[news] BBC News - "MPs call for better porn filters to protect children"

[Garacesh]

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!

[X-13]

It's a Predatory term.

 

I see... Well, that puts a teacher calling me princess a few years back in a whole new light...

 

 

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 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...

Edited May 16, 2012 by X-13

[sonofsanta]

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

[X-13]

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.

[RageRiot]

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.

[sonofsanta]

YOU KNOW NOTHING!

 

I didn't go to my prom.

 

Who did I follow home that night then...? :S

[X-13]

Who did I follow home that night then...? :S

 

That... is one of life's mysteries.

[sonofsanta]

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

[localzuk]

Hopefully, sensible people with more brains that emotions will respond to the consultation... When it appears on the site of course.

[X-13]

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.

[witch]

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.

[localzuk]

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?

[X-13]

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.

Edited June 28, 2012 by X-13

[Garacesh]

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."

[sonofsanta]

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.

[pcstru]

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.

 

Isn't that hyperbole? They already (as you point out) have filters in place for content deemed illegal. The proposals are (as far as I can see) simply for filters that are applied by default but which can be removed at request. If the state wants censorship why wouldn't it use the former filters rather than ones that can be removed by a simple request?

[witch]

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.?

That's a function of the press, I suspect. Mumsnet is an extremly useful site that helps many people with the difficult job of bringing up children. Yes, they sometimes get it wrong but they also do an extremly good job in other spheres.

 

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?

So, there should be no limits on anything out there then? You believe that everything is allowable, doable and possible with absolutely NO restrictions of any sort on anyone?

Extreme example? Why have drink-driving laws when you can "educate" (that'll be up to the poor old beleagured parents again) someone on why you shouldnt drink and drive?

You can educate children as much as you like, and goodness knows I am NOT an advocate of the nanny state - but sometimes people need protecting from themselves. Have you ever tried to tell an impressionable 15 year old anything? They don't listen, and if you are a parent, they don't listen even more!

I don't know how this could be managed and I would worry about it being morphed into something else, but having seen the sort of sites that are out there, I do believe that something needs to be done.

[X-13]

If the state wants censorship why wouldn't it use the former filters rather than ones that can be removed by a simple request?

 

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”

― Frank Zappa

 

 

Also, China does the same thing. They don't censor people in an obvious way. They'll let you talk about how the government is bad... but when it starts to look like action is about to be taken, they step in.

 

 

having seen the sort of sites that are out there, I do believe that something needs to be done.

 

Agreed.

 

But, this isn't the answer. Especially as they already have something like this in place.

[localzuk]

So, there should be no limits on anything out there then? You believe that everything is allowable, doable and possible with absolutely NO restrictions of any sort on anyone?

Extreme example? Why have drink-driving laws when you can "educate" (that'll be up to the poor old beleagured parents again) someone on why you shouldnt drink and drive?

You can educate children as much as you like, and goodness knows I am NOT an advocate of the nanny state - but sometimes people need protecting from themselves. Have you ever tried to tell an impressionable 15 year old anything? They don't listen, and if you are a parent, they don't listen even more!

I don't know how this could be managed and I would worry about it being morphed into something else, but having seen the sort of sites that are out there, I do believe that something needs to be done.

 

Drink driving has an effect on others. If you drink and drive, the knock on effect is that someone else might be killed by your actions.

 

Reading a website affects only yourself, unless you decide to action something you read in which case that action should be dealt with.

 

As I said, why should you (you being a generic term for whoever would end up deciding what gets blocked) get to decide what is right and wrong? Why should those of us who want access to material that some bureaucrat has decided to block have to go out of our way to engage in our legal right to access it?

 

Not to mention, all this is pointless anyway - as central blocking simply does not work, as shown in China, Iran and Syria. There are so many ways around it!

 

Slipper slope arguments are often used against censorship law proposals (eg. the cleanfeed system was said that it would only ever be used for child porn, people said it was a slippery slope and were derided and here we are), yet people simply don't seem to pay attention to them, and to the history of how our government operates.

 

Your child won't listen? Ban them from your computer at home. Take their phone off them? It is not up to a central body to try and restrict their misbehaviour. Actions have consequences...

