Universal Porn Filter Coming to the U.K.
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh god this.Sizzle Montyjing said:Notice how governments put these type of things forward when nothing else is going on so that it can make front-page news, allowing it to be judged accordingly by the public?Valderis said:
OH WAIT.
My major issue is that it's being decided by a single man, off the basis of a fucking internet forum.
I was thinking a couple of days ago that I bet there were loads of dodgy deals and iffy policies being made and forgotten due to the media whiteout about the baby, and now I read about this.
Also, to find out why this is really happening, we should do that age old saying and follow the money.
Someone's going to be making a pretty penny out of this, and I bet the Tories will be benefiting from it most of all.
Thank god they have put a pillow over that unpleasant stain on the couch.
That really is the only way to solve any problem.
*EDIT*
I also like how sly they are with having the filter enabled by default.
This automatically places you on a permanent list if disabled, for convenient and easy snooping.
That really is the only way to solve any problem.
*EDIT*
I also like how sly they are with having the filter enabled by default.
This automatically places you on a permanent list if disabled, for convenient and easy snooping.
Long time since I had a good laugh, thank youAdam Jensen said:
No seriously, take a step back and think about this. It's completely off it's tits.
Hello internet? It's your buddy, capitalism. You know, that guy you occasionally steal video games from? That porn filter thing's a ***** right? Well don't worry. I'll bust a hole through that like a trailer trash teenage girl through a condom to get on Jerry Springer.
Relax, Capitalism got this.
Relax, Capitalism got this.
I can't get wound up over this. It was always going to be the case that governments would eventually try to rein in the internet. Its long been a massive elephant in the room - too technical to police on a practical level, too big to confront in any substantial way. But I then see quotes like this:
"Porn is the right of every free, adult citizen in the UK. It is not something we should have to ask permission for. This is the latest move from a colossal fuckhead, and his government of fuckheads."
and,
"Didn't the UK suffer BOMBING RUNS from fascists like Cameron?
You'd think, after killing enough Nazis, that they'd have been wiped out."
This does wind me up. Nothing undermines a protest greater than rabid hyperbole.
So first things first: tell me, how this is a ban on pornography? The option to keep viewing adult material is still there, it's just that you have to opt in to do so. It'll be as difficult as ticking a single box on an internet application form. This is just a small restriction that makes it harder for adolescents to gain access to pornographic material (thus enforcing a law against something which was always illegal). Complaining about this scheme is like complaining about how they moved adult mags to the top shelves of the magazine racks and slapped brown bags on them. Trying to take things out of the reach of children is not the same as banning it.
"But it won't work". I can see it making it harder for kids to obtain pornography. Parents can't know what their kids are doing on the internet in their room unless they physically stand and watch them at all times. With this, they can at least have a chance of making it harder for them. I don't know how providers will distinguish between adult content and non-adult sites, they might make a complete hash of it, but it could be effective. It beats doing nothing at all.
They're just screaming "THINK OF THE CHILDREN", amiright? Perhaps, but I can see the reasoning behind the concern. There is a very real risk that the more children familiarize themselves with pornographic material, the more casual they may feel about taking part in the behaviour displayed. Child grooming and paedophilia is rampant on the net. Go to one of the chans and at any one time, you'll find someone bragging about how they coaxed underage "camwhores" into taking off their clothes. If a child grows up in an environment where porn and sex are so casual that you can partake in it anytime, the temptation and tendency to do so will increase. Meanwhile, in regards to boys, we as a culture we are trying to gravitate away from the notion that women should live by their image, and that they should not be stereotyped as sexually objects. If from an early age, kids are seeing all evidence to the contrary, that progressive view isn't going to come along so well.
"But maninahat, kids can watch violent movies and play violent games and it doesn't mean they are going to become killers." True, but there are a couple of differences. Firstly, it takes a lot more to become a killer than to flash your tits on a camera. Responsible societies already take steps to avoid kids getting hold of deadly weapons or engaging in violent behaviour, so why shouldn't similar steps be taken with porn? The second difference is that whilst murder is almost universally seen as terrible, many people see no problem with sex whatsoever. Reasonable people will draw a line beyond enjoying violent entertainment, because they know the real life version is terrible - but with the sex industry, the emphasis is on taking part - people want to be sexually active and have lots of fun, whilst porn is a kind of wish fulfillment that almost seems plausible, because you only technically need consenting people to make it happen. I'm not saying sex and porn in itself is wrong - that's not what I am taking issue with - the issue is that promiscuity should be a thing for people at a responsible age. Pregnancy, STDs, public humiliation, rape; there are a huge number of life affecting issues connected to sex, and people need to go into it when they are ready to face those consequences. An 11 year old is not ready.
