This may be an obvious question on HN.. but.. how.. HOW can British people stand for this?
Agitating in favour of porn isn't a popular public opinion and the UK doesn't have the hardon for free speech that the USA does.
Agitating against stupid broken censorship is a bit of a wonk issue - privacy people, law people, tech people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants'_Revolt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Tax_Riots
I'd argue the British _had_ a default intolerance for authoritarianism, which seems only to have waned relatively recently. We didn't have a revolution because we already had Magna Carta.
I was thinking the other day, how convenient it is that the various near-revolutions of our history are taught exclusively in primary school, before you're old enough to understand them.
"...we have been set free... by our most tireless prince, King and lord, the lord Robert... Yet if he should give up what he has begun, seeking to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy... and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King"
The Declaration does, of course, contain the words:
"...as long as a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be subjected to the lordship of the English. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/warsofi...
1) No I am not "abdicating" my responsibilities as a parent. I will teach them appropriatre netiquette etc. There will always be other consumption vectors and work arounds, but I just don't want it shoved in their face, as is inevitable when it's just a click away.
2) Yes there are work-arounds to filters. But just becuase you can't perfectly block something doesn't mean you shouldn't take preventative measures.
3) I am not against porn. But access needs to be regulated.
4) The internet is a form of media like any other. We have restructions on buyng adult DVDs, magazines and cable channels. Why does internet delivered content qualify for special dispensation?
But you're perfectly content with shoving your views down everyone else's throat, right?
If you want to block porn in your house you're free to do so. If you're not able to do that, either hire someone to do it for you or just don't allow your kids near the internet. Problem solved.
Oh I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to voice a differing opinion to the HN hivemind or your particular world view? I thought this site encouraged constructive discussion?
I was commenting on your arguments for a filter that limits the web for other people. Like I said, you're free to limit your internet as much as you want. The problem is when you want to do it for everyone else.
That it has been technically possible for a very small portion of the population to oppress their family members further does not strike me as a good reason for making it a one click option.
If you as a parent feel that this needs to be blocked, why not do it yourself on your own network? Everyone's happy then. Nation wide filtering seems heavy handed to me.
retube simply said that he/she agreed with it in the context of their parental responsibilities. It is unlikely that they are responsible for policy/implementation of this filtering, and nobody here is telling you what to do.
> I was commenting on your arguments for a filter that limits the web for other people. Like I said, you're free to limit your internet as much as you want. The problem is when you want to do it for everyone else
But you're free to opt-in if you want, I am not trying or arguing to limit your access.
The fact is the prevelance and ease of accessibility of porn is resulting in a huge spike in sexual violence and disturbed behaviour in teens. This is not good. Whiilst I may be a responsible parent and will turn on filters; many will not.
Citation needed.
I am at work and would rather not go looking for porn research but am sure you know how to use Google. In the meantime:
Like you I am currently on a work network so I can't really do any research, but I'm certain there will be plenty of claims of the positive effects of pornography (I have heard it said that pornography reduces sexual violence by providing a healthy outlet), and even more so other sex-related (and non-sex-related) material which is caught in these filters. For a sect of the government to force this unilaterally, without any kind of democratic process, is a real problem in my eyes.
I am not advocating that at all. The fact that the current filter technology may be badly implemented doesn't change anything with respect the basic premise.
> For a sect of the government to force this unilaterally, without any kind of democratic process, is a real problem in my eyes.
Every law in the land is made this way. It's not possible to have public voting on every piece of legislation. What you can do tho is vote in general elections. If a government passes unpopular laws they'll be voted out. My guess is tho, that like it or not, this legislation will have a lot of support.
That's exactly what you're advocating for. Pornography is all of those things. It is not evil.
[Citation needed]
> am sure you know how to use Google.
I am, and yet in 20+ years of asking people objecting to porn to provide evidence of harm, I've yet to come across anyone that have been able to provide anything remotely believable, so forgive me for not being convinced by a request to Google it.
There's no evidence that porn is linked with sexual violence, some studies showed the exact opposite of that.
Regulated by whom? Why is it insufficient for people to install their own filters? After all, ISPs have offered (often given away) such filtering software to their customers for many years now.
2) If they're looking for it (see above) then an imperfect filter just means they don't find the known, safe sites.
3) Yes, it does. It is your right as a parent to decide what's appropriate for your child. It's not your right as a parent to force other people in households without children to report to a government-friendly list about their sexuality.
4) Well, such restrictions can still exist online. Paid porn sites can prevent the underage getting access. But really, why do we do this? Why is a young teenage girl or boy to be prohibited -- by law rather than parental consent -- from seeing sexual content? You say the internet should fall in line with these restrictions, but maybe those restrictions should be done away with.
2) Of course if you actively go out of your way to find it, you'll be able to. Just as you can work around any restriction in life. It's just about reducing the prevelence and "de-normalising" it.
3) So you support free access cos you don't want to admit you're into porn? And I am expected to support your desire for privacy even though it's at the expense of my children's safety?
Not sure why ticking a box to opt-in in such a big deal anyway. It's not like your ISP isn't logging your requests and doesn't know you're visiting pron sites. Plus I thought liberals like yourself supported openness and transparency?
4) Yes, sites should be behind a paywall - hard core anyway. And they should be prohibited because much hard core is absolsutely unsuitable for young eyes. Boobs fine. But girls getting bukkaked or inserting crap up their behinds is not on.
> ISP doesn't know you're visiting pron sites. Plus I thought liberals like yourself supported openness and transparency?
This is so nonsensical that it's actually funny. You are like those over the top Christian-conservative parents in sitcoms.
I'm starting to think you are just trolling.
They'll be taken unaware, take one look, go "ewww", and close the window. My four year old is already doing that when he sees someone kissing. It grosses kids out, there's no indication anywhere as far as I am aware, that the occasional exposure to sexual imagery causes harm.
> It's just about reducing the prevelence and "de-normalising" it.
What you will achieve, in my experience, is to reduce the normality of what they find. Back when BBS's was our source of porn, because it even "normal" porn of a single man and woman having normal sex was illegal where I grew up, the BBSs were overflowing with bestiality, child porn and every nasty kink known to man, because as an illicit source there was no reason for them to put limits on what was being uploaded. As a result, avoiding the really horrible stuff was made harder by lumping all the porn together.
> So you support free access cos you don't want to admit you're into porn?
If you can not see the difference between voluntarily admitting to enjoying porn and being forced to disclose something that parts of society see as deeply shameful (or we wouldn't even have this debate) to your ISP where it is made easily available in a single dataset that does not require anyone to do additional logging, then I am questioning whether it is worth even debating you further.
> It's not like your ISP isn't logging your requests and doesn't know you're visiting pron sites.
If you can't see the difference between specifically specifying a preference, and their ability to log traffic from someone in the household, then I don't know what to say.
> And they should be prohibited because much hard core is absolsutely unsuitable for young eyes. Boobs fine. But girls getting bukkaked or inserting crap up their behinds is not on.
Do you have any evidence that any of this is harmful? Why this specifically? What about specific political opinions? I mean, personally I find conservative politics extremely harmful (yet, before you ask, no, I am not going to shield my son from coming across conservative websites); what about specific religious views? Violence? Where do you draw the line, and on what basis? And why exactly are things you want to allow better/less harmful to kids than the porn you want blocked?
Now, y'know, I can totally get someone coming at it from a "porn addiction (if you will) has negative effects, so I'd like to help my children avoid those possible negative effects", but that requires ongoing communication and education (well, that's how my parents did it anyway, and I never ran into the problems some of my friends and others have reported). That's assuming that "porn addiction" or desensitisation is a real thing (unproven so far, but anecdotally I'm a believer).
Then Chrome / Firefox came along with popup blockers, and Steam came along with a better way of downloading games... porn doesn't get shoved in my face anymore.
Then be responsible and setup some filter at home yourself. Problem solved. Now leave the rest of the world alone.
And I am leaving you alone. You're free to opt-out of the filter. Why is that a problem for you?
That makes it a problem for me. The net effect is that it realistically, given UK employment patterns, it reinforces patriarchal means of control of the family unit.
just cos the implementation may be buggy doesn't detract from the basic premise.
> and adults living in family households that are left without a realistic choice
given that it will be the adults thet are paying the bill and it's their choice to filter or not not sure there's a problem here.
> it reinforces patriarchal means of control of the family unit.
umm i reckon mums will be far more motivated and keen to restrict access than dads
But it does mean the practical implementation creates the risk of substantial harm. And we're waiting on those citations that shows that the existence of the filter will protect against any harm.
> given that it will be the adults thet are paying the bill and it's their choice to filter or not not sure there's a problem here.
You miss the point: A substantial number of UK adults share households with other adult family members, with the average age for moving out having been pushed well into the 20's. Many of these adults may not be in a position where they are realistically able to ask the person in control of the internet connection to turn off the filter. You try being a 20-year old woman in a religious household and going to your dad and ask him to remove the porn filter because you want to look at those filtered sex education sites. Or a battered wife wanting to look for a support site and running into a block.
> umm i reckon mums will be far more motivated and keen to restrict access than dads
Meanwhile, Mumsnet, the largest social networking site for mums in the UK was forced to retract their support after a massive uproar amongst their users, who made it exceedingly clear they did not want the filter and who were extremely upset that the site operators had chosen to support it.
And you are demonstrating exactly the kind of attitudes that will deprive a lot of people of the realistic ability to choose, even as adults, to get an unfiltered internet connection.
I've also educated them on why it'll block sex education websites (like 6 months ago, not just today) and given examples of 8 year old kids I've taught that already have a private VPN, and give out access to their friends.
Do you have numbers? I was very much surprised reading about family support/progressing in ones job aged 35+ etc. on this very board. Unless old readers drop out/don't return I'd guess that the number of parents here should statistically increase - and I don't think the number's insignificant. Start a poll?
This parent here considers the idea of filtering content utterly wrong, but what really upsets me are your statements along these lines here:
"Whiilst I may be a responsible parent and will turn on filters; many will not."
K, not my native language and all. I'm certainly misparsing the sentence and you don't actually claim that being a reasonable parent and turning the filters on is connected, people NOT turning that thing on aren't reasonable parents? Because that's what I get out of that statement..
Sounds like an opt-in filter should satisfy your desires perfectly!