[pcstru]

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”

― Frank Zappa

 

Also, China does the same thing. They don't censor people in an obvious way. They'll let you talk about how the government is bad... but when it starts to look like action is about to be taken, they step in.

 

I'm not sure how that addresses my point. I'm clear that the state already censors, and I'll even agree with Mr Zappa that freedom is largely illusory. I don't see how that applies to a system which is sold as a default opt in. The state ALREADY has systems which you CANNOT opt out of and which you might not even know (or be allowed to know) what is being censored. Given that, why would they be interested in this proposal as part of their censorship? Sometimes, even in repressive dictatorships, proposals are what they say they are rather than backhand routes to consolidate some evil intent.

 

I don't particularly agree with the proposal, but my opposition has to be based on a simple argument of people taking responsibility for their own actions (and the actions of their children). If the state wants to control what I see, there are already better ways for them to do that.

[GrumbleDook]

Reading a website affects only yourself, unless you decide to action something you read in which case that action should be dealt with.

 

Are you saying there is no causal link between access to extreme materials and behavioural problems in vulnerable adults and children?

Are all families in a position to be able to take knowledgeable steps to take appropriate parenting action ... not just with access to the internet but in many other areas too?

Do you have a secret way to break the cycle of poor education in vulnerable families?

[localzuk]

Are you saying there is no causal link between access to extreme materials and behavioural problems in vulnerable adults and children?

Are all families in a position to be able to take knowledgeable steps to take appropriate parenting action ... not just with access to the internet but in many other areas too?

Do you have a secret way to break the cycle of poor education in vulnerable families?

 

No, I'm saying that is not justification enough to force all internet connections in the country to have a filter enabled on them. I'd also question causal links though as it screams of the old 'violent video games leads to violent people' argument, which has been shown time and time again to be false.

 

Why do the rights of a few trump those of the majority, to the level where nationwide censorship would be introduced?

[X-13]

I'd also question causal links though as it screams of the old 'violent video games leads to violent people' argument, which has been shown time and time again to be false.

 

Unless of course, the soon-to-be violent people have a predisposition towards violence.

 

In which case, I believe, it's pretty accurate.

[localzuk]

Unless of course, the soon-to-be violent people have a predisposition towards violence.

 

In which case, I believe, it's pretty accurate.

 

Oh, of course. But then the problem isn't the game, its the individual's psychological state. We shouldn't ban all games, we should watch over that person.

[sonofsanta]

Sometimes, even in repressive dictatorships, proposals are what they say they are rather than backhand routes to consolidate some evil intent.

 

There may not be evil intent at hand right now, but in a few years time it will be a different set of civil servants and politicians in power and when they come up against embarassing photos of the married chancellor and his boyfriend or whatever controversy is next, they will reach for these tools because they're to hand and effective. Again: cleanfeed. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and all that; and we all know that politicians rarely have good intentions in the first place

 

It may be opt-out instead of compulsory but it is still a chilling effect on speech, it is still a system that will be over-reaching, and if the root cause is ignorance, people will be ignorant that this exists and is an option and will be unaware of the full extent & effect of the censorship. Once an opt-out system is in place, it will be much easier for them to change that to a compulsory system as well once everyone has adjusted to the idea of it. Inch by inch we lose our liberty.

 

If these websites are a problem, not the people viewing them, then go after the websites. Those that are in the UK can be taken down under existing laws (no protected freedom of speech in the UK, after all). Those that are outside could possibly have a splash page forced on them in the same way that Google throws up a page for malware-infected sites - something along the lines of "This website is considered to offer an unrepresentative and dangerous viewpoint of the subject matter and we would advise you to read it with caution." with links to the Samaritans and other relevant charities. It addresses the issue at the root of the problem - the content, not the eyeballs - and it presents a chance for education without being censorship.

 

I thought of this idea two minutes ago so feel free to tear into it, but it seems a more reasonable compromise to me than giving up yet more freedoms.

 

(and yes, I may wander into hyperbole - but it is difficult not to when the MPs are doing the same. Bring back rhetoric and logic lessons, say I)