[deathfun]

What's so wrong with porn?

Nothing at all if you also don't think that there's anything wrong with exposing it to a young child.

Ohnoes, a young child watches porn
That's when it becomes the parents job to teach their child about sex earlier, and how real world differs from not so real world


"Young Sir, simply becoming the milk man does NOT get you laid just like that"
"Damn"

[haloboy100]

You obviously do not understand the permanent psychological and therapy-inducing damage that results from "rushing" a child's development in such a traumatizing fasion.

[Herra Tohtori]

Traumatized from what, telling them where babies come from?

[deathfun]

You obviously do not understand the permanent psychological and therapy-inducing damage that results from "rushing" a child's development in such a traumatizing fasion.

Show me the evidence good sir

[haloboy100]

You're talking to it.

Discredit me all you want, I'm just putting in my bit.

[Drogoth]

You obviously do not understand the permanent psychological and therapy-inducing damage that results from "rushing" a child's development in such a traumatizing fasion.

Parent's responsibility.

This is less about porn and more about the state getting involved where it doesn't have a place.

The only thing this law does is allow parents to blame their inattentiveness on their child's development on their big bad ISP rather then taking responsibility for their actions or as the case may be, inaction.

[Klaustrophobia]

oh FFS.  i really can't believe some of you guys.  ALL this is doing is presenting a damn OPTION to people to use isp-provided porn flitering.

[Drogoth]

oh FFS.  i really can't believe some of you guys.  ALL this is doing is presenting a damn OPTION to people to use isp-provided porn flitering.

No, it sets up a surveillance and tracking infrastructure that can be expanded at will without warning. I spend most of my spare time working for a political party, and one that is behind the curve on data campaigning.

The amount of data that is collated, quantified, and then used to define everything about you, from your liklihood to vote, to who you'll vote for, to what type of organic food policy will buy your vote is used. And my party is behind the curve on this stuff. Corporations and more informed political movements have been on this for a long time, and this kind of data is bought and sold with very high speed.

Don't get me wrong. I tell most of the anonymous folks and other conspiracy theorists to take their tin foil hats off and go pound sand on a semi-regular basis, but I also know exactly what this kind of data is used for and how readily available that data is.

This is like an automatic opt out to buy alcohol. No restriction to opt in, except now your name is on a list somewhere saying that you opted in. One more data point to evaluate your attitudes. Where will you vacation? What will you buy? How best to market to you? Etc etc.

The ISP's themselves will almost certainly use this list to tailor service to groups of people, and I find it highly unlikely that won't metastasize quickly.

That's even before you get into the nuts and bolts of implementation.

What is porn? Who set's that bar? Is it just sites who state they are for porn? Is it sites where that content can be downloaded? What about ones that provide instructions to acquire?

What about some jackass who posts a revealing photo on facebook? Facebook now offline? Implementation will be a nightmare, without the above data gathering issues. Most notably, this will likely expand if it isn't nipped in the bud.

In this case they have dressed it up as child protection, but again, even with admirable goals, this is the role for the parent, not the state.

[Dragon]

Something tells me that it's just another move to distract people from the more important issues. There will be an uproar in the media, people will complain and protest this, the issue would be all over the news. Finally, it will be repealed with an apology. And in the meantime, nobody will talk about lower-profile, unpopular stuff that will pass without anyone noticing, and which would've cause a stir if tried on a calmer time. That's an old, proven tactic for passing unpopular measures.

[Apollo]

You're talking to it.

Discredit me all you want, I'm just putting in my bit.

Perhaps it had a very bad effect on you, but not everybody would react the same way.

[Mars]

You're talking to it.

Discredit me all you want, I'm just putting in my bit.

I had my first sexual experience when I was six, with an eight year old. I had a lot of fairly traumatic things happen to me as a child. That was not one of them.

This does not mean that applies to everyone. Insufficient sample. Similarly, your stumbling across porn as a child traumatizing you doesn't mean it is a global destructive force across all young experiences. If it was much of society would not exist. For a long time children slept in the same single-room houses as their parents for the winter and certainly would have witnessed their siblings being conceived.

But lets say porn really is bad for young minds. Is it the government's responsibility to protect them? Does the government also prevent them from running out into the road, or falling into a fire? At some point, the responsibility is on the guardian of the child to do things like introduce them to sex responsibly - the best the government can do is give resources and education to the guardian in question.

[Flak]

British attempting that? I think if you look to the east, there are many attempts at that already. In fact, the governments often learn the hard way that the harder they block, the harder the people will try to look for new sites.

[An4ximandros]

The problem here is that there is a certain level of responsibility that should be a parent's duty to uphold, not the government's. In this case, a parent that is worried about what such imagery does to a child should keep an eye on what they are watching. I could understand if this involved truly damaging content like racism, or worse. But even then, there is simply too much content for a government to categorize by itself.

[headdie]

Something tells me that it's just another move to distract people from the more important issues. There will be an uproar in the media, people will complain and protest this, the issue would be all over the news. Finally, it will be repealed with an apology. And in the meantime, nobody will talk about lower-profile, unpopular stuff that will pass without anyone noticing, and which would've cause a stir if tried on a calmer time. That's an old, proven tactic for passing unpopular measures.

not sure, I have only heard about it a couple of times and in both cases it was in written sources.

oh FFS.  i really can't believe some of you guys.  ALL this is doing is presenting a damn OPTION to people to use isp-provided porn flitering.

No, it sets up a surveillance and tracking infrastructure that can be expanded at will without warning. I spend most of my spare time working for a political party, and one that is behind the curve on data campaigning.

errr what???? as far as I am aware we are talking about some filters which are voluntarily enforced by the end user.

The amount of data that is collated, quantified, and then used to define everything about you, from your liklihood to vote, to who you'll vote for, to what type of organic food policy will buy your vote is used. And my party is behind the curve on this stuff. Corporations and more informed political movements have been on this for a long time, and this kind of data is bought and sold with very high speed.

Don't get me wrong. I tell most of the anonymous folks and other conspiracy theorists to take their tin foil hats off and go pound sand on a semi-regular basis, but I also know exactly what this kind of data is used for and how readily available that data is.

This is like an automatic opt out to buy alcohol. No restriction to opt in, except now your name is on a list somewhere saying that you opted in. One more data point to evaluate your attitudes. Where will you vacation? What will you buy? How best to market to you? Etc etc.

The ISP's themselves will almost certainly use this list to tailor service to groups of people, and I find it highly unlikely that won't metastasize quickly.

ok this is reading like a conspiracy theory

That's even before you get into the nuts and bolts of implementation.

What is porn? Who set's that bar? Is it just sites who state they are for porn? Is it sites where that content can be downloaded? What about ones that provide instructions to acquire?

I have found the filters operated by Talk Talk for a while now to be about right so far

What about some jackass who posts a revealing photo on facebook? Facebook now offline? Implementation will be a nightmare, without the above data gathering issues. Most notably, this will likely expand if it isn't nipped in the bud.

if the filters are posing a problem just disable them and you are back to where you were before the option had to be there by law

In this case they have dressed it up as child protection, but again, even with admirable goals, this is the role for the parent, not the state.

errr true but parents but as a parent to a 13 year old with a mobile phone, xbox 360 and access to a PC i can tell you it is a tall order and often you end up being reactionary rather than proactive due to the child's attempts to get around what ever rules you have in place so I welcome a tool like this.

[Flak]

The problem here is that there is a certain level of responsibility that should be a parent's duty to uphold, not the government's. In this case, a parent that is worried about what such imagery does to a child should keep an eye on what they are watching. I could understand if this involved truly damaging content like racism, or worse. But even then, there is simply too much content for a government to categorize by itself.

That I agree. Here, some in the government and many of those so called 'religious groups', or so they wish to be called, tried to block things like pornography and even tried to ban alcoholic drinks. What they failed to realize is that they tried to block using oppressive means, not bothering with teaching children about them and making them understand. For some, talking about sexuality within a family is still strongly considered a taboo. They should know that just actively blocking websites will not get them anywhere without proper education. Come on, some government officials have been caught watching porn on their tablets while in a government meeting.

[butter_pat_head]

No, it sets up a surveillance and tracking infrastructure that can be expanded at will without warning. I spend most of my spare time working for a political party, and one that is behind the curve on data campaigning.

errr what???? as far as I am aware we are talking about some filters which are voluntarily enforced by the end user.

Come 2014 every internet access account holder in the UK will be forced to make the decision with the default option being "filter and break my internets please".  Also I bet with a fair certainty that this legislation will include a clause (hidden by some form of NDA so us peons won't even knows it exists until it leaks by somebody) that requires that all ISPs collect the details of those accounts that opted to have unfiltered and not broken internets and as I have mentioned earlier it wont be much more of a step for that information to be used for purposes other than just filtering the internet.

Lets just take my hypothetical HLP gets blocked scenario.  Perfect Father A wants to access HLP, theres no porn here right?  It doesn't matter, his ISP account is still going to be flagged in some peoples eyes as somebody who wants to look at porn.  The wife finds out but after a little chat understands that the filters are breaking the internet and are blocking legitimate sites.  Now suppose the account holders ISP gets hacked and the list that holds the unfiltered account details gets leaked and perfect father A's employer sees it and sees the perfect father A's details.  I can see this happening:

Employer:  As you understand here at XYZ inc. we pride ourselves on our strict moral ethics and it has come to my attention that you have been taking part in activities which may tarnish those ethics in the eyes of our clients.
Father:  Sir?  I can't imagine what those could be.
Employer:  It comes to my attention that you regularly view explicit imagery on the internet.
Father:  I do no such thing.
Employer:  I have evidence to the contrary.  This evidence has been examined by the board and I am sorry to say that their decision is final.  I am afraid we are going to have to let you go.

A extreme possibility but a possibility non the less.  Its all about the abuse of information and how it can potentially tar too many of the wrong people with the porn-viewer brush.

[The E]

You're going very far down a slippery slope. Too far, in fact. Please dial back the paranoia.

Legislation like this is problematic, yes, but not for those reasons. It is problematic because it's completely ineffective. It's problematic because it confuses prohibition with education.

[Apollo]

You're going very far down a slippery slope. Too far, in fact. Please dial back the paranoia.

Legislation like this is problematic, yes, but not for those reasons. It is problematic because it's completely ineffective. It's problematic because it confuses prohibition with education.

And because it's just unnecessarily intrusive for no good reason.

But yeah, that example is rather unlikely, mainly because few bosses would be that stupid.

It'll probably backfire in all the ways the OP's link suggested.

[Lorric]

I had my first sexual experience when I was six, with an eight year old.

How is that even possible, neither of you should have even started puberty.

[The E]

I don't think we need the details.