+ Post New Thread
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 187
Jokes/Interweb Things Thread, BBC News - "MPs call for better porn filters to protect children" in Fun Stuff; Originally Posted by alan-d It's a Predatory term. And there was me thinking the software developers just hated Mario... Your ...
  1. #151


    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,753
    Thank Post
    1,008
    Thanked 386 Times in 290 Posts
    Rep Power
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by alan-d View Post
    It's a Predatory term.
    And there was me thinking the software developers just hated Mario...
    Your Princess is in another castle? Well we won't let you search for her! Muahaha!

  2. #152

    X-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    9,175
    Thank Post
    600
    Thanked 1,989 Times in 1,370 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    837
    Quote Originally Posted by alan-d View Post
    It's a Predatory term.
    I see... Well, that puts a teacher calling me princess a few years back in a whole new light...


    Quote Originally Posted by Garacesh View Post
    And there was me thinking the software developers just hated Mario...
    Your Princess is in another castle? Well we won't let you search for her! Muahaha!
    That awkward moment when you [I] realise back in the middle ages princess would probably get married off at a young age...


    Peach always did look a bit young to me...
    Last edited by X-13; 16th May 2012 at 10:39 AM.

  3. #153

    sonofsanta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire, UK
    Posts
    5,003
    Thank Post
    874
    Thanked 1,458 Times in 1,002 Posts
    Blog Entries
    47
    Rep Power
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by X-13 View Post
    I see... Well, that puts a teacher calling me princess a few years back in a whole new light...
    Well if you will wear a ballgown to your prom, you have to put up with these things.

    I KNOW YOUR SECRETS

  4. #154

    X-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    9,175
    Thank Post
    600
    Thanked 1,989 Times in 1,370 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    837
    Quote Originally Posted by sonofsanta View Post
    Well if you will wear a ballgown to your prom, you have to put up with these things.

    I KNOW YOUR SECRETS
    YOU KNOW NOTHING!

    I didn't go to my prom.

  5. #155

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    173
    Thank Post
    10
    Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts
    Rep Power
    21
    it sounds like a good idea but I dont think it will be done correctly or if at all possible for it to be a worthwhile service.

  6. #156

    sonofsanta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire, UK
    Posts
    5,003
    Thank Post
    874
    Thanked 1,458 Times in 1,002 Posts
    Blog Entries
    47
    Rep Power
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by X-13 View Post
    YOU KNOW NOTHING!

    I didn't go to my prom.
    Who did I follow home that night then...? :S

  7. #157

    X-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    9,175
    Thank Post
    600
    Thanked 1,989 Times in 1,370 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    837
    Quote Originally Posted by sonofsanta View Post
    Who did I follow home that night then...? :S
    That... is one of life's mysteries.

  8. #158

    sonofsanta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire, UK
    Posts
    5,003
    Thank Post
    874
    Thanked 1,458 Times in 1,002 Posts
    Blog Entries
    47
    Rep Power
    644
    It gets more offensively stupid

    There is a cottage industry of people, mostly operating outside the UK, continually creating and proliferating 'proxy' websites that provide links to adult and harmful content.
    And also helping circumvent political censorship in oppressive regimes around the world, many of which you have supported this last 18 months. So it's ok for them to use when you decide it is but it's a great evil in this country? "cottage industry" is also inaccurate and intended as a slur in this context, I can't help but feel.


    Many [parents] want to take responsibility, but all too often they do not how know how because they find the technology too difficult to use or their children are more technically advanced then they are.
    Then instead of doing the nanny state thing, do the responsible parent thing yourselves and educate. Government to educate parents, parents to educate children, everyone more knowledgeable, happy and successful. Like a pig in a cage on antibiotics.


    Websites promoting suicide, anorexia and self-harm are also being targeted.
    There's that slippery slope starting, right there. Deciding the line between porn/art is difficult enough; how do you decide what's anorexia and what's general health, diet and exercise? Are we going to start banning emo band sites because the Daily Mail says they promote suicide?

    Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid STUPID

  9. #159

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,867
    Thank Post
    518
    Thanked 2,486 Times in 1,928 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    838
    Hopefully, sensible people with more brains that emotions will respond to the consultation... When it appears on the site of course.