"Porn is the right of every free, adult citizen in the UK. It is not something we should have to ask permission for. This is the latest move from a colossal fuckhead, and his government of fuckheads."
and,
"Didn't the UK suffer BOMBING RUNS from fascists like Cameron?
You'd think, after killing enough Nazis, that they'd have been wiped out."
This does wind me up. Nothing undermines a protest greater than rabid hyperbole.
So first things first: tell me, how this is a ban on pornography? The option to keep viewing adult material is still there, it's just that you have to opt in to do so. It'll be as difficult as ticking a single box on an internet application form. This is just a small restriction that makes it harder for adolescents to gain access to pornographic material (thus enforcing a law against something which was always illegal). Complaining about this scheme is like complaining about how they moved adult mags to the top shelves of the magazine racks and slapped brown bags on them. Trying to take things out of the reach of children is not the same as banning it.
"But it won't work". I can see it making it harder for kids to obtain pornography. Parents can't know what their kids are doing on the internet in their room unless they physically stand and watch them at all times. With this, they can at least have a chance of making it harder for them. I don't know how providers will distinguish between adult content and non-adult sites, they might make a complete hash of it, but it could be effective. It beats doing nothing at all.
They're just screaming "THINK OF THE CHILDREN", amiright? Perhaps, but I can see the reasoning behind the concern. There is a very real risk that the more children familiarize themselves with pornographic material, the more casual they may feel about taking part in the behaviour displayed. Child grooming and paedophilia is rampant on the net. Go to one of the chans and at any one time, you'll find someone bragging about how they coaxed underage "camwhores" into taking off their clothes. If a child grows up in an environment where porn and sex are so casual that you can partake in it anytime, the temptation and tendency to do so will increase. Meanwhile, in regards to boys, we as a culture we are trying to gravitate away from the notion that women should live by their image, and that they should not be stereotyped as sexually objects. If from an early age, kids are seeing all evidence to the contrary, that progressive view isn't going to come along so well.
"But maninahat, kids can watch violent movies and play violent games and it doesn't mean they are going to become killers." True, but there are a couple of differences. Firstly, it takes a lot more to become a killer than to flash your tits on a camera. Responsible societies already take steps to avoid kids getting hold of deadly weapons or engaging in violent behaviour, so why shouldn't similar steps be taken with porn? The second difference is that whilst murder is almost universally seen as terrible, many people see no problem with sex whatsoever. Reasonable people will draw a line beyond enjoying violent entertainment, because they know the real life version is terrible - but with the sex industry, the emphasis is on taking part - people want to be sexually active and have lots of fun, whilst porn is a kind of wish fulfillment that almost seems plausible, because you only technically need consenting people to make it happen. I'm not saying sex and porn in itself is wrong - that's not what I am taking issue with - the issue is that promiscuity should be a thing for people at a responsible age. Pregnancy, STDs, public humiliation, rape; there are a huge number of life affecting issues connected to sex, and people need to go into it when they are ready to face those consequences. An 11 year old is not ready.
If/when it comes to pass I may have to have a little play to see what it is protecting the children from. Porn filters have been said to be next to useless in the past with early ones just blocking pics with 80% skin tone such as a face. So, government farmed out, lowest bidder pr0n filter what do you catch, what do you miss and what false positives are 'the children' going to be subjected to despite your porn censor being applied to approx 65m people?
Am I allowed to look at a picture of Winston Churchill or is it seen as 'an older gentleman sucking on a dark cigar'?
Will it catch rule 34 items, given that 'the children' will often search for their cartoon favourites? Given that 'normalisation' is a concern it's interesting that 'man + woman' might be blocked but 'tentacle demon performing an unspeakable act on multiple pastel equines' may not be. There is also that one theory about what started the 'naughty tentacle' thing...
Would something like 'My Immortal' be censored as it is 'just words'?
If parents want to protect their children that is commendable. Provide them every tool you can to do so, allow them to ask their ISP for porn filters, provide them with personal software to do so, give them pamphlets on having 'the talk' with their kids. Don't apply a blanket censor to every person in the country, even if you can guarantee it will never be wrong and will never be mis-used or mis-applied.
Am I allowed to look at a picture of Winston Churchill or is it seen as 'an older gentleman sucking on a dark cigar'?
Will it catch rule 34 items, given that 'the children' will often search for their cartoon favourites? Given that 'normalisation' is a concern it's interesting that 'man + woman' might be blocked but 'tentacle demon performing an unspeakable act on multiple pastel equines' may not be. There is also that one theory about what started the 'naughty tentacle' thing...
Would something like 'My Immortal' be censored as it is 'just words'?
If parents want to protect their children that is commendable. Provide them every tool you can to do so, allow them to ask their ISP for porn filters, provide them with personal software to do so, give them pamphlets on having 'the talk' with their kids. Don't apply a blanket censor to every person in the country, even if you can guarantee it will never be wrong and will never be mis-used or mis-applied.
Whats a better desperate voter grab than a good ol' Moral Crusade?Bara_no_Hime said:
To elaborate: The Tories have been hammered in the council elections by UKIP[footnote]Which is hilarious given that as a one issue party, they'll most likely fade away come the next election, its just that the Tories are/were terrified of them[/footnote] and there have been some divisions in the party over issues like Europe, Gay Adoption etc. (At least going by the last few episodes of Have I got News For You), so Mr. Cameron is going for a publicity stunt to recover lost voters.
Anyone here knows damn well that he actually doesn't think regular porn is bad, the conservatives just need to get back some of the voters they lost to UKIP.
You already have to do this with many mobile data service providers elsewhere, including the United States, for all of you who are going "WELL FUCK, GLAD I DON'T LIVE THERE, THEN".
That said, kids have found ways to get porn long before the internet, you old sods; the internet is just your latest attempt to find a villain to further your political ends. People shouldn't have to ask for your permission to access such a thing; it's parents' responsibility to mandate these sorts of things, not yours.
That said, kids have found ways to get porn long before the internet, you old sods; the internet is just your latest attempt to find a villain to further your political ends. People shouldn't have to ask for your permission to access such a thing; it's parents' responsibility to mandate these sorts of things, not yours.
Thankyou, this a thousand times.Sixcess said:
Who gives a fuck what sort of porn people want to watch anyway? As long as it's all consensual then it's all good, right?
What's that, government? You wanna mandate what sort of stuff i wanna consume? How about you fuck off.
Here's two things I do not get. At all.
Why are people so convinced that PORN is corrupting our youth, when it must be sought out which is something careful parenting can minimise (and, let's face it, when they reach the age where they want to look at porn their imaginations are going to go wild anyway)? Are the people saying this COMPLETELY blind to the constant bombardment all forms of media throw at people about how they "should" act, and how it's acceptable to act? Girls are constantly being told they all have to try to look like supermodels, and boys are constantly being told that to feel and show emotion is a weakness. Women aren't allowed to be equal to men; but men aren't allowed to be caring and devoted parents. Women aren't allowed sexual freedom; but men are free to take advantage of them. This is a constant presence in all media- music, television, movies, that dictate how our children should be growing up. And they're concerned about PORN?!
Secondly, do they really think that each and every individual who has gone through puberty and therefore wouldn't be "corrupted" by porn has access to their own internet? I don't. I'm 26, and I rent a room. If my landlords decide they want to implement a "family friendly" filter, neither myself nor my fiance will be able to access adult material, despite being adults who are able to make our own decisions. How many people live in shared accommodation, where one person is responsible for the internet? Or live with their families still? Or live in shelters or group homes, where the internet is dealt with by the people running the home?
