|
Why do these women groups always think that rape is the ultimate crime? I mean it always gets thrown in there with murder etc, which are actually much worse.
So why is it ok to show fake murder, torture etc but showing rape is the ultimate evil?
|
On July 24 2013 01:11 Skytt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 01:03 FFW_Rude wrote:On July 24 2013 01:00 Skytt wrote:On July 24 2013 00:56 FFW_Rude wrote:On July 24 2013 00:55 Grovbolle wrote:On July 24 2013 00:52 FFW_Rude wrote:On July 24 2013 00:47 darkness wrote:On July 24 2013 00:44 FFW_Rude wrote:On July 24 2013 00:42 darkness wrote:
Restricting a few porn websites to me is like "I'm going to try to restrict a small part to see if we can restrict the Internet even more in the future". They're just trying to see how people would react now. Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner. Also for the lulz  Check out OP's name. It's just perfect Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments. I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand. We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls. On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me  Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out". Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal. In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck. By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it. Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn. If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children. If you have a list of people that don't watch porn. Then you have a list of people that do.... As I said, you will have a list of people who do, but it isn't definitive as not everyone who doesn't want to watch porn is going to be aware of the fact that you can opt-in to a filter
Only if all the ISP's are required to provide the list or record and compile that information. Unless the law requires them to do that and report it, there isn't a lot of reason for them to do so and very good reasons for them not to.
|
This is absurd. how can you ban porn? I actually can not wrap my mind around the fact that in this day and age, a government in a first world country is trying to ban pornography. Even if you could somehow come up with a logical argument as to why it's a good idea - AREN'T THERE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS A GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE DOING?
|
On July 23 2013 23:02 Firebolt145 wrote:
I don't know why anyone would take the Daily Mail seriously lol.
huge number of british working class people do.
i had one person practically shouting at me because she read in the daily mail that "everything can cause cancer" and "therefore theres no point in quitting smoking coz you can get it from anything". she smoked through her pregnancy and still does.
|
On July 24 2013 01:12 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 01:09 Godwrath wrote:On July 24 2013 01:03 FFW_Rude wrote:On July 24 2013 01:00 Skytt wrote:On July 24 2013 00:56 FFW_Rude wrote:On July 24 2013 00:55 Grovbolle wrote:On July 24 2013 00:52 FFW_Rude wrote:On July 24 2013 00:47 darkness wrote:On July 24 2013 00:44 FFW_Rude wrote:On July 24 2013 00:42 darkness wrote:
Restricting a few porn websites to me is like "I'm going to try to restrict a small part to see if we can restrict the Internet even more in the future". They're just trying to see how people would react now. Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner. Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments. I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand. We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls. On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out". Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal. In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck. By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it. Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn. If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children. If you have a list of people that don't watch porn. Then you have a list of people that do.... No you don't. You have a list of people who may or may not watch porn but don't have it blacklisted. Why would anyone specifically opt out of a porn filter if they're not going to watch it? I mean sure, some people may do it out of principle, but overall the "porn watcher" list will still be pretty reliable.
And that's a big part of the problem. You are by default suspicious if you want privacy, since people assume you want it to do something secret. This is also why mail should be encrypted by default (it isn't because google makes money of unencrypted mail unfortunately), and why we have non-transparent envelopes even for single-page non-secret letters (otherwise anyone who used an envelope would be suspicious).
Luckily being on a "suspected of viewing porn" list is not going to matter for most people, but there are people for which it will matter (public figures in particular). And another issue is that if they get away with doing it for porn, then who is to say they will stop at that point?
There is no good reason why the public should want this service to be opt-out. If it should exist at all (it probably shouldn't), then it should be opt-in.
|
On July 24 2013 01:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 01:11 Skytt wrote:On July 24 2013 01:03 FFW_Rude wrote:On July 24 2013 01:00 Skytt wrote:On July 24 2013 00:56 FFW_Rude wrote:On July 24 2013 00:55 Grovbolle wrote:On July 24 2013 00:52 FFW_Rude wrote:On July 24 2013 00:47 darkness wrote:On July 24 2013 00:44 FFW_Rude wrote:On July 24 2013 00:42 darkness wrote:
Restricting a few porn websites to me is like "I'm going to try to restrict a small part to see if we can restrict the Internet even more in the future". They're just trying to see how people would react now. Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner. Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments. I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand. We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls. On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out". Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal. In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck. By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it. Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn. If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children. If you have a list of people that don't watch porn. Then you have a list of people that do.... As I said, you will have a list of people who do, but it isn't definitive as not everyone who doesn't want to watch porn is going to be aware of the fact that you can opt-in to a filter Only if all the ISP's are required to provide the list or record and compile that information. Unless the law requires them to do that and report it, there isn't a lot of reason for them to do so and very good reasons for them not to.
I agree and I hope that in the unlikely situation that this goes through, ISPs don't compile it (though some british ISPs compile lists of people who they detect having P2P traffic) but if you're going to force a regulation like this why wouldn't you also require receiving a list of the people opting out of the filter.
It creates all sorts of problems from freedom of information requests on the recipients of porn. But then again the government isn't doing this out of a sense of morality
|
On July 24 2013 01:18 Penguinator wrote:
This is absurd. how can you ban porn? I actually can not wrap my mind around the fact that in this day and age, a government in a first world country is trying to ban pornography. Even if you could somehow come up with a logical argument as to why it's a good idea - AREN'T THERE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS A GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE DOING?
The argument goes:
1) They are not banning porn, they are simply protecting our children from clearly harmful material.
2) A government can do more than one thing at once. Really this sort of block should technically be fairly simple (at least on a DNS server level) since there are already companies that maintain lists of pornographic websites. It really shouldn't interfere with other government operations unless they implement it in a grossly irresponsible way.
I do agree though that this is a terrible idea and that in no way should we want our government to censor this sort of stuff. Let companies offer such software to concerned parents.
|
On July 24 2013 01:23 Skytt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 01:17 Plansix wrote:On July 24 2013 01:11 Skytt wrote:On July 24 2013 01:03 FFW_Rude wrote:On July 24 2013 01:00 Skytt wrote:On July 24 2013 00:56 FFW_Rude wrote:On July 24 2013 00:55 Grovbolle wrote:On July 24 2013 00:52 FFW_Rude wrote:On July 24 2013 00:47 darkness wrote:On July 24 2013 00:44 FFW_Rude wrote:[quote] Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner. Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments. I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand. We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls. On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out". Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal. In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck. By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it. Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn. If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children. If you have a list of people that don't watch porn. Then you have a list of people that do.... As I said, you will have a list of people who do, but it isn't definitive as not everyone who doesn't want to watch porn is going to be aware of the fact that you can opt-in to a filter Only if all the ISP's are required to provide the list or record and compile that information. Unless the law requires them to do that and report it, there isn't a lot of reason for them to do so and very good reasons for them not to. I agree and I hope that in the unlikely situation that this goes through, ISPs don't compile it (though some british ISPs compile lists of people who they detect having P2P traffic) but if you're going to force a regulation like this why wouldn't you also require receiving a list of the people opting out of the filter. It creates all sorts of problems from freedom of information requests on the recipients of porn. But then again the government isn't doing this out of a sense of morality
Well the list seems like a bad idea and I think people would be upset that the list exists. There is a difference between the the government forcing a industry to make a tool for people to use(aka, the same way they regulate cars) and making a way to catch people looking at questionable things. A way to block sites at the ISP level lets parents deal with the issue, as long at it is opt in. Added the requirement for ISPs to report who does not opt in will make people upset.
|
Cameron declares war against collective UK male sex drive. Good luck with that one.
Also, what does this mean for borderline sites? Reddit hosts pornographic content, will that be DNS-blocked? What about smaller artsy photo sites?
|
This is effectively banning porn. Imagine yourself at Comcast with your wife signing up for internet. You are filling out the form, and then you get to the box where you can opt in for porn. Your wife is staring at you, and a bead of sweat rolls down your forehead. Do you check the box?
|
On July 24 2013 01:15 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 01:12 Talin wrote:On July 24 2013 01:09 Godwrath wrote:On July 24 2013 01:03 FFW_Rude wrote:On July 24 2013 01:00 Skytt wrote:On July 24 2013 00:56 FFW_Rude wrote:On July 24 2013 00:55 Grovbolle wrote:On July 24 2013 00:52 FFW_Rude wrote:On July 24 2013 00:47 darkness wrote:On July 24 2013 00:44 FFW_Rude wrote:[quote] Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner. Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments. I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand. We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls. On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out". Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal. In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck. By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it. Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn. If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children. If you have a list of people that don't watch porn. Then you have a list of people that do.... No you don't. You have a list of people who may or may not watch porn but don't have it blacklisted. Why would anyone specifically opt out of a porn filter if they're not going to watch it? I mean sure, some people may do it out of principle, but overall the "porn watcher" list will still be pretty reliable. Whoever doesn't give a damn about it. Like the majority of people. Why would they opt in ?
That's the thing. Nobody opts in - everybody IS in by default. They have to opt out if they don't want it, which one would conceivably only do for a specific reason that they actually DO want to watch porn.
It's basically equivalent to a statement "I watch / want to watch porn", whether it's true or not.
|
Along with other sorts of reforms, I could see this as being beneficial.
On it's own, total wasted effort. It serves no greater political or social purpose outside of it's narrow "morally" debatable sphere.
Dumb idea.
|
On July 24 2013 01:29 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 01:15 Godwrath wrote:On July 24 2013 01:12 Talin wrote:On July 24 2013 01:09 Godwrath wrote:On July 24 2013 01:03 FFW_Rude wrote:On July 24 2013 01:00 Skytt wrote:On July 24 2013 00:56 FFW_Rude wrote:On July 24 2013 00:55 Grovbolle wrote:On July 24 2013 00:52 FFW_Rude wrote:On July 24 2013 00:47 darkness wrote:[quote] Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments. I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand. We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls. On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out". Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal. In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck. By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it. Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn. If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children. If you have a list of people that don't watch porn. Then you have a list of people that do.... No you don't. You have a list of people who may or may not watch porn but don't have it blacklisted. Why would anyone specifically opt out of a porn filter if they're not going to watch it? I mean sure, some people may do it out of principle, but overall the "porn watcher" list will still be pretty reliable. Whoever doesn't give a damn about it. Like the majority of people. Why would they opt in ? That's the thing. Nobody opts in - everybody IS in by default. They have to opt out if they don't want to, which you would only do for a specific reason.
I might have understood wrongly the person i was quoting, as far i read, they were speaking about the system would be better if it was a opt in for blacklisting instead of opting out, and the person saying it was irrelevant. That's the point i was discussing about not how it is now right now.
|
Northern Ireland23745 Posts
Pretty smart move politically, appeases the moralistic imbeciles and the lazy parents at a stroke. I mean while most people disagree with the principle, good luck mobilising a campaign to 'keep porn'.
I don't like the Conservatives policies at the best of times, but the one thing I generally give them credit for is a respect for personal autonomy and they frequently decry the excesses of the 'nanny state' This is a serious step in the wrong direction and blatant appeasement of the hypocritical tabloid press.
If our culture is over-sexualised, the likes of the Daily Mail are neck-deep in terms of culpability. Disgusting paper
|
It should be opt-in instead of opt-out. But what am I saying, the government shouldn't be involved in this in the first place. The private sector has already come up with dozens of ways to filter tv and internet for parents or businesses, government regulation is not only unnecessary, but undesirable.
|
Lets ban things that show drinking, smoking, drugs and violence first Cameron. Because thats more corrupting of our youth than some nipples and vaginas.
|
making the internet a safer place for children and families.
That implies internet is not a safe place now. Because of porn.
It's beyond stupid.
Was there any politician ever who got the most basic things right? Like, that internet is not a safe place due to scams, troyans, viruses, possible evesdropping from provider and so on and so on? Not because of porn?
|
On July 24 2013 01:25 rasnj wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 01:18 Penguinator wrote:
This is absurd. how can you ban porn? I actually can not wrap my mind around the fact that in this day and age, a government in a first world country is trying to ban pornography. Even if you could somehow come up with a logical argument as to why it's a good idea - AREN'T THERE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS A GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE DOING? The argument goes: 1) They are not banning porn, they are simply protecting our children from clearly harmful material. 2) A government can do more than one thing at once. Really this sort of block should technically be fairly simple (at least on a DNS server level) since there are already companies that maintain lists of pornographic websites. It really shouldn't interfere with other government operations unless they implement it in a grossly irresponsible way. I do agree though that this is a terrible idea and that in no way should we want our government to censor this sort of stuff. Let companies offer such software to concerned parents.
If the government actually wanted to do something beneficial to society they could invest in making parents computer literate so they actually understand how to control their children's internet habits using the various pieces of software that are already out there, actually monitoring what their kids are doing etc.
The sad part is I don't think this would even cost much when you compare it to the loss of tax from severely damaging the porn industry.
Also this all stems from a study that showed that people who viewed child porn online were likely to abuse kids.
Who'd have thought that pedophiles were likely to be pedophiles????
|
On July 24 2013 01:35 Resilient wrote:
Lets ban things that show drinking, smoking, drugs and violence first Cameron. Because thats more corrupting of our youth than some nipples and vaginas.
So you don't care about government swooping in and trying to regulate all personal behavior, you just want it done in the right order.
Scary...
|
On July 23 2013 20:36 Foblos wrote:
I don't see the problem. I wouldn't want my kids to have the chance to happen across porn when they aren't looking at it, and I've read numerous studies about how porn can sabotage relationships. The PM is indeed protecting families and youth. They aren't "censoring the internet" as some of you have said, because you can opt in to porn. If you want to do something, you shouldn't be ashamed about it and if you are perhaps that is an indication that you should reassess it.
so now it is the governments job to keep relations in tact?
and btw... would you like it if you had to ask your government to buy cigarettes? no? they just want to protect you from smoking and if you do it you shouldn't be ashamed of it right? I mean you could do that for a lot of things if you start with it
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
