UK to Block Porn Sites unless wanted. Good Idea?

[Asguard]

If its so great and your right and bells and I are wrong then why isn't this already on every parents computer? They can call up there ISP right now and get it so why arent they? And you are still dodging the question, where is the NEED to go from a system where parents and prudes can call up and request there feed be filtered, to a system where the rest of s have to beg our speed back, and access to the breast cancer foundation and access to big w's website because they sell lingure and yes even porn. Where is the harm in the default being leave it alone?

[wynn]

But even if there weren't any checks at any sites, it still wouldn't make sense to default to the "opt out" choice for ISP accounts, because the person setting up the account must be of legal age.

That is not entirely true. Some academic institutions provide a free internet access for their employees and students.
All you need is a computer, a modem and a landline phone and the internet bill then goes automatically with the phone bill.

It seems though that what you actually want is that the interent would be a totally free, unrestricted, unsupervised, unregulated zone of human interaction and commerce.

Straw man. That's not the case at all today.

What is not the case? It very much is the case that some people want that the interent would be a totally free, unrestricted, unsupervised, unregulated zone of human interaction and commerce.

Bells already crushed you for this, but allow me to stomp on what's left. You're equivocating discussions of vegetable consumption with discussions of sexual appetites. Clearly you know that these are not the same entities, even for someone who understands that sex and masturbation are both healthy and happy practices. Most people who share this opinion are not the kinds of people who feel the need to share it with strangers.

This would be an issue even if it were carrots, peas, or brussels sprouts, because a citizen in a free country shouldn't be required to "opt in" to their right to buy (or even browse) vegetables at the market. It isn't anyone's business what I buy, what I watch, or what I eat, so long as I'm not hurting or exploiting anyone, and the default option for vegetables should not be "not allowed."

But as you are fully aware, this isn't about vegetables. It's about pornography, which is for most people a very private matter. I shouldn't have to phone in and tell someone I want it, and it doesn't matter if I'm talking to a service rep or an automated system. It's nobody's business but mine.

If it would really be nobody's business but yours,
you would not have to rely on the adult industry to provide you with adult materials,
because you could do it all yourself.

But you can't do it all yourself, apparently, and so instead, "your business," involves numerous people - from porn actors, directors, camera men, producers, computer and tech people who make the dvd's, marketers etc. etc.

[lightgigantic]

If its so great and your right and bells and I are wrong then why isn't this already on every parents computer? They can call up there ISP right now and get it so why arent they?

which is why I asked whether you didn't understand\disagree what we said about this already or if you simply haven't read the relevant posts ....

And you are still dodging the question, where is the NEED to go from a system where parents and prudes can call up and request there feed be filtered, to a system where the rest of s have to beg our speed back, and access to the breast cancer foundation and access to big w's website because they sell lingure and yes even porn.

There are several different ways to filter and all of them are adjustable. For instance the states offers proxy servers accessible to iranians (in order to surmount their stringent censorship) but they update the keyword filter(since they are not really interested in liberating Iran through porn) regularly (since it initially blocked a USA embassy page due to a tie in with "ass").

Other filters block specific addresses (much to the dismay of people who read playboy for the articles I guess ....)

Where is the harm in the default being leave it alone?

that it leaves it more unsecured of course

BTW you never did really explain what will be censored to a person who opts in.

[wynn]

If its so great and your right and bells and I are wrong then why isn't this already on every parents computer? They can call up there ISP right now and get it so why arent they? And you are still dodging the question, where is the NEED to go from a system where parents and prudes can call up and request there feed be filtered, to a system where the rest of s have to beg our speed back, and access to the breast cancer foundation and access to big w's website because they sell lingure and yes even porn. Where is the harm in the default being leave it alone?

The internet first started off as a military, academic and technical network. Over the years, its intent and use expanded, adding new features - everything from the World Wide Web to online banking to Facebook.

With such new features, come new legal and practical issues that need to be addressed somehow.

And you are still dodging the question, where is the NEED to go from a system where parents and prudes can call up and request there feed be filtered, to a system where the rest of s have to beg our speed back

In the same manner, you could ask where was the need to go from the first system of issuing cheques where all a person had to do was fill out a paper form and use it as cash, no ID required, to a system where (some form of) ID and instant authorization is required.
It was because the early system was so easy to abuse, there was considerable damage suffered by companies and individuals, so the State had to step in with new legislation and new practical measures.

Similar with online commerce and contents.

[Bells]

The lawmakers have this old-fashioned mentality of the Founding Fathers that assumes that when people freely do things, they do so gladly and stand behind what they do, no shame involved.

So you would feel no shame in saying how many times you masturbated and watched porn, for example?

Why not? You don't think that watching porn is something to be ashamed of. Or do you?

Not at all. Do you?

I also don't believe sex is something to be ashamed of. Does not mean I want to call a Government agency or service provider like a telecommunications company and tell them I want to have sex or ask for their permission. Or did that fact escape you?

The exact same thing happens if you go to a store to buy an adult tape/dvd.

Except that there, you even show your face and talk to the clerk face to face!

Certainly. But it begs the question, why is online porn such a huge market now?

