fiend!

Quote:

---

It is easier to single pornography out itself

---

What we're saying is that not only is it impossible, the very attempt is counter-productive.

Quote:

---

Its hardly much hassle at all, is it really?

---

Again, we're saying that it's impossible and counterproductive.

If you really want to protect children, then educate them, just as I recommended earlier.

Quote:

---

I think wives will tend to whip their husbands in line on this issue.

---

Increasingly, couples are consuming pornography together to stimulate their sexual experiences. Hell, let's encourage that.

Quote:

---

Not unlike your own claim that there's no point talking the ills of porn without talking the broader ills of the internet in general.

---

The sense of that point is that the problems of one and the other are similar and difficult to individuate (neurophysiologically, as I mentioned), and anyway to bring down Internet porn you would really have to bring down the Internet as a whole.

Quote:

---

and perversion of natural human relations.

---

:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Hence they protest against tyranny by expressive their slavish nature towards it.

---

In principle, I agree with you.

I've posted this before:

Quote:

---

The bondage we are born into is the bondage we cannot see. Verily, freedom is little more than the ignorance of tyranny. Live long enough, and you will see: Men resent not the whip so much as the hand that wields it.

---

Quote:

---

protection of children from porn

---

Gah

Quote:

---

I think we both agree that it is more appropriate for the government to be involved in the latter than the former there

---

Children need more protection from their family and friends than anything.

**************************************
Oh, and while skimming this book I've decided to make a few comments:

1. From the 1950s on, sexual violence in cinema became commonplace. From that time also, porn became tamer in that respect as it became itself more common, and so available to a wider audience than previously. Basically, in the past two generations cinema has overall gotten more extreme in sexual violence and porn less so. So even with the latter, exposure to simulated sexual violence increased considerably. It is interesting to note, however, that in silent porn-films (of the silent-film era :P), more affection is displayed between partners than in the mainstream (i.e. big-name producer) porn productions of the past generation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p. 313

The move from the porn industry to mainstream cinema of the sexualisation of violence had begun,
with the consequence that acts of sexual violence had also been moved ‘from the sphere of solitary,
unadmitted fantasy into the domain of shared experience’

---

2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p. 324

Arguably, the biggest change which has taken place since the 1970s is the
colossal expansion in information technology – particularly the arrival of the
Internet, which has rendered campaigns and protests against pornographic
images in the public sphere almost meaningless, since the entire range from
soft to hard-core porn can now be delivered directly ‘to everyone’s desk’
(Walter 2010: 102). Put simply, the Internet has enabled a massive expansion in,
and normalisation of, the porn industry which in turn has, arguably, made the
biggest single contribution to the increasing sexualisation of popular culture
and wider social relationships. That sexualisation is both inspired and informed
by porn and can be understood as operating on a continuum around women’s
bodies from pubic waxes, bondage-inspired clothing and footwear, surgically
enhanced breasts and lips through to extreme forms of sexual violence:
Through the mainstreaming of pornography and the new acceptability of
the sex industry, through the modishness of lap and pole-dancing,
through the sexualisation of young girls, many young women are being
surrounded by a culture in which they are all body and only body. (Walter 2010: 125)

In turn, this ‘pornification of our culture’ is tolerated, indeed celebrated,
because it is being sold back to us as evidence that full equality between men
and women has finally been reached (Walter 2010: 117). Women have become
‘liberated’ to the point where they now have the freedom to explore ‘their
bodies more’ and ‘to concentrate on their sexual allure’ (Walter 2010: 103, 108).
The particular form this liberation has taken can, however, equally be
understood to reinforce existing inequalities within heteropatriarchy, because
what is being sexualised is the power relationship within which women are
subordinate, objectified and dehumanised. In short, the specific form this
hypersexualisation takes reinforces the dominant heteropatriarchal social order
by eroticising male power and female subordination.

