UK Filters And The Slippery Slope Of Mass Censorship

[estebanrey]

I'd also say that things like [active] paedophilia and the like were deemed more normal a long time before the internet was around, and granted the internet has made it easier for them to share images, but awareness is also a lot higher now, as is its vilification within society.

I wasn't talking about the 70s, I was on about the 90s and paedophillia was certainly never viewed as anything but sick when I was growing up.

But doesn't what you've just said undermine your argument? If being a paedo was fairly 'normal' before the internet, and now it isn't despite having more access to material. It would suggest having more access to immoral stuff is better doesn't it?

 

[scorza]

Where is this evidence and who compiled it?

If it's a mumsnet type group you might as well dismiss it out of hand. Besides mass internet ownership hasn't been around long enough to accurately accrue any long term effects.

I'm referring to scientific studies that I've read about in the media. Oddly enough I don't have any links to hand but maybe if you kept up to date with the news (instead of being bothered about the content of mumsnet) you'd know about them too.

When I was a teenager, pre-internet years, we heard all the same stuff about teen magazines and late night Sky/Cable channels (it's too easy to access nudey ladies, think of the children!!!). Yet I wouldn't say my generation are kinky weirdos who constantly break down because we don't all have a six pack or 36DDs.

Firstly, the sort of content available in "teen" magazines and late night TV channels is a bit different to that freely available on the internet today. Secondly, the "I've been watching porn since I was 6 and a half and I turned out OK" argument is not a valid justification for ignoring this issue.

 

[platypus]

I think it's just that people are more aware now.

 

[EvilDreams]

Porn up, rape down.

 

[ubersonic]

Porn up, rape down.

But rape porn up, pornception?

 

[Steampunk]

Well, that went about as well as I expected.

The vast majority of new broadband customers in the UK are opting out of "child friendly" filters when prompted to install them by service providers.
The industry watchdog Ofcom found fewer than one in seven households installed the feature, which is offered by BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin Media.

The percentage of customers taking up the option for each service provider are as follows:

• Virgin Media - 4%
• BT - 5%
• Sky - 8%
• TalkTalk - 36%

 

[AGD]

Boycott any ISP which includes these filters by default. Then the problem will resolve itself.

 

[Tefal]

Boycott any ISP which includes these filters by default. Then the problem will resolve itself.

then they just make it law.

 

[GAC]

then they just make it law.

im expecting it in 12 months or so who ever is in if its a majority gov.

 

[Rofflay]

Demo-cracy = People-Power eh?

 

[AGD]

then they just make it law.

If they try that then we fight them at that stage. But if customers boycott compliant ISPs now, then ISPs will lobby on our behalf when the government does try and make it law.

 

[Tefal]

If they try that then we fight them at that stage. But if customers boycott compliant ISPs now, then ISPs will lobby on our behalf when the government does try and make it law.

you realize this offer for the isp to make it optional was their last bargaining chip against the government forcing it on them?

The ISPs did lobby and hard but "mums against evil internet porn" gets more votes than "omg you want to give unrestricted internet access to terrorists and pedophiles you monster!!!!"

 

[Tombo]

I do often find it funny when people moan about internet censorship on one of the most censored and restricted forums on the net.

There's a difference between censorship by the government and censorship on a private forum but you already knew that.

 

[Meridian]

There's a difference between censorship by the government and censorship on a private forum but you already knew that.

There are some people who really seem to struggle with what "free speech" actually means. There's an XKCD cartoon which sums it up perfectly, but which I can't be bothered to track down.

 

[Tefal]

http://xkcd.com/1357/

dont forget to read the hover text lol

 

[Steampunk]

then they just make it law.

But it shows the politicians that despite what a vocal minority say, filtering is not what the majority of people want. Combined with the technical problems (such as 20 percent of the world's top 100,000 sites being incorrectly blocked), and the ease with which it can be circumvented, the ISPs won't go for mandatory blocking.

 

[Pawnless Endgame]

Yeah I had that email off Virgin on 2nd July. Although I don't do pr0n, I kept the filters off in principle. E.g. I choose not to watch 18-rated horror films because I'm not keen on graphic violence. Given that example, I believe in self-censorship. I won't tolerate the gov't telling me what sites I can/can't visit.

 

[Tefal]

But it shows the politicians that despite what a vocal minority say, filtering is not what the majority of people want. Combined with the technical problems (such as 20 percent of the world's top 100,000 sites being incorrectly blocked), and the ease with which it can be circumvented, the ISPs won't go for mandatory blocking.

what the isps are pushing for is it ending at opt out rather than compusorly which is where the government would b e hapopy leaving it too but they need to be seen as protecting the children!

 

[Tefal]

Yeah I had that email off Virgin on 2nd July. Although I don't do pr0n, I kept the filters off in principle.

you know this site is filtered by most of them too , so you have to have it off to keep posting here

 

[kitfit1]

My ISP is Zen and they were never part of this censorship in the first place. There are lots of small to medium ISP's that never signed up to this. By the looks of the "take up" on the major ISP's, it was the right decision.