None of these people will have any say in whether or not they can access adult material- and what, exactly, does "adult material" cover? I mean, they SAY porn, but would they really block porn and not, say, none-pornographic fetish sites? Or online sex toy retailers? Or sexual health sites? None of those things are "family friendly" either, so depending on where they decide to go with this, and how many people in the UK live in some form of shared accommodation, it's possible that a worrying percentage of the country will lose access to far more than just masturbation material, despite being adults. The only way around it would be to pay for your own internet- and if you're living in shared accommodation, not only is it very difficult to do and reliant on the person in charge, but it's also a cost you're probably not in a position to pay for.
I am completely offended and repulsed that my country think this is an okay thing to do. Sure, it's not a bad idea to have options to put filters in place- but it should be something that each individual implements themselves, on THEIR end. Preferably on THEIR computer. This stinks of taking away choice to anyone who isn't a primary bill payer, which feels like rich elitism and classism. I thought we were better than that. Apparently my last bit of optimism was a mistake.
Why are people so convinced that PORN is corrupting our youth, when it must be sought out which is something careful parenting can minimise (and, let's face it, when they reach the age where they want to look at porn their imaginations are going to go wild anyway)? Are the people saying this COMPLETELY blind to the constant bombardment all forms of media throw at people about how they "should" act, and how it's acceptable to act? Girls are constantly being told they all have to try to look like supermodels, and boys are constantly being told that to feel and show emotion is a weakness. Women aren't allowed to be equal to men; but men aren't allowed to be caring and devoted parents. Women aren't allowed sexual freedom; but men are free to take advantage of them. This is a constant presence in all media- music, television, movies, that dictate how our children should be growing up. And they're concerned about PORN?!
Secondly, do they really think that each and every individual who has gone through puberty and therefore wouldn't be "corrupted" by porn has access to their own internet? I don't. I'm 26, and I rent a room. If my landlords decide they want to implement a "family friendly" filter, neither myself nor my fiance will be able to access adult material, despite being adults who are able to make our own decisions. How many people live in shared accommodation, where one person is responsible for the internet? Or live with their families still? Or live in shelters or group homes, where the internet is dealt with by the people running the home?
None of these people will have any say in whether or not they can access adult material- and what, exactly, does "adult material" cover? I mean, they SAY porn, but would they really block porn and not, say, none-pornographic fetish sites? Or online sex toy retailers? Or sexual health sites? None of those things are "family friendly" either, so depending on where they decide to go with this, and how many people in the UK live in some form of shared accommodation, it's possible that a worrying percentage of the country will lose access to far more than just masturbation material, despite being adults. The only way around it would be to pay for your own internet- and if you're living in shared accommodation, not only is it very difficult to do and reliant on the person in charge, but it's also a cost you're probably not in a position to pay for.
I am completely offended and repulsed that my country think this is an okay thing to do. Sure, it's not a bad idea to have options to put filters in place- but it should be something that each individual implements themselves, on THEIR end. Preferably on THEIR computer. This stinks of taking away choice to anyone who isn't a primary bill payer, which feels like rich elitism and classism. I thought we were better than that. Apparently my last bit of optimism was a mistake.
This is actually a huge fear for me now. "Real" rape porn- that is, none-consensual taping of none-consensual sex- I'm all for being made illegal. But I think we all know it won't stop there.TacticalAssassin1 said:
There's very little doubt that "rape fantasy" porn will be added to the list, as well. And, before anyone says that people shouldn't be fantasising about such things- we cannot decide what turns us on, only what we do with it. And relieving yourself to fully consensual porn depicting an imaginary scenario does not make a person a rapist. A lack of empathy does.
But- and here is the thing that worries me- I'm willing to bet that some BDSM will also be categorised as "rape porn". So if you're into BDSM, you have a problem. Even if you're into aspects of BDSM that normally wouldn't be categorised as "rape porn", how can you be sure that you won't one day view something which ends up flagged? That would potentially involve arrest, being put on the sex offenders register, and potentially having massive parts of your life destroyed. For watching fully consensual porn.
And when this is enacted, I'm basically going to be too afraid to look at porn that actually interests me. And that is not a good feeling.
I'm not even into that stuff and it pisses me off. I'm against possession of any media being illegal, even the really rough stuff, though of course I think the production of it should certainly be off limits.Ren_Li said:
I just don't like the sentiment that some fuck in the government thinks he knows what's best for everybody. It actually really does piss me off when we are treated like children.