  10. #160

    X-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    9,175
    Thank Post
    600
    Thanked 1,989 Times in 1,370 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    837
    Quote Originally Posted by sonofsanta View Post
    Are we going to start banning emo band sites because the Daily Mail says they promote suicide?

    How about we ban the Daily Fail site... as it promotes violence.

    And NetMums or MumsNet... or whatever it actually is. The ones who whinge and moan about things that aren't even issues. You know who I mean. The ones who want everyone else to look after their kids.

    Yeah, ban them.

  11. #161

    witch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Dorset
    Posts
    11,382
    Thank Post
    1,401
    Thanked 2,422 Times in 1,699 Posts
    Rep Power
    711
    Quote Originally Posted by X-13 View Post
    How about we ban the Daily Fail site... as it promotes violence.

    And NetMums or MumsNet... or whatever it actually is. The ones who whinge and moan about things that aren't even issues. You know who I mean. The ones who want everyone else to look after their kids.

    Yeah, ban them.
    Why pretend you don't know the correct forum name? A comment like that above is just pointless - they don't want everyone else to look after their children, they are just trying to understand how things are. For goodness sake, if you take non-interventionist attitudes to their limits, then we shouldnt have seatbelts or helmets or any advice etc on smoking, drinking or anything. It is a question of where to draw the line.
    I do agree is it difficult to decide about whether websites are 'good' or not, but @sonofsanta , if you have ever seen a pro-anoexia site you would realise that they are very very scary and the problem is, you can educate people so far, but teenage girls are not necessarily the most rational of beings and there has to be some form of checks and balances, doesnt there? Or should everything, however gross and appalling, just be out there to access?
    We don't have public hangings or stonings or whatever anymore because we are more civilised and I would not like the web access issue to put us back in the dark ages in terms of what is out there.

  12. #162

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,867
    Thank Post
    518
    Thanked 2,486 Times in 1,928 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by witch View Post
    Why pretend you don't know the correct forum name? A comment like that above is just pointless - they don't want everyone else to look after their children, they are just trying to understand how things are. For goodness sake, if you take non-interventionist attitudes to their limits, then we shouldnt have seatbelts or helmets or any advice etc on smoking, drinking or anything. It is a question of where to draw the line.
    Sorry, I disagree. MumsNet are only ever producing 'frenzy' type behaviour in the government and media. The sort of thing that whips the Daily Mail up and starts making out that anyone who disagrees is a child eating monster. The problem is, MumsNet only ever appears in the media talking about things they seem to know absolutely nothing about in the first place. Internet filtering is one of those things. Its that exact attitude that is the problem - talking about things you know nothing about, especially if you are a parent, is dangerous to your kids. Educate yourself, rather than making out that the government should be legislating over it.

    I do agree is it difficult to decide about whether websites are 'good' or not, but @sonofsanta , if you have ever seen a pro-anoexia site you would realise that they are very very scary and the problem is, you can educate people so far, but teenage girls are not necessarily the most rational of beings and there has to be some form of checks and balances, doesnt there? Or should everything, however gross and appalling, just be out there to access?
    We don't have public hangings or stonings or whatever anymore because we are more civilised and I would not like the web access issue to put us back in the dark ages in terms of what is out there.
    It is not up to the government to make that decision. It is up to a parent to deal with their child. And checks and balances are great, if they balance - but our government has a history of making the balance tip hugely in the wrong direction. Why should something that you find distasteful be blocked, even though others don't find it so? Or something I find wrong?

  13. #163

    X-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    9,175
    Thank Post
    600
    Thanked 1,989 Times in 1,370 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    837
    Quote Originally Posted by witch View Post
    Why pretend you don't know the correct forum name?
    I'm not pretending.

    I can't remember whether it's netmums or mumsnet. They're both actual websites, but only one of them is "the voice of parents".

    Whichever one it is, I've looked at the forum there. It's filled with "parents" talking about gaming the system to get more benefits or talking about things they have no actual knowledge of.

    I wouldn't mind if they actually put in the effort to verify their claims, but they don't. The only time I've seen them post sources for claims are when they're talking about benefits.
    Last edited by X-13; 28th June 2012 at 10:42 AM.

  14. #164


    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,753
    Thank Post
    1,008
    Thanked 386 Times in 290 Posts
    Rep Power
    218
    He added: "There is no silver bullet to solve this. No filter can ever be 100% foolproof. There is a cottage industry of people, mostly operating outside the UK, continually creating and proliferating 'proxy' websites that provide links to adult and harmful content.
    They're probably referring to Tor, would be my guess, considering its infamous usage (granted, it is also used for completely legitimate reasons, but you know what the media/politicians are like...)

