UK to ask broadband firms to implement "opt-in" way to view porn

Think of the children, who are likely thinking of naked people.

Quote :

Internet service providers are to be asked by the government to tighten up on website pornography to try to combat the early sexualisation of children.

Ummm, maybe stop using sex to sell everything, then?

And 'early sexualisation of children'? Kids generally start fapping shortly after they hit puberty, and many start before. Now, granted, I think that's all they SHOULD be doing until they can afford to move out and live on their own or with a partner, but I really have very little idea of what they are going at here.

Quote :

Ministers believe broadband providers should consider automatically blocking sex sites, with individuals being required to opt in to receive them, rather than opt out and use the available computer parental controls.

So do adults who live on their own or with other adults have to go and say, "Umm, I want to view porn, opt me in."? Yeah. Rather than parents actually getting up off their asses and learning how to use the damn parental controls -- I guess that's just too damn hard.

Quote :

Ed Vaizey, the communications minister, is to meet internet providers, including BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk, "in the near future" to discuss changing the way pornography enters private homes, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills confirmed. The move is designed to protect children from being exposed to pornography on the net.

"This is a very serious matter. I think it is very important that it's the ISPs that some up with solutions to protect children," Vaizey told the Sunday Times.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN

Quote :

In a parliamentary debate last month, Claire Perry, a Conservative MP who has campaigned for tighter controls, said that 60% of nine- to 19-year-olds had found porn online, while only 15% of computer-literate parents knew how to use filters to block access to certain sites.

1) Isn't a 19-year-old (or an 18-year-old) an adult, by UK standards? I know they're considered to be adults over in the States. Also, wow, I wonder what one of the favorite activities of people in that general age range is (though 9 is young)... anyone have the bright idea that maybe a good percentage of these kids aren't innocent victims of "I'm 12 years old and what is this?!" but actively seek out pornographic stuff? You know, because they want something to fap to? I'd consider this much more troubling if they were saying that very young children are finding pornography, not necessarily kids who are hitting puberty, well into it, or even legal adults. Because while I don't think it's a good thing that kids just starting puberty are looking at hardcore porn, you might as well admit the truth, which is that at that age they're more than likely going to start looking for it on their own.

2) If these parents care so much about their damn kids looking (or not looking) at porn, uh, learn to use the filters, then? Unless the filters are so damn complex that they are literally impossible for anyone who does not possess a genius-level IQ to use.

Regarding the whole "parents should just use the parental controls"... kids are pretty sneaky little things, and it's not always a matter of parents giving it their best shot and setting it up, but kids being smart enough to break them back down. And yeah, some of those filters are damn confusing too.

Still, I don't like the whole mandatory "no porn for you" scenario. Wouldn't it be better to simply have the actual blocking of the sites as an opt-in thing? Let the ISPs set up the blocks, and then when people sign up or call, they can choose to have it done instead (don't some ISPs have this already?).

It's a bloody ridiculous idea, particularly with the "THINK OF THE CHILDS" slant they're putting on it. If they really cared about sexualisation of children they'd probably start with the bits where you accidentally see soft porn, like Page Three in The Sun. Except the government wouldn't touch Page Three because they're BFFs with Rupert Murdoch.

Anyway, strange behaviour from a government who wanted to overturn the "nanny state" and work with "personal responsibility".

I misread this at first, thought they were trying to make kiddie porn sites 'opt-in,' and wondered what in the hell they thought they were doing.

Then I realized my mistake and laughed at them, because in this day and age, short of having a lock on your computer and only letting your kids use it when you're in the room setting next to them, I seriously doubt this is going to keep them from finding porn. Worse comes to worse, they'll go to the house of a friend whose parents don't worry about parental controls or opt-ins and watch it there.

Malganis wrote:

Quote :

In a parliamentary debate last month, Claire Perry, a Conservative MP who has campaigned for tighter controls, said that 60% of nine- to 19-year-olds had found porn online, while only 15% of computer-literate parents knew how to use filters to block access to certain sites.

1) Isn't a 19-year-old (or an 18-year-old) an adult, by UK standards?

Yup, 18=Adult.

This is one of those stats claims that you just know is oversimplified or misleading. It puts across the idea that 60% of 9-19 year olds are intentionally looking for porn and succeeding. This is the internet we're taking about, you can put almost anything into google and find porn. Also, by including the stats of 18-19 year olds (Whose access to porn is none of our business, and certainly none of the business of anyone screaming "THE CHILDREN!") you beef up the rest of the stats, presenting an inaccurate, misleading statement.

I'd also question the definition of 'computer-literate' she uses. To me, the ability to access the internet does not equal computer literacy, and this would certainly explain the low percentage over filter usage. (Although, other explanations to this include: Monitoring your kid's access in the first place, rather than let some computer program do it for you.)


This whole thing sneak-attacked me, so I'm not sure where I stand yet. But the use of deliberately misleading numbers already has my back up.

I'm searching everywhere for this 60% statistic--where and how the data were collected. Here it is:

Quote :

Children, with their annoying ability to be early adopters of new technology, are particularly heavy users of the internet, with 99% of 12 to 15-year-olds, 93% of eight to 11-year-olds and 75% of five to seven-year-olds saying that they use it regularly. We know that many obtain access in an unsupervised way, which is not surprising, given that 31% of 12 to 15-year-olds have internet access in their bedrooms. We also know that many children use this either knowingly or unknowingly to access pornography.

Pornography is one of the most widely available forms of content on the internet, representing 12% of the estimated 250 million global websites. Studies suggest, shockingly, that one in three British children aged 10-a third of our British 10-year-olds-have viewed pornography on the internet, while four out of every five children aged 14 to 16 admit to regularly accessing explicit photographs and footage on their home computers. The world has really changed.

Quote :

The numbers that I have just cited are drawn from a relatively small sample, but more extensive studies suggest that almost 60% of children aged nine to 19 had viewed online pornography and that the rate of unwitting or unwanted exposure was increasing sharply.

Still no reference, alas.

Anyway, the argument she puts forward is kind of wishy-washy, and a little anti-porn:

Quote :

It is simply beyond belief that people can find sexual pleasure in viewing images of children, men and women being subject to the worst sexual degradation and violence. If that is our definition of free speech, the definition is wrong.

I really do think that the place to start would be stopping soft-porn images in "family" newspapers like The Sun, rather than blocking off parts of the internet. That's going to be fairly unworkable; how would the ISPs know which websites to block? If they're going with the model that parental filters use, that means thousands of perfectly all right websites will also be blocked.

On the other hand, it would be very workable to stop Page Three or billboards using highly sexualised advertising, if they're that worried about sexualisation of children.

ETA: More on why this is unworkable

ZoZo wrote:

Anyway, strange behaviour from a government who wanted to overturn the "nanny state" and work with "personal responsibility".

Silly. "Personal responsibility" is only for the brown people, the poor and the uneducated.

That's something I never understood. If the age of consent is 16, how come you can't buy/watch porn legally until you're 18? How is it that you can be allowed to do something but not to watch it? Does that mean you have to close your eyes every time you have sex until you turn 18? Because god forbid you see a -gasp- human body...

Seule wrote:

That's something I never understood. If the age of consent is 16, how come you can't buy/watch porn legally until you're 18? How is it that you can be allowed to do something but not to watch it? Does that mean you have to close your eyes every time you have sex until you turn 18? Because god forbid you see a -gasp- human body...

You can also do it in the dark. It's better that way. If you accidentally open your eyes, you'd see the BBFC people holding black bars over all the naughty bits.

Internet porn block 'not possible' say ISPs
Well, that was over quickly

I wonder what these "won't someone please think of the children" people would think if they knew that the native people of this region regarded nudity as normal and clothes as weird (except when it was cold). To hazard a guess, they'd expect these people to have been a bunch of psychologically damaged perverts, but they weren't.

Tweet from the MP with the probably-dodgy statistic here:

@claire4devizies wrote:

100% of negative or abusive commentary about opt in system for internet porn is from the chaps. Women 100% positive (so far)

I made sure to tweet at her informing her that she was rather incorrect.

Quote :

We know that many obtain access in an unsupervised way, which is not surprising, given that 31% of 12 to 15-year-olds have internet access in their bedrooms.