---

I disagree with Brown & Walklate on two points:

*Pornification is not a genuine trend, in that the availability of pornography has only been tolerated or "celebrated" due to changing social norms which porn did not significantly influence; it is not the case that porn's availability has itself primarily contributed to a sexualized culture.
*Not all pornography shows, explicitly or implicitly, men taking the position of power over the females, unless one takes everything but the cowgirl position to be an expression of masculine domination. Think of how much pornography is solo: women pleasuring themselves. Less markedly, there is porn in which women seduce men, or even dominate them. But where they really fall through (elsewhere in the book) is to claim that pornography depicts women's suffering more than women's pleasure. This is not at all the case, as I mentioned in an earlier post. A far greater problem is surely that much porn is characterized by fake displays of pleasure by both parties, implicit chauvinism, and an overall emphasis on the male experience. Finally, we're still really speaking of the hardcore mainstream porn, which I believe by now has been overwhelmed by amateur porn. Perhaps someone should do a study of amateur porn to investigate the sexual habits and mores displayed therein? Certainly, these would be more generalizable to the population at large than mainstream porn, though admittedly most :daisy:ers don't film themselves and those that do might not be representative and so on and so forth...

I will own this much, though: 15 years of widespread pornography, or really just 5 if you think about it, is not enough time to draw conclusions. Only by the time the first porn-generation's children have children of their own will there be enough data and development of social trends to make serious generalizations about the possible social impacts of the Internet, Internet social media, Internet porn, video games, etc.

The way forward is to make porn more appetizing to feminist values and to convince the rest of the women that porn is for them too. These two are not necessarily identical goals.

Trivia:

*The majority of US porn users had yearly incomes above the US GDP per capita in 2006
*The majority of US porn users were middle aged or older in 2006
*In a survey of hundreds of college students, 93% of boys and 62% of girls said they were exposed to pornography before they turned 18. In the same survey, 83% of boys and 57% of girls said they had seen images of group sex online
*About 64-68% of young adult men and about 18% of women use porn at least once every week. Another 17% of men and another 30% of women use porn 1-2 times per month
*Two-thirds of college-age men and half of college-age women say viewing porn is an acceptable way to express one’s sexuality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

I put shortly. How do I make Christian landlord go to the ISP, most likely using the phone, and ask them to turn off Porn-Filters so I can access sites which may possess such things (like the Babe Thread) but their content is unrelated (Like Total War) just so I can view the (Total War) aspects ?

That is why the censorship makes a big difference, especially with the growing numbers in rented accommodation or not having access to the primary means of internet access (so like a university dorm).

Also, I know from public-sector internet, the filters are really restrictive. Facebook, Twitter, Forums, Blogs and Social Communication websites are generally banned. Only things you can actually access are the likes of wikipedia-only. Quite a number of the 'Opt-Out' filters include these.

---

You could get porn in my Dorm - they only got upset if what you were doing was illegal.

As regards the filters - you explain to the Christian landlord that you use the Org forum to argue about religion, but it has a place in another section where members place images of scantily clad women.

Really though, what you're saying is that previously you were taking advantage of the Landlord's ignorance to browse content he would have blocked had he known he could.

That argues in favour of Cameron's stance - lots of parents would like to be able to block pages, but aren't aware they can.

Lets be honest though - this isn't about the Org, this is about your need to refresh your porn collection when it becomes stale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Earlier exposure guided by parents. My parents would ignore the topic or discuss it jokingly, leaving me with a very childish impression of sexuality.

At age 11, while discussing the pompous behavior of a female classmate with another classmate, the second remarked, "She'll be sucking dicks in a few years anyway."

My response was, "EWWWWW why would she do that?!"

Half a year later, in the next grade, I was prompted to investigate porn sites after constantly hearing about them from a few of my raunchier classmates. I was at first disgusted to see genitalia, but of course I eventually returned - and returned again.

I began masturbating 9 months after this exposure. For the first year or so, I would persistently feel shame after masturbating, as though it were a betrayal of my childhood. Rather silly stuff, fed by a poisonous conception of the coddled and sheltered childhood.

---

Well, it is a tough topic looking into what is healthiest in these regards. Often, all we have is only anecdotal, or even our own personal experience. I was a bit of a late developer, living in my world of STW and Age of Empires, so I think sex ed classes flew over the top of my head. I honestly don't remember anything about them.

Obviously I get a lot of my view in this regard from my faith, but I do certainly think that we live in an overly-sexualised world, and that somehow it isn't good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

It was my very ignorance that led to the 'problem', if we should call it that. And my parents, following adolescence, handled sexuality even more poorly. At first, my father yelled at me for using porn, called me a degenerated and so on. Later, he encouraged me to look at porn to "learn how it works" - to no surprise, I later discovered on his computer no evidence of porn use - and prodded me to "look at women", boasting about how he was already having sex at age 16.