But most importantly, one does not have to walk into a store and ask if they can watch their porn now. You know, they aren't having to ask for permission to watch it online.

There is a subtle difference. You might get it... One day..

Yes, children should be taught to respect their parents and not to waste time and money.

Which would make this block not essential, wouldn't it?

You know, parents being made to parent and monitor their own children instead of having the State do it for them?

Your distrust of children is, frankly, insulting. If other people have attitudes like that, no wonder things go wrong.

Nice try Wynn. But strawman and kind of pathetic and you got it wrong.

I am not the one saying that children can't be trusted so we need an internet block. You and LG are.

See the subtle difference?

He has a tendency for that, yes.

As do you. You are the perfect couple.

Also your distrust for parents, and the human race as a whole, is, frankly, insulting.

Again, I am saying we don't need an ISP population wide block because parents should be parenting their children instead of the Government.

You and LG are the ones saying that we need a population wide block on internet porn because children and adults cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

I didn't check the particular link in question, but I do know that Youtube may have many links to sex content, but when clicked, it says "Video has been removed due to violation of site rules" or something to that effect.
The link is there, it comes up in the search, but the video isn't there.

You can not only find porn on youtube, very easily and without it being able to be traced by others, but they also advertise on youtube.

The video is there for me as are many others.

There are others but it would go against this site's TOS for me to link it. Maybe you should turn off your child filter and see?

Which can easily be helped against with human supervision. AFAIK, sites like Youtube have humans employed to that very end.

And yet, I can watch porn on youtube.

So much for human supervision. Children can easily access it and their parents will not know, as it's just 'youtube', right?

In fact, children access youtube, facebook and google more than any other site, more than they search for terms like 'sex' or 'porn'.

The image search tool is a great place for porn to slip in. Like when I did a search for 'horses' for my son because he had a school project on horses and found images in google of a woman fucking a horse on the first page. As I said, porn is easy to find on sites most frequented by children. Which is why you need supervision by parents. Not a nanny state country wide block which has been proven time and again to be ineffective and a waste of money, not to mention it invades people's privacy because they are now having to ask for permission to watch porn and because such censorship measures in blocking all porn has been found to block classical art work sites, medical sites and even charity sites.

We know that you're doing a lot to look good.

Who is this we?

You and your little bum buddy LG?

There is no we. And is this another little jibe at my parenting skills? What? Not going for my illness and marriage this time? I'm disappointed Wynn.

First of all, it's about having things regulated.

And the current porn regulations work fine. All that is needed to 'think of the children' is parental supervision. Not government censorship.

And again, it's the same principle as IRL if you want to buy alcohol, cigarettes or adult materials, or go to a nightclub, you have to be a legal adult.

And you also have to be a legal adult to view and purchase porn, online or in a store.

Since you are probably well-past the age of 18 (or 21, as the case may be in some countries) and you also look old enough, you probably don't notice this regulation much in your daily life.

Uh huh..

But young people below the age of 18 and those with a youngish appearance know very well that an ID will be required of them if they wish to buy alcohol, cigarettes or adult materials, or go to a nightclub. And that if they are not legal adults, these serivces will be denied to them.

Those same rules apply if you wish to purchase porn.

Online, things seem a bit different because the modes of interaction are different.
If you walk into a shop with adult materials, and you look in your 30's, 40's or older, nobody is going to ask you anything and will provide you any service you require, as long as you pay.
That doesn't work online, because the provider doesn't see you and doesn't know how old you are, and needs to have some verification that you're old enough.

That is all.

And here you harp on about your disgust in my distrust of children...

Do you not trust children and parents to do the right thing Wynn? Why does the Government have to censor the internet because people like you can't trust people?

It seems though that what you actually want is that the interent would be a totally free, unrestricted, unsupervised, unregulated zone of human interaction and commerce.

Strawman..

I think parents should be bringing up their children, not the Government reacting to puritanical twats who are in a panic because there's porn online.

If parents don't want their children to watch porn, it should be up to them to set up the block on their ISP, a system which already exists currently in the UK. Which would be more than sufficient. In other words, if parents want the Government to monitor and supervise their children for them, they should be the ones asking, not forcing such measures on the whole population who then have to have their right to privacy breached because they wish to partake in a legal transaction online.

[wynn]

How could anyone resist your ever-so endearing words, a fountain of goodness and reason you are ...

[Asguard]

that it leaves it more unsecured of course

How is it any more "unsecure" that if the majority of people opt not to have te filter?

[lightgigantic]

How is it any more "unsecure" that if the majority of people opt not to have te filter?

If its really a case of not making any difference at all, then why complain of it effectively censoring anyone at all?

[Gustav]

good for britain
they should move all porn/sex toy sites to the .xxx domain and allow access only with cum proof computers

next the brits should corral all brick and mortar smut shops into special economic zones strategically placed around the country. access to these areas will require a passport issued to those 21 and older and halfway decent looking.
fatties need not bother applying

[GeoffP]

The upshot of all this discussion - as a lot of technical developments - appears to be that it probably won't matter a lot in any direction. Someone will always know about your naughty online secrets. Someone will see. So opt-in means SFA. And there are ways to get past the filters that any savvy kid would know, so the filter itself is worth SFA. Perhaps it's just a snow-job.

Is there a need for the name-calling, however? What in fuck does the above spring from, if anything?

[Captain Kremmen]

good for britain
they should move all porn/sex toy sites to the .xxx domain and allow access only with cum proof computers

next the brits should corral all brick and mortar smut shops into special economic zones strategically placed around the country. access to these areas will require a passport issued to those 21 and older and halfway decent looking.
fatties need not bother applying

Regarding.
The corralling of porn shops into special economic zones.
We already do that.
They are called poor areas.
No porn shop ever gets into a "decent" area.
So traditionally, pre-web, the rich motored over to the pecuniarily deprived side of town to indulge their sexual fantasies.
Presumably, given the number of problems they had, an invasion of horny rich people, some of them dangerous perverts,
would not add much to the local deprivation. Statistically.
Now they use the interweb.

As for people being nervous of making one embarrassing phone call to turn your computer on to unlimited sexual delight.
Why, back in the olden days we had to buy porn book by book.
You had to hang around in a newsagent until it was empty, which took ages.
Just as you thought the place had cleared, some other non-tosser entered.
When it was finally completely deserted you had to grab the magazine at lightning speed and bring it to the counter,
only for the newsagent to spend hours looking for a bag to put it in, or answer a phone call.
Meanwhile, three nuns, your maths teacher, your next door neighbour, and the girl you fancied, would all have come into the shop.

[Captain Kremmen]

Well, that killed that thread.
What is the most embarrassing thing that ever happened to you while watching/buying porn?

[GeoffP]

The Captain slays the thread again. No replies.

Wait.

Damnit.

Most embarrassing thing was being recognized by a nearly-friend who was also the high school hottie in my year. Oh, the embarrassed laughs we had. Actually, she didn't seem all that disgusted, I think. I pray.

[Captain Kremmen]

Maybe the other sciforummers are smarter than you or me Geoff.
I hate that.

Another thought.
The places where rich people buy drugs are also in the poor parts of town.
And Prostitution too. Poor side of town.
Porn. Poor side of town.
Good Pubs....... etc

Is that a coincidence or is there some kind of connection?

Mmmmh.................
Maybe the poor side of town is like our subconscious brain.
Or maybe it's where we can act out our alter ego Mr Hyde.

Publically, we are against all the bad things that happen on the poor side of town,
but privately, when night falls, that is where we are to be found.

[GeoffP]

That reminds me: can't find my top hat.

[Captain Kremmen]

Oh, why did I go to the wrong threads on sciforums?

[seagypsy]

I think the biggest concern is that parents are relying on the Government to block these sites or to prevent their children from accessing it instead of adult supervision when using the net.

I think Bells hit the nail on the head on this one. I'm sorry for not having read the entire thread. Someone else suggested a reverse of the rule and have it be an opt in to have isp block it if you don't want it. I think that is a reasonable alternative. Much like our ability to have 900 numbers blocked. (in USA 900 numbers are toll calls usually associated with sex lines and psychics). We can even request that outgoing international calls be blocked. If china can censor the internet blocking anything they considered anti-china from their people. I am sure an ISP can censor porn or any other type of site the customer doesn't want flooding their desktop screen. If one wishes to be lazy and not think for themselves as they surf or not supervise their kids then having an opt in for blocking offered by the isp seems reasonable. Then the customer can decide what they want blocked. Maybe they want porn but just not gay porn or child porn. So they can ask the isp to block those types of porn. Browsers already have functions to help the user filter what they have access to. Most people don't seem to know those tools exist.

As far as porn is concerned. I block it on the computer my 6 year old uses to play Roblox. But on my 15, almost 16, year old daughter's computer I have no filters put on. She is at an age where she is developing her sexuality. She has a lot of questions. We have a very open relationship and we talk about everything... graphically so. I answer any question she gives me if I know the answer. I don't judge her or condemn her for asking. She usually feels safe asking me things. Even about oral sex. She at this time is not sexually active. I am confident in this because she never leaves her room and is almost never outside my supervision. Not by intent, she is just a homebody.

Anyway, as open as we are with each other she still gets embarrassed to ask some things. And she knows I don't have all the answers. So she has from time to time turned to porn to get her really weird questions answered. It usually results in her running to me freaking out about what she just saw, then we talk. I have never condemned her for looking at porn and have only told her to keep her antivirus software updated and not to be looking at teen or child porn because it can get me in legal trouble.

Porn CAN be a safer alternative for a questioning teen than experimentation. And if you have an atmosphere of open communication with your child you can talk to them about what they see and help them keep it in perspective.

Without porn my daughter would think that sex was glamorous, clean and pretty like in romantic dramas. At least by watching porn she can see its awkward, messy, and often mechanical. She is in no hurry to have sex.

If I had blocked her from access to porn, it is possible, she may have gone out and experimented to find her answers.

[Captain Kremmen]

@Anybody

If you did want to block porn sites, what do you think the best method would be?