|
On July 24 2013 00:56 FFW_Rude wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 00:55 MulletMurdoc wrote:
The irony in all this is they are going to be blocking it from the kids most of which are more computer savvy that the people making the policies
there are 12 year olds making their own linux distributions... I doubt they will have much trouble getting past some simple blocks. Plus as soon as one of them figure it out you can be pretty sure he will tweet/facebook/google+ to everyone of his frieds who will just do the same. If anything this ban will be most effective against the older generation
LOL... So your argument is : "Why making locks harder when people will invent lockpicks" ?
The question is what reason the British government has to put an ineffective but frustrating lock on something as common as dirt to solve a problem that hasn't been well-defined or demonstrated to exist. It depends whether you believe "let's try this and see what happens" is something you should hear from your government or from a stuntman.
This is a common method of political sophistry, where you take an idea everybody feels the same about for good reason, like child abuse, then conflate it with other ideas such that a stupid person in a hurry can't tell the difference. I don't mean that maliciously; the world is a huge place, not everyone has time to hash out and consider every issue that gets put in front of them. Just bear in mind this isn't an honest effort to address issues. It's not about helping children, it's about the PM's career. And hopefully the public response will be negative enough that he doesn't have one anymore.
I think at this point we can move towards restoring the legal rights minors have had to sexuality in the past while still protecting them from abuse. But even if you think (your) kids shouldn't watch porn, the solution is not to let the government block internet search terms at their discretion in a piece of legislation with other stuff attached (like criminalizing "extreme pornography," whoever came up with that line got a raise, why isn't Rambo an extreme film? because the family values elements have already lost the fight against violent media, so the only target now is sexuality).
|
Northern Ireland27018 Posts
Well, perhaps he means if they're going to swoop in, at least look at the big offenders first. Ideally you wouldn't have the government involved in most of these things.
Personally I feel if anything was to be banned alcohol would be my first casualty, rather than shitting on smokers and having the likes of cannabis banned.
|
On July 24 2013 01:38 Artax wrote:Show nested quote +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...
i think he was being ironic bro...
|
On July 24 2013 01:33 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 01:29 Talin wrote: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:[quote] 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.
My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is. 
Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system.
|
On July 24 2013 01:38 Artax wrote:Show nested quote +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...
No, I've accepted that Cameron is a fucking idiot who will make dumb changes to exercise his power. That entire comment was sardonic.
|
Northern Ireland27018 Posts
On July 24 2013 01:40 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +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. On July 24 2013 00:55 MulletMurdoc wrote:
The irony in all this is they are going to be blocking it from the kids most of which are more computer savvy that the people making the policies
there are 12 year olds making their own linux distributions... I doubt they will have much trouble getting past some simple blocks. Plus as soon as one of them figure it out you can be pretty sure he will tweet/facebook/google+ to everyone of his frieds who will just do the same. If anything this ban will be most effective against the older generation
LOL... So your argument is : "Why making locks harder when people will invent lockpicks" ? The question is what reason the British government has to put an ineffective but frustrating lock on something as common as dirt to solve a problem that hasn't been well-defined or demonstrated to exist. It depends whether you believe "let's try this and see what happens" is something you should hear from your government or from a stuntman. This is a common method of political sophistry, where you take an idea everybody feels the same about for good reason, like child abuse, then conflate it with other ideas such that a stupid person in a hurry can't tell the difference. I don't mean that maliciously; the world is a huge place, not everyone has time to hash out and consider every issue that gets put in front of them. Just bear in mind this isn't an honest effort to address issues. It's not about helping children, it's about the PM's career. And hopefully the public response will be negative enough that he doesn't have one anymore. I think at this point we can move towards restoring the legal rights minors have had to sexuality in the past while still protecting them from abuse. But even if you think (your) kids shouldn't watch porn, the solution is not to let the government block internet search terms at their discretion in a piece of legislation with other stuff attached (like criminalizing "extreme pornography," whoever came up with that line got a raise, why isn't Rambo an extreme film? because the family values elements have already lost the fight against violent media, so the only target now is sexuality).
Good points. The media culture in this country has many problems imo, and they have put forward pornography as a smokescreen to avoid their own culpability being properly to task. Takes massive balls to pull that kind of thing off with a serious face, especially with the whole hacking scandal and the fallout appearing not to have altered the media's output one iota.
