Universal Porn Filter Coming to the U.K.

Brainpaint

New member
Sep 28, 2011
108
0
0
Li Mu said:
Do you have £1000 and half a brain? If so, there's nothing stopping you from leaving the UK.
Stop making excuses and get on with it.
Lol. £1000 isn't even enough to cover the flight to some places. What world are you living in?
 

Bara_no_Hime

New member
Sep 15, 2010
3,646
0
0
Deshara said:
PORNOGRAPHY IS RUINING OUR CHILDREN!!

Oh, fuck off UK. Knowing about sex doesn't ruin your fucking kid's childhood-- having all of your hopes and dreams crushed by the grinding block of tedius social obligations does. If you want kids to be innocent for long, lessen their fucking work load and stop trying to turn schools into competitive careers
This.

Well said Deshara.

OT: You know what I find most offensive about this? The fact that Mr. Cameron keeps jumping back and forth between regular porn and child porn. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

Regular porn causes no harm to children.

Child porn harms the children in the porn, obviously, because they're being sexually abused.

If he wants to go after child porn, then more power to Mr. Cameron. But why the hell is he attacking regular porn too? They have nothing to do with one another.
 
Sep 3, 2011
332
0
0
Yes yes the children, but this my good porn loving freinds is just the start soon everything they don't like will be baned for the children or somebullshit like that he does not care and he never did. He just wants to control people and he will fail. YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE GANDUF THE G- Er...
 

Li Mu

New member
Oct 17, 2011
552
0
0
Brainpaint said:
Li Mu said:
Do you have £1000 and half a brain? If so, there's nothing stopping you from leaving the UK.
Stop making excuses and get on with it.
Lol. £1000 isn't even enough to cover the flight to some places. What world are you living in?
Well, I left the UK about 5 years ago to move to Japan. I now currently live in Moscow.
I think I know a hell of a lot more than you do about such things. I moved to Moscow with £1000 in the bank and a flight which cost me £60 from London. It was more than enough to set myself up.

So, ok, I'll change the cost to £1060 if that makes you feel better.

I'm living in a world where I know what I'm talking about. Thanks.
 

Serioli

New member
Mar 26, 2010
491
0
0
Norithics said:
Oh, but haven't you heard? There's the option to turn it back on at the low, low price of the most awkward phone conversation of your adult life. "Hello? Why yes good sir, I'd like for you to open the floodgates on my smut machine! It appears the infernal device has become unfixed and my limitless supply of butts has dried up completely! As a chronic wrist-injured reprobate, I'll be needing you to unleash that beast for me again, posthaste! Jolly good. Oh jeeves, fetch the splash tarps, will you??"
I will be using this as my script if it actually comes to pass!
 

Kushan101

New member
Apr 28, 2009
138
0
0
Serioli said:
Norithics said:
Oh, but haven't you heard? There's the option to turn it back on at the low, low price of the most awkward phone conversation of your adult life. "Hello? Why yes good sir, I'd like for you to open the floodgates on my smut machine! It appears the infernal device has become unfixed and my limitless supply of butts has dried up completely! As a chronic wrist-injured reprobate, I'll be needing you to unleash that beast for me again, posthaste! Jolly good. Oh jeeves, fetch the splash tarps, will you??"
I will be using this as my script if it actually comes to pass!
Which is why I'm convinced this wont work, doesn't the European Court of Human Rights guarantee every single citizen the right to a private life? What is even remotely private about having to ring up the god damn ISP and ask for your porn to be switched back on!?

Did people vote for this? was it a part of their manifesto that they were going to introduce a Chinese Firewall? Whats next? foreign news outlets? opposition parties? the website of anyone running for an MP's seat who wasn't privately educated at Eaton?

I hate this country at times, they can never treat us like adults. Constantly trying to control the prices of alcohol, cigarettes and fuel in order to control our usage of them. The fuel one gets me the most, they make it outrageously expensive but then provide the most expensive, cramped, inconvenient and fucking smelly public transport system I've seen: they then have the sheer audacity to say they are raising fuel prices to "curb our usage of cars and protect the environment".

Taxes =/= Social engineering you bastards.
 

Malty Milk Whistle

New member
Oct 29, 2011
617
0
0
Sizzle Montyjing said:
Valderis said:
Somebody please put this guy out of our collective misery.

This is bad, really bad, let's hope people from the UK put a stop to this idiot and his plans. The Internet should not be censored.
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?

OH WAIT.
My major issue is that it's being decided by a single man, off the basis of a fucking internet forum.
Oh god this.
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.
 

chikusho

New member
Jun 14, 2011
873
0
0
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.
 

NearLifeExperience

New member
Oct 21, 2012
281
0
0
Adam Jensen said:
Deshara said:
PORNOGRAPHY IS RUINING OUR CHILDREN!!
That's actually true. Porn addiction is a real thing. And every study about porn users so far had revealed that it can be quite damaging. I will refer you to this set of videos titled "Your brain on porn". It's very interesting and educational. And it will change your perspective on porn.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aS9vumF6JMU
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxrG6QZ-G0M
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOsF81sC4vo
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGwIrmF1Z6k
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQgUzACfTHI
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQQRHdPri2s

Even though I don't like censorship, this isn't actually a bad thing.
Long time since I had a good laugh, thank you :p

No seriously, take a step back and think about this. It's completely off it's tits.
 

thebakedpotato

New member
Jun 18, 2012
221
0
0
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.
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
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.
 

Serioli

New member
Mar 26, 2010
491
0
0
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.
 

Ninjamedic

New member
Dec 8, 2009
2,569
0
0
Bara_no_Hime said:
If he wants to go after child porn, then more power to Mr. Cameron. But why the hell is he attacking regular porn too? They have nothing to do with one another.
Whats a better desperate voter grab than a good ol' Moral Crusade?

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.
 

ReinWeisserRitter

New member
Nov 15, 2011
749
0
0
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.
 

Talvrae

The Purple Fairy
Dec 8, 2009
896
0
0
exactelly what we needed, even less liberty and more gouvernement intervention...
They know parent can block thouse site themselves at homes right?
 

TacticalAssassin1

Elite Member
May 29, 2009
1,059
0
41
Sixcess said:
Caffeine_Bombed said:
I'm all for blocking access to rape and child porn
I'm not.

Because I don't know what they mean by 'rape porn',and I doubt they know either.

Pretty much every 'rape porn' movie on the internet would be better described as badly-acted-and-unconvincingly-rough-for-the-first-few-minutes porn... but based on the way the government defined 'extreme' porn a few years ago I expect a vague and dangerously broad definition for 'rape' porn. If neither the government, nor the police, nor judges nor juries are exact in their definition then people will have their lives ruined when they go on the sex offender list and/or go to jail for possession of entirely consensual pornography.
Thankyou, this a thousand times.
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.
 

Ren_Li

New member
Mar 7, 2012
114
0
0
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.