---

In my case, I consider it one of the greatest blessings God ever bestowed upon me that my parents never said a word on these matters. It confirmed me in the happy knowledge that God will never place on me more than I can bare.

I'll be honesty, I don't really know how to deal with this topic. I just think everything would be easier if it wasn't for this world and all its problems. Ideally, you be self-sufficient and marry young, figure it out together, and then there's no need for porn or casual sex.

Now I will get slated for being horrendously naïve. But not knowing what I want makes me no less confident in knowing what I don't want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

For some, surely yes. But the sort of people who look at pornography far in excess of the population average, I think, aren't really being 'taught' anything so much as reinforced in their preconceptions. For the rest, such a trivial pastime shouldn't be having very much impact. So my point is that yes, there is some feedback into the society, but really very little.

---

Maybe, but some things are very hard to measure. I think for example that being used to pornography must cheapen your real relationships, or at least some people will feel that way. And as Philipvs noted, the nature of existing porn does tend to create a 'no means yes' attitude, where women are just objects for gratification. I think this may be something inherent in the porn industry rather than it merely reflecting society. Just like films don't get audiences by portraying everyday life, I suppose porn gets attention from delving into more 'exciting' territory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

What we're saying is that not only is it impossible [to single out porn for filters and regulation], the very attempt is counter-productive.

Again, we're saying that it's impossible and counterproductive.

---

I think that this particular policy is to particular in its scope to prove counter-productive. It's not like it is going to drive porn underground - it just makes it harder for minors and maybe some adults to access it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

If you really want to protect children, then educate them, just as I recommended earlier.

---

Education is fine, but I still like this policy as a safety net to protect children from stumbling upon it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Increasingly, couples are consuming pornography together to stimulate their sexual experiences. Hell, let's encourage that.

---

Well you know I won't because that doesn't fit with my view on things. I'll grant it may be less damaging when used in this way, but I would still avoid it personally. But now this is just down to personal preferences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

The sense of that point is that the problems of one and the other are similar and difficult to individuate (neurophysiologically, as I mentioned), and anyway to bring down Internet porn you would really have to bring down the Internet as a whole.

---

Or change society. Little steps still count for something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

In principle, I agree with you.

---

That's nice, because people rarely agree with me on anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Gah [about me saying "protection of children from porn"]

---

Yeah, yeah, I know, you kind of lose if you talk about protecting the children, its almost like a mini-Godwin. But I maintain that it is a noble principle and one worth defending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Children need more protection from their family and friends than anything.

---

Indeed, and I wish I could change the world to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Oh, and while skimming...

---

Interesting stuff, and like you said, we can't study much since the 'porn generation' is still pretty young. While I understand your drive for 'better' porn, I still think that porn is inherently damaging. Not just in terms of the realities of the porn industry. I think sex should be something intimate - a private thing between you and your partner. That is what natural human sexual relations are. If you start adding porn and strange things it becomes something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I think sex should be something intimate - a private thing between you and your partner. That is what natural human sexual relations are. If you start adding porn and strange things it becomes something else.

---

Why do I agree with this so much, even though I am not religious at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Step 1:Google proxy server
Step 2:Use any you find to browse internet porn.
Step 3: ???
Step 4:Profit.

---

....or just do it like everyone else and torrent it.

Come on, who pays for porn??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Why do I agree with this so much, even though I am not religious at all?

---

I have no problems with fetishes, but I would like people(like you two) to keep them to yourselves and not force them on the rest of us.

We've all got our kinks, but they belong in the bedroom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

a private thing between you and your partner

---

I just recalled something: didn't cottage-dwellers back in the early modern period - to say nothing of the ancient period - fornicate with children in the vicinity pretty much all the time? Those domiciles, being small, of as little as one room, privacy not then what it is now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Why do I agree with this so much, even though I am not religious at all?

---

Well you know that better than anybody else can and I won't use your own feelings as a platform for my views, but I do think we all have to some degree a natural longing to have an intimate, monogamous relationship. Even when, in this present age of ideology and fanaticism, HoreTore would have that branded a fetish!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

You can't blame other stuff for personal moral failings. If it wasn't porn corrupting us, it would be sex scenes in TV, or in books, or whatever. It is a slippery slope of thought.

---

I would think of it less as sliding down a slippery slope, and more as taking positive steps. A while ago I increasingly found myself switching off the TV, or at least changing the channel, because I realised that I was just spoon-feeding myself complete bile.

At first I wondered at the Brethren assemblies I used to attend in Northern Ireland because most of their congregation would not own TV's or bother with modern media (over there they are kind of half-Amish). But I really now see why - I only ever accepted these things because I was used to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I just recalled something: didn't cottage-dwellers back in the early modern period - to say nothing of the ancient period - fornicate with children in the vicinity pretty much all the time? Those domiciles, being small, of as little as one room, privacy not then what it is now...

---

With children in the vicinity?

They used to do it with childrens bums as well, so I'm guessing having them around wasn't a big issue...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Well you know that better than anybody else can and I won't use your own feelings as a platform for my views, but I do think we all have to some degree a natural longing to have an intimate, monogamous relationship. Even when, in this present age of ideology and fanaticism, HoreTore would have that branded a fetish!

---

Of course it's a fetish. It makes sexual relations special for you, doesn't it? Things, situations or whatever that makes sex special for you is called a fetish.

It doesn't have to be all fecal matter and leather to be called a fetish, you know...

Going down Horetore's line, I'll admit it once and for all:

I get off at the thought of a man and a woman having missionary sex for the purpose of procreation, while the woman is ovulating. I have an impregnation fetish.

:shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I just recalled something: didn't cottage-dwellers back in the early modern period - to say nothing of the ancient period - fornicate with children in the vicinity pretty much all the time? Those domiciles, being small, of as little as one room, privacy not then what it is now...

---

Probably quietly, behind a curtain.

Even then - it we're talking about examples - the example of your parents getting it on is completely different to the example you get on a porn set, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Yeah, yeah, I know, you kind of lose if you talk about protecting the children, its almost like a mini-Godwin.

---

It's officially called a thought-terminating cliché.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Who is more responsible, or indeed more likely to develop habits of responsibility? Someone who recognizes what they don't approve of, and therefore doesn't partake? Or someone who has been prohibited from experiencing these things in the first place?

Personal responsibility is a very Christian concept, as is the idea of giving people a choice to be good or bad. What do you hope to achieve, morally or spiritually, by forcing your views on others who will almost certainly be resentful for it? It is counter-productive to your whole cause.

---

Yes, I was talking about myself voluntarily not partaking in these things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Of course it's a fetish. It makes sexual relations special for you, doesn't it? Things, situations or whatever that makes sex special for you is called a fetish.

It doesn't have to be all fecal matter and leather to be called a fetish, you know...

---

A fetish generally means an abnormal fixation/obsession, so normal sexual desires can hardly fall under that banner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I just recalled something: didn't cottage-dwellers back in the early modern period - to say nothing of the ancient period - fornicate with children in the vicinity pretty much all the time? Those domiciles, being small, of as little as one room, privacy not then what it is now...

---

I don't know tbh... it seems like a whole different matter from porn/voyeurism though, I suspect it was done subtly under the covers when the rest of the family was asleep at least.

Oh, and I very much liked your earlier quote that "The bondage we are born into is the bondage we cannot see. Verily, freedom is little more than the ignorance of tyranny. Live long enough, and you will see: Men resent not the whip so much as the hand that wields it." I might even sig that if that is OK (a quick Google suggests it is from an R. Scott Bakker)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fetishism

It's only a fetish is it's unusual and you specifically get your rocks off to it.

So - getting off on the thought that you'd made your partner pregnant would be a fetish if it's more fun for you/you're sexually disappointing if you think she isn't pregnant.

Ergo, just wanting to have sex is not a type of fetish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Going down Horetore's line, I'll admit it once and for all:

I get off at the thought of a man and a woman having missionary sex for the purpose of procreation, while the woman is ovulating. I have an impregnation fetish.

:shame:

---

Be careful what you wish for. Children are a massive joy but they need a lot of time and effort. With a teething 6 month old and no real sleep since she was born I'm much more grumpy than normal.

Quote:

---

Be careful what you wish for. Children are a massive joy but they need a lot of time and effort. With a teething 6 month old and no real sleep since she was born I'm much more grumpy than normal.

---

Obviously the (purely imaginary) fantasy concludes with the administration of a Plan-B pill. :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

....or just do it like everyone else and torrent it.

Come on, who pays for porn??

---

What part of my plan costs money?

Can I just point out - American Porn's quite expensive to make - they have all the problems of the "mainstream" movie business re pirating, and given the rate at which porn is produced, they probably work harder than non-porn actors.

It's not cool to cut into the profits of an important American export industry.

Hurts the world economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

I think it also depends on the society. I think in the Catholic, socially backwards Asian island where I am currently visiting, legalizing porn and removing the filters could possibly have a damaging effect on society. The rape rate here is very high, the incest/child abuse rate among locals is out of control, alcoholism in an epidemic and people here are generally very uneducated about sex as the schools teach NOTHING and expect parents to do it all.... ya know, those alcoholic parents with 8 children.

But rolling back the clock in a place like the UK would just be silly

---

So a country in which porn is illegal has all those problems regardless?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Smaller ISP's have refused to do it - such pressure as has been applied has been of the PR variety. If the Big Four ISP's had refused they would have struggled to spin it as anything other than "neglecting the children". That would have left a gap for the mid-size ISP's to market themselves as "family friendly" and steal market share.

Basically - this measure is in line with the public mood.

It's also important to understand that these filters are already in place, all that is happening is that the default is being set to "on" like on websites like YouTube.

In this case - the government is not the force behind this, they are riding the wave of public feeling. This debate about access to pornography has been going this way for at least half a decade - which is about how long the talking heads have been demanding action. As action goes this is very restrained - no new laws - just ISP's being persuaded to bow to public pressure.

---

I would argue that this is more dangerous than law making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Well you know that better than anybody else can and I won't use your own feelings as a platform for my views, but I do think we all have to some degree a natural longing to have an intimate, monogamous relationship. Even when, in this present age of ideology and fanaticism, HoreTore would have that branded a fetish!

---

I think one of the saddest things about modern Western culture is the lack of value on companionship. Plenty of cheating and back stabbing and casual sex, and even though it seems everyone gets hurts by it at least once, settling down is treated as this burden when you get older. Even the phrase 'settling down' is negative. I had a very fulfilling relationship when I was 18-21 years old and while my outlook on my single future is more optimistic everyday, I do not think that any number of random sexual encounters can compare to some moments I have already experienced.

But maybe I am just too young to understand, or maybe my testosterone levels are too low. Either way, I guess I will find out sooner or later as I adapt to this new lifestyle since I do not plan on having another relationship for a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

I would argue that this is more dangerous than law making.

---

People clamour for something - the government gives it to them.

There comes a point when you have to accept that the majority doesn't agree with the wisdom of the Org.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

People clamour for something - the government gives it to them.

There comes a point when you have to accept that the majority doesn't agree with the wisdom of the Org.

---

this must be a new form of "Majority" since in fact it was a Vocal MINORITY which were demanding this while the Majority couldn't care less and still don't...

Surely filters should be set by the adult consumer. Much like selecting a book be it Anne Rice or Mills and Boon surely it is the individuals choice. It shouldn't be the landlords anymore then your landlord should choose your spouse.

As for children. Porn isn't appropriate, but I haven't seen any teenage suicide reference porn. Exposed sexting sometimes. The biggest danger is bullying. If the parents are worried than monitor their kids Internet consumption just like checking out who they play with and what magazines they have stuffed under the bed or the bottom draw.

A censorship argument that starts with "think of the children" is very ironic given its censoring sex. Seven billion of us. That's a lot of semen. Think of it say a teaspoon each x seven billion that's 35 billion mL or 35 million liters or about 100 Olympic pools. That's a little too much to try and hide... and that's just the portion that fulfills Rhyfelwyrs fantasy.

So what is the fascination in filtering something adults should decide for themselves and parents should monitor there own kids in doing? Really a nanny state... But I'm sure that is a whole different fetish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Seven billion of us. That's a lot of semen. Think of it say a teaspoon each x seven billion that's 35 billion mL or 35 million liters or about 100 Olympic pools. That's a little too much to try and hide... and that's just the portion that fulfills Rhyfelwyrs fantasy.

---

....what?

EDIT: Oops silly me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So what is the fascination in filtering something adults should decide for themselves and parents should monitor there own kids in doing? Really a nanny state... But I'm sure that is a whole different fetish.

---

OK, so not giving children instant and automatic access to porn = nanny state?!

Truly, and age of ideologues, fantasists and fanatics.

Seven billion people are created by seven billion acts of procreation.

Both men and women require semen from their father to inseminate their mother.

=][=

Nanny state is when it removes adult choices and responsibilities from the adults to the state.

Adults should be choosing what they consume and be responsible for what their kids do as well. Adults in a household should put in place supervision, boundaries and conditions of use not renounce those responsibilities and give that to the state. The state should be focused on criminal misuse.

In short a nanny state is one that treats adults as children ie putting in filters that an adult should decide for themselves.

Quote:

---

Claire Perry, the member of parliament who led the campaign for an on-by-default porn filter in the UK, is being sued by a blogger after accusing him of “sponsoring” a hack on her website. The whole episode provides a fascinating insight into Perry’s technical knowledge.

Here’s what happened: a couple of days ago, someone hacked Perry’s website to display offensive images. Paul Staines, a right-wing political blogger who writes as “Guido Fawkes”, duly reported on the incident, complete with a screenshot of one of the more tame images displaying on Perry’s site. Perry took to Twitter to accuse Staines of “hosting a link that distributed porn via my website”; Staines replied that Perry was “confused by technology”; Perry didn’t back down, and repeated her reference to “the hacking of my website sponsored by @GuidoFawkes.”

(Click here to read the full, facepalm-worthy argument.)

Now, don’t forget that the UK has very strict libel laws. While Staines is usually on the defensive rather than offensive side of such issues, he polled his readers to see whether they thought he should sue. Eighty six percent said he should, so late on Wednesday Staines wrote that he was “reluctantly” instructing his lawyers.

If you’re reading this site, chances are you don’t need to be told that a screenshot of a hack does not equate to responsibility for said hack – in terms of determining cause and effect, it’s utterly back-to-front. But then again, Perry reacted to the news of her porn-blocking success by claiming it “represents a comprehensive and pragmatic approach to tackling the key issues which threaten the safety of our children online.” As I and many others have argued, the system won’t do what it’s meant to, and will probably lead to the unintended censorship of a wide range of online material.

Perry is, however, probably a bit more technically literate than Rhoda Grant, a member of the Scottish parliament. Grant recently asked why, if there is a watershed on TV – the 9pm break point before which adult material shouldn’t be shown, for fear of children seeing it – there can’t be one for the internet too.

The U.S. had Ted Stevens and his “series of tubes”; the United Kingdom has Perry and Grant. I think there’s a strong case for lawmakers being forced to undergo some basic training on how the internet works before they get any opportunity to try “fixing” things through new legislation.

---

http://paidcontent.org/2013/07/25/ar...ter-hack-spat/

Well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Surely filters should be set by the adult consumer. Much like selecting a book be it Anne Rice or Mills and Boon surely it is the individuals choice. It shouldn't be the landlords anymore then your landlord should choose your spouse.

---

Filters need to be set in the firmware or server level, not at the level of a program on top of the OS.

Come one - you can't set it at the level of the terminal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Filters need to be set in the firmware or server level, not at the level of a program on top of the OS.

Come one - you can't set it at the level of the terminal.

---

I don't think you understand how this series of tubes works either...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Filters need to be set in the firmware or server level, not at the level of a program on top of the OS.

Come one - you can't set it at the level of the terminal.

---

Actually most things that can be done by dedicated hardware can be done by software. For instance dialogic fax cards used to allow servers to fax at around $1000 a port (phone line). Now you can run a virtual server and software emulate those cards for a fraction of the price.

The filters can be applied anywhere in the system including layer 8. Just like having pop up blockers you can have local filters, you can also put them on your search engine. Some require you to signin to allow unfiltered browsing.

The advantage of some filters is that they will block the content before its sent. Disadvantage with some is that you blacklist legitimate sites but the sites aren't notified.

Even with all the filters in place I wouldn't bet good money against a bunch of 15 year olds to get around them. So I'd bet on parent-child communication, adult supervision and setting up boundaries.

Technology is great, but I would not assume its infalliable. It breaks all the time and I bet sometime one of those filters will get inverted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

I don't think you understand how this series of tubes works either...

---

Scarily - children (not teenagers) are developing the wherewithal to hack their PC's - hacking the router or the ISP's server is still (mostly) beyond them