Hacker News Reader

Comment by vidarh | Hacker News Reader

No, it is not entirely optional. It is optional for the account holder, which means a substantial percentage of the population, including a substantial percentage of the population above the age of 18 is subject to the whims of the person in whose name the connection is. Many of those may not have the realistic option of voicing their preference. And many of those do not have the realistic option of moving out.

View on HN

Those were the people who already had no ultimate control over the restrictions on their connection. Hasn't the billpayer always had the ability to restrict their connection and set terms of use on people using it?

Tell them, yes. But actively filtering have been substantially more effort. None of the routers I've been given from my various broadband providers in the UK have had filtering options that would have allowed this, which means said person would either have to explicitly go out of his way to lock down the provided router and put a filtering firewall in between, or lock down each computer in the household with filters.

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.

It forces conversations for some people that would never have otherwise needed to happen (but might have, in some cases).

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.

And it is also on-by-default, for both new and existing customers. (Or at least this was the initial plan, if something has changed since July, please do correct me)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com