12 to 15-year-olds shouldn't have internet access (or televisions, for that matter) in their bedrooms. Quite simple, parents. Another way to stop your child looking at porn on the internet (or even just making contact with WEIRDY PEOPLE over the internet) is to only let them on if they need it for school. And stay in the vicinity where you can see what they're looking at.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

We know that many obtain access in an unsupervised way, which is not surprising, given that 31% of 12 to 15-year-olds have internet access in their bedrooms.

12 to 15-year-olds shouldn't have internet access (or televisions, for that matter) in their bedrooms. Quite simple, parents. Another way to stop your child looking at porn on the internet (or even just making contact with WEIRDY PEOPLE over the internet) is to only let them on if they need it for school. And stay in the vicinity where you can see what they're looking at.

But that's too hard. THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO IT FOR US!

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

We know that many obtain access in an unsupervised way, which is not surprising, given that 31% of 12 to 15-year-olds have internet access in their bedrooms.

12 to 15-year-olds shouldn't have internet access (or televisions, for that matter) in their bedrooms. Quite simple, parents. Another way to stop your child looking at porn on the internet (or even just making contact with WEIRDY PEOPLE over the internet) is to only let them on if they need it for school. And stay in the vicinity where you can see what they're looking at.

ALSO!
If you're not quite this vigilant, there's this thing called 'history'. It lets you check what sites your dearest offspring has visited. If the history is, for some reason, gone, you know something is up.

Love,
Cris
(who really rather needed the internet to satisfy the vague and undecided prepubescent urges that he had. Because, really, at one point, looking at half-clothed underwear models in the male bit of the H&M catalogus becomes weird.)

Jay/Cris wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

We know that many obtain access in an unsupervised way, which is not surprising, given that 31% of 12 to 15-year-olds have internet access in their bedrooms.

12 to 15-year-olds shouldn't have internet access (or televisions, for that matter) in their bedrooms. Quite simple, parents. Another way to stop your child looking at porn on the internet (or even just making contact with WEIRDY PEOPLE over the internet) is to only let them on if they need it for school. And stay in the vicinity where you can see what they're looking at.

ALSO!
If you're not quite this vigilant, there's this thing called 'history'. It lets you check what sites your dearest offspring has visited. If the history is, for some reason, gone, you know something is up.

Or, you at least know said offspring is Properly Paranoid.

This isn't about porn; it's about controlling and monitoring the public's access to information.

Jay/Cris wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

We know that many obtain access in an unsupervised way, which is not surprising, given that 31% of 12 to 15-year-olds have internet access in their bedrooms.

12 to 15-year-olds shouldn't have internet access (or televisions, for that matter) in their bedrooms. Quite simple, parents. Another way to stop your child looking at porn on the internet (or even just making contact with WEIRDY PEOPLE over the internet) is to only let them on if they need it for school. And stay in the vicinity where you can see what they're looking at.

ALSO!
If you're not quite this vigilant, there's this thing called 'history'. It lets you check what sites your dearest offspring has visited. If the history is, for some reason, gone, you know something is up.

Love,
Cris
(who really rather needed the internet to satisfy the vague and undecided prepubescent urges that he had. Because, really, at one point, looking at half-clothed underwear models in the male bit of the H&M catalogus becomes weird.)

Well said, Cyberwulf. I've often been thankful we didn't own a home computer till my sons were in senior high (not that I don't for one minute think they weren't looking up porn sites at their friends houses). But yes, the history cache is quite useful. If I'd ever bothered to check it, it probably wouldn't have surprised me so much when Morgan came out, since I later discovered he regularly visited gay porn sites (accidentally downloading more than a few viruses in the process).

Another reason this wouldn't work is that the definition of 'offensive' varies widely. The ISP we had before we switched to cable, at one point took to blocking sites I'd been visiting for years, and when I contacted them as to why, I was told it was because people had reported them as 'offensive.' The problem being, they didn't bother to check if they were actual porn sites, which resulted in me being unable to access The Portal of Evil and EC. To get them, I had to 'sign-off' some sort of agreement that stated I wouldn't hold them responsible for any mental instