Why David Cameron's war on internet porn doesn't make sense
guardian.co.uk
guardian.co.uk
Let me tell you where the real damage comes form... Parents and holier-than-though leaders traumatizing children by constantly telling them to be ashamed of their bodies and sexuality. Children aren't generally interested in porn. They see it, say "eeewww" and move on. There are no "effects" until the adult in the room freaks out.
The real thing that needs to be happening is an honest and frank discussion about sex and sexuality, which is a pretty tall ask in the UK as we're quite prudish in some respects. We'd rather legislate against smut then talk about it.
As to the affect that I alluded to. When children get their sex education from porn, you get teenage boys thinking that anal's the norm. This isn't just a theoretical, this is something I know teacher friends have had to deal with in school, getting approached for help by teenage girls having to cope with this kind of thing.
Also, I've no idea where you get the idea that children aren't interested in porn. Perhaps not when they're 7, but when they're 12 or 14 they definitely are.
I encourage you to give it a listen as it's an interesting program. To vastly simplify and summarise, the reporter's conclusion is the evidence to show it causes serious and direct harm is weak.
As nemof described, a lot of porn today is much more extreme than that, and could give teenagers a very skewed sense of "normal" sex. I'm not advocating filtering internet content, but I think it's at least worth discussing what effect this might be having on teenagers today, and not just dismissing it with "my [entirely different] situation was fine".
Sigh. Stop being hyperbolic. I said in my post that I am not advocating blocking them, but having a conversation about the effects they have.
So, to answer you, yes- I think we should talk to our teenagers about advertising and movies too. Thing is, we already often do that, but sexual stuff tends to be discussed a lot less.
No, but that doesn't mean all discussion and criticism goes out the window. When jeswin talks about porn not having any affect, that invites a discussion about porn.
I emerged unscathed though. I think the people most at-risk will either A. Not watch porn. or B. Get messed up by the rest of the media anyway.
I have 6 kids. My two daughters have suffered grooming attempts online. No one can stop grooming online. I would never filter. No point.
Camoron is pandering to the anti gay marriage lobby and the Daily Wail nut jobs, while distracting from his disastrous policies of austerity.
But we already have that in the form of installable software that blocks online smut. It baffles me that the government thinks they have a place to get involved here.
If the gov want a simple tick box opt in on the routers, I cant possibly see a problem with that.
Note: I am uber liberal on this. I would never tick the box. But I only speak for me, I understand the net and have my own views on porn etc. How ever, I dont seek to impose my liberal views on others. I simply want us all to have a reasonable choice, that we make our selves. I want "wet" parents to have their option, so that I can have mine. Their freedom to chose is as important as mine.
So what happened? Nothing. We still have basically the same levels of FCC censorship as we did before the v-chip. I think this fact speaks to the reason for the censorship in the first place - it is not about shielding the children of parents who want their children shielded. It is about restricting the access of everyone, imposing one group's morality on everyone.
I think you'll find that should the UK censorship system be created that it will only embolden the efforts of the pro-censorship crowd. They will be champing at the bit to switch it from opt-in to opt-out and maybe even further, like only time-limited opt-outs where you have to periodically re-affirm your wish to opt-out all for the kids sake of course.
I'm normally very far from a Libertarian but I get very hesitant whenever the government weighs in on issues of personal taste. They can't get it right by definition, because there is no consensus on what is "right". For example, see the debate over the ".xxx" domain name, which failed because no-one could agree on what belonged on there.
I know what you are saying. I was a kid once too. My mum stopped me doing all sorts of things. Apparently, that is parenting.
Also, you miss understand my point. I am not saying the government can say what should be allowed or not. I am saying there should be a base level filter that parent can use if wanted.
If the government start telling me, an adult, what I can and cannot see, I'd be very much against that. All I am saying is make it possible for parents to chose. As I said, I would chose to NOT filter.
If there had been any demand for this it would have at least.
Is there a version of Godwin's law that applies to declaring war on things? Something like "by declaring war on something that is not a country or other similar political enemy, the delcaree and his/her organization automatically loses said war?"
I don't think anyone is stupid enough to think this will work, not even that smug faced fop in downing street who somehow managed to luck his way into running my country.
So in reality, this is just a thinly veiled attempt to get people's names onto a list to be used against them at a later date.
I think we should brace ourselves for an avalanche of this Neo-Puritan fuckwittery.
Not to mention 99% of population can't be bothered or get their head around things like Tor. We are blinded by our hacker skills and constantly over-estimate the ability of the general population and under-estimate their unwillingness of learning technical things and their fear of technology.
Anyone vaguely intelligent enough to search 'hide connection' will be able to find out how to setup a VPN pretty damn quickly, thus rendering it moot. Unless using a VPN becomes an act of suspicion and puts you under monitoring, because surely you must have something to hide then. Next up, a war on curtains.
FFS, keep this idea quiet.
I am emailing to ask for some specific action which the prime minister plans to announce shortly. This follows a meeting yesterday at No 10 yesterday to discuss a range of child internet safety issues including parental controls and filters. The prime minister would like to make some further specific requests of industry and his office have asked us to ask you when you could deliver the following actions.
1. Implementing browser intercept
I understand that Talk Talk will be trialling a "browser intercept" to force existing customers to choose either to proceed with parental controls (pre-ticked), choose their own settings or turn them off completely. The prime minister wants to announce that by the end of the year, every household with a broadband internet connection will have had to make a decision to "opt-out" of installing filters. Will the other three ISPs consider making a commitment to adopting this approach - even before it has been trialled?
2. Age-verification systems/closed-loop
The prime minister expects customers to be required to prove their age/identity before any changes to the filters are made. I understand that you will all be implementing "closed-loop" systems which will notify account holders of any changes that are made to the filters and that you have robust systems in place but please could you all confirm the precise information that is required to enable customer to access, set-up and change their filters?
3. Awareness campaign for parents
I understand that it was agreed at Claire Perry's meeting a few weeks ago that Talk Talk, BT and others would undertake some further research to establish what the focus of the campaign should be. The prime minister would like to be able to announce a collective financial commitment from industry to fund this campaign. I know that it will be challenging for you to commit to an unknown campaign but please can you indicate what sum you will pledge to this work that the PM can announce.
4. Using the phrase "default-on" instead of "active-choice +"
The prime minister believes that there is much more that we can all do to improve how we communicate the current position on parental internet controls and that there is a need for a simplified message to reassure parents and the public more generally. Without changing what you will be offering (ie active-choice +), the prime minister would like to be able to refer to your solutions are "default-on" as people will have to make a choice not to have the filters (by unticking the box). Can you consider how to include this language (or similar) in the screens that begin the set-up process? For example, "this connection includes family-friendly filters as default [or as standard] - if you do not want to install this protection please un-tick the box" (obviously not intended to be drafting). Would you be able to commit to including "default-on" or similar language both in the set-up screen and public messaging?
We are all aware of the really excellent work that you are doing and but there are a number of specific areas that the prime minister thinks need further immediate action. You are likely to receive a further message from colleagues in DCMS and the Home Office regarding tackling illegal images but given the short deadline for this work we thought it better to give you some time to work on these issues in the meantime. I need to report back to No 10 by the end of the week on these points so I would be grateful if you could consider this request as a matter of urgency and respond by midday Friday.
Apologies for the very tight deadline and grateful for your help with this work."
They should have signed it "Sir Humphrey Appleby".