Wikipedia founder brands PM's porn filters plan 'ridiculous'
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
Either David Cameron is an abject moron or he (and his cronies) don't understand this whole internet thing. It's probably the latter. AFAIK, everyone who didn't grow up online doesn't seem to "get" it.
It's one of the whole reasons I hate how journalists go talk to people on the street. I honestly don't give a crap about the opinion of some chick down the street from a house fire/arson that stood around for 3 hours before media interviewed her. Put the damn Fire Marshal on so he can tell me what's important.
The media just makes me want to go troglodyte.
That's awfully disingenuous, it may be neither -- PM Cameron and his cronies may in fact fully understand that their legislation will have little effect on child abuse. They may in fact be interested in establishing a police state, which implies that they're not morons and that they fully understand that the internet as a communications medium is far too open.
Or they're indeed morons that don't understand the internet, but they're being lead by the nose by their military/surveillance-industrial corporate masters. War efforts are winding down and they need another excuse to pour billions down a rabbit hole.
Kids will see porno, whether its blocked of not. It's the same as people being able to download torrents after the pirate bay was blocked or making drugs illegal doesn't stop people getting drugs.
This is a deeper issue that can't be solved by closing off parts of the Internet. We need to improve society in general, not make it harder for the people who want to seek this sort of thing out.
There will still be a large expenditure on the side of the government, as is with most things in government. Such e penditure would be best spend influencing innovation and business, not requiring a sector to implement mandatory technology which probably has large costs.
It seems like the consumer will really foot the bill here. It seems a lot of decisions are made which cause the average joe to spend less, which isn't great for the economy.
My point is that it's a stupid idea that reflects a profound naïveté about the internet as a social phenomenon.
Our outrage can be reasonably seen as just another political discussion when in fact it's composed of literal and unbridled flabergastery the likes of which have not thusfar been witnessed by mankind.
Am I missing something? Or have people genuinely made the argument that this filter will help prevent child pornography? Surely the existing laws already block these sites?
But like pretty much everyone in comments, yes, of course it's a stupid idea. I'm not sure why Jimmy is somehow an "authority" on this though.
Back years ago there was an extremely long debate about whether the entry on autofellatio [1] should include a photograph of someone performing fellatio on themselves at the top, or whether something like a diagram was more informational and better suited to an encyclopedia. Looks like the photograph won out.
Secret until leaked that is.