Incidentally, I feel a side-effect of this is potentially that less child abuse will be prevented, potentially. In terms of preventing potential abuse prior to it occurring with a real person, largely the only way that occurs is via paedophiles slipping up and getting caught accessing child pornography.
If there are all sorts of filters etc that prevent accessing and downloading such material, can people be prosecuted prior to carrying out offences vs real breathing people?
|
Northern Ireland27018 Posts
On July 24 2013 01:42 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 01:33 Godwrath wrote:On July 24 2013 01:29 Talin wrote: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:
[quote]
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. My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is. Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system.
Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this.
Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well
|
On July 24 2013 01:42 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 01:33 Godwrath wrote:On July 24 2013 01:29 Talin wrote: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:
[quote]
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. My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system.
Yep with the language barrier I screwed myself i think. This is basically what i am trying to say. (as opt in).
|
On July 24 2013 01:45 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 01:42 Talin wrote:On July 24 2013 01:33 Godwrath wrote:On July 24 2013 01:29 Talin wrote: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:
[quote]
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. My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is. Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system. Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this. Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well
But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn.
The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money.
edit,
My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points.
|
Good thing parents now have not to worry about ze internetz and all its evil stuff because the government protects you.
If parents let their childs surf without checking it, there will be porn. there will be snuff. there are really nasty things out there! It's not up to the government to protect the children. It's up to the parents! And if they don't have a clue about the technology their kids are using then how can they teach them to use it with care and in the right way?
I would ask them to exclude me from their stupid blockade. They are welcome to do it though, it's just pretty pointless
and just another step into total surveillance
|
On July 24 2013 01:49 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 01:45 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 24 2013 01:42 Talin wrote:On July 24 2013 01:33 Godwrath wrote:On July 24 2013 01:29 Talin wrote: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:
[quote]
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. My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is. Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system. Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this. Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn. The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money. edit, My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points.
The difference is that porn is being scapegoated as being damaging to kids, no one makes a big deal out of not liking porn.
|
pawn shop industry back in . . no wait i mean pr0n shop!
|
On July 24 2013 01:49 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 01:45 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 24 2013 01:42 Talin wrote:On July 24 2013 01:33 Godwrath wrote:On July 24 2013 01:29 Talin wrote: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:
[quote]
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. My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is. Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system. Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this. Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn. The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money. edit, My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points.
Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ?
|
Government economic subsidies make it easier for fathers to not be fathers. Government bans and legislating morality make it easier for mothers not to be mothers. It should not be seen as a coincidence that illegitimacy and the breakdown of the family have been steadily rising during this period. The government is slowly but surely replacing the role of the parents and the nuclear family, just as Marx desired and predicted.
|
Modern pop culture is pornographic by its nature,no need for porn when you can watch MTV.
|
On July 24 2013 01:52 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 01:49 Yurie wrote:On July 24 2013 01:45 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 24 2013 01:42 Talin wrote:On July 24 2013 01:33 Godwrath wrote:On July 24 2013 01:29 Talin wrote: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:
[quote]
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. My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is. Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system. Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this. Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn. The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money. edit, My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points. Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ?
I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them.
|
So what I've been thinking is, is Cameron & co that stupid? There are better local tools that can restrict porn material. Windows has parental ctrl tools, if that's insufficient, configure your firewall or w/e. Not that hard, right? All parents need is a firewall. So yes, f?ck you Cameron.
|
sometimes I think that censorship is a bad idea, but then I remember the days when I was on the internet as a kid around 11 years old and all the great things it provided me at the time. playing d2 and wc3 and browsing the web; I wouldn't ever not let a kid experience something like that because there's porn on the internet, but I do think there is proper time and placement for censorship.
for example: walking into a stag shop with I.D vs. verifying your age at an online website
further, and to conflict; walking past a censored sex toy store vs. scrolling down a webpage with half-naked anime characters telling you to play their game
there's gotta be a limit to some of the crap that finds its way to your browsers and websites. And when kids are brought up being around the internet all the time you have to understand that they will be exposed to all sorts of sexualizations of different objects and symbols from the content that's provided to it. I think censorship should be provided by the service provider as a means to crack down on internet porn.
|
I hate any kind of censorship, this is no exception.
Aside from that, i think this'll bring a monstrous amount of administration compared to what it's going to accomplish.
|
I really think this is all show, no tell. I don't think he is actually going to go through with this or force to ISP to go through with these measures. Blocking porn? How is he going to do that exactly, one can go to youtube and watch something considered "adult." No one has to go to pornhub to get their porn fix lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
