free spirit
more tea vicar?
thanks for the confirmation, I hope this thread will do as evidence when the plod come knocking down your door...
David Cameron urges internet firms to block child abuse images
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
I'm going to use the Pete Townsend defence and use Urban as evidence.thanks for the confirmation, I hope this thread will do as evidence when the plod come knocking down your door...
skyscraper101
0891 50 50 50
Just use the Pete Townsend getout.
Edit: too late.
Edit: too late.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
the hidden menace Bing?
grit
an ugly force for good
I'm conflicted about this, on one hand I think censorship being imposed on the net is wrong, however the idea of "opt in porn" doesn't seem all that unreasonable.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
bit of a twat in shared houses isn't it?
It's a whole new conversation to have to be having as to whether or not to opt in to porn on the net.
One of the problems with this sort of issue is that the politicians seem to work on the basis that everyone must live as they do in family units. Even then I can see a fair few husbands (or wives) being pretty pissed off to be put in that position.
problem is if its presented as a porn opt in then a lot of people wont select it because they arent that interested in porn. but it will pick up a lot of non porn stuff, including possibly urban - theres loads of non porn quite mainstream stuff that gets blocked on my phone, like the f-word blog - that stuff will get a lower traffic and as a consequence become more vulnerable to further attacks, also there will be a temptation to write to dodge the electronic censors, meaning a lot of legitimate non porn stuff will disappear from sites who cant afford losing the ad revenue
free spirit
more tea vicar?
I can easily see this then getting extended to stuff beyond porn either as smokedout says, or more directly. Either way, it's surely open to abuse in terms of potentially allowing the government to effectively classify anything they don't approve of and stick it behind this barrier to massively reduce the potential audience for it.
It also creates a handy opt in list of degenerates should we ever end up with the sort of government who might like to have such a list.
It also creates a handy opt in list of degenerates should we ever end up with the sort of government who might like to have such a list.
as an example, i've got a mate who's a midwife and spends half her life trawling through emails marked as spam by yahoo to find her work emails. things like sexual health, abortion, sex education sites will all become vulnerable to this kind of filtering, and as the internet becomes the default source of information for young people that means a lot that stuff will be unavailable
also who sets the rules on what is 'adult' or not, are they going to get some kind of board of censors thing going on?
also who sets the rules on what is 'adult' or not, are they going to get some kind of board of censors thing going on?
free spirit
more tea vicar?
or there's a much more sinister agenda going on there.
Given all that's come out recently about security service snooping on the web, I really can't see this not being linked to that, and they're just piggy backing on concerns about porn access for kids.
Plus Google are a bit of a soft target in some ways for being tax dodging bastards.
purves grundy
ambient clown remix
Net porn block on EVERY home: Victory for the Mail as PM pledges 'opt in' rule for all web users
Hurrah!!!!! Lots of semi-naked pics down the side of the site to please the creepy voyeurs visiting the Mail website, of course, including the usual opportunity to gawp at a teenager looking 'grown up'.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
So, here is the reason behind this :
Online pornography to be blocked automatically, PM to announce
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076
Online pornography to be blocked automatically, PM to announce
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076
Boris Sprinkler
Dont be scared
Well done daily mail and David Cameron.
This should be exactly like the war on drugs ( I am old enough to remember that). Before that war, there literally drugs everywhere, lying on park benches, smack trees in people's gardens, some trains were entirely made of drugs. But they changed all that literally herded up all the drugs and shot it off a cliff. Even shops selling rugs had to change their name to indicate it was carpets they meant.
But now of course, you cannot buy a drug anyway so I guess it worked. This will probably be the same.
I hope Cameron knows that google indexes about 0.05 % of the Internet. So this gesture is the equivalent of throwing a cork at the Niagara Falls in order to stop it.
If he had any balls of a man ( no pun) he could start addressing problems at root cause. Instead of banning something he doesnt understand why not addressing why pornography objectifies women and presents them as a commodity. Maybe he could do something about the objectification of women in wider society and their role therein. Not just pornography, but you know from school to employment, to the grave. Equal rights. And the same with advertising. Ban it there if you mean what you say.
Also I hope, that at some point the British people do get fed up with being spied on , lied to and generally treated like serfs. But I doubt it.
This should be exactly like the war on drugs ( I am old enough to remember that). Before that war, there literally drugs everywhere, lying on park benches, smack trees in people's gardens, some trains were entirely made of drugs. But they changed all that literally herded up all the drugs and shot it off a cliff. Even shops selling rugs had to change their name to indicate it was carpets they meant.
But now of course, you cannot buy a drug anyway so I guess it worked. This will probably be the same.
I hope Cameron knows that google indexes about 0.05 % of the Internet. So this gesture is the equivalent of throwing a cork at the Niagara Falls in order to stop it.
If he had any balls of a man ( no pun) he could start addressing problems at root cause. Instead of banning something he doesnt understand why not addressing why pornography objectifies women and presents them as a commodity. Maybe he could do something about the objectification of women in wider society and their role therein. Not just pornography, but you know from school to employment, to the grave. Equal rights. And the same with advertising. Ban it there if you mean what you say.
Also I hope, that at some point the British people do get fed up with being spied on , lied to and generally treated like serfs. But I doubt it.
youngian
Well-Known Member
As the likes of Pete Townsend found out to their cost, isn't this a problem that has already been solved. So like self-defence against burglars, here is a fictitious response to a fictitious tabloid problem. So David Cameron.
Like what; 'Gove', 'Duncan Smith', 'Lynton'
Like what; 'Gove', 'Duncan Smith', 'Lynton'
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Online pornography to be blocked automatically, PM to announce
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076
I wonder how they will define "depicting rape"..
And whether this will affect the bsdm community.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076
I wonder how they will define "depicting rape"..
And whether this will affect the bsdm community.
Buddy Bradley
Pantheistic solipsist
Or not - according to the Guardian, it's all a big lie: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/21/david-cameron-war-internet-porn
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Well surely either they instigate a filter or they don't, but if they say a filter will exist it must exist no?
Buddy Bradley
Pantheistic solipsist
Similar threads