    "Automatic filtering on its own risks lulling parents into a false sense of security and there can never be any substitute for parents taking responsibility for how, when and where their children use the internet. The answer lies in finding ways to combine technical solutions with better education, information and, if necessary regulation further down the line."
    You're damn right that there can never be any substitute, so let's stop with all this technical solution to a non-technical problem BS. We don't need regulation, we need many, many serious changes to this country. Where porn is concerned, we need to educate people that porn is an unrealistic way of portraying adult sex lives and shouldn't be referenced for 'standard' sexual behaviour (because, let's face it, where realistically do most kids learn about sex from? I know where I did.. But I understood it wasn't 'real')

    Websites about suicide, anorexia etc (primarily discussion/help forums) I have no problem with. I'm guessing there are people out there that would go to them in times of need.. "I think I might be anorexic.. Help!".. "My best friend committed suicide, I don't know what to do.." etc, but I must agree I am entirely against sites promoting such harmful behaviour.

    It's a sensitive, difficult subject, but blanket web-filtering is certainly not the way forward. Worse-case scenario is we end up with a great-firewall-of-china-esque system. Best case scenario is new website pop up that avoid the filtering continuously. Probably containing malicious code and such. I'd rather educate my (hypothetical) children on porn, suicide etc and have them able to approach the matter responsibly (granted, I'd still be worried to find my (hypothetical) kid visiting suicide websites, though)

    So I don't really know what to say about this. I don't like the idea, it's wrong and it should never be implemented, but I can't really think of another 'scheme' that doesn't only have a vague explination of "don't be a and leave it to the government to sort out, just educate your kids."

  15. #165

    sonofsanta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire, UK
    Posts
    5,003
    Thank Post
    874
    Thanked 1,458 Times in 1,002 Posts
    Blog Entries
    47
    Rep Power
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by witch View Post
    I do agree is it difficult to decide about whether websites are 'good' or not, but @sonofsanta, if you have ever seen a pro-anoexia site you would realise that they are very very scary and the problem is, you can educate people so far, but teenage girls are not necessarily the most rational of beings and there has to be some form of checks and balances, doesnt there? Or should everything, however gross and appalling, just be out there to access?
    We don't have public hangings or stonings or whatever anymore because we are more civilised and I would not like the web access issue to put us back in the dark ages in terms of what is out there.
    I have little doubt that genuine pro-anorexia sites are very blatant and dangerous places, but it's coming back to the "I'll know it when I see it" definition of obscenity - there is no way they could possibly provide a definitive set of guidelines as to what is and isn't acceptable now, so they will leave it vague, and it will end up being used for something out of its original intention. Current example is the cleanfeed system, designed and intended to stop child abuse images, now being used to block sites accused of enabling copyright infringement. They've not even tried to dress it up and pretend it's because those sites fall under the original remit of the system.

    The other aspect of this is that no filter will be perfect, certainly not a blacklist-based filter, so people with even half an interest in finding this stuff will continue to do so, and it will instead have been driven underground and out of sight. Another current example: craigslist ended up taking down its adult hookups section because it was being used by pimps. As they said in their statement at the time (paraphrasing here), "we hope that whichever site the trade moves to is as helpful and compliant with law enforcement requests as we were". It is going to happen regardless, so better it be out in the open where it can be addressed and dealt with, rather than being swept under the carpet. A similar idea is Zurich providing free hypodermic needles in vending machines; they know herion addiction is a problem, so rather than try and bury their heads in the sand they at least make sure there's no needle sharing going on and try and address the problem in other ways.

    If anything would put us back to the dark days, it would be the control of information and state censorship we used to have before the printing press. The current proposals may not seem objectionable, but that is simply the trojan horse for getting it in; once the power is in place for this blocking to happen, it will be abused. It already happens, in this country.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 8th February 2012, 04:14 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 6th January 2012, 05:34 PM
  3. [Video] BBC news stumps Boris with his own quote
    By mattx in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10th July 2011, 04:12 PM
  4. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 26th January 2010, 08:14 AM
  5. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 6th November 2007, 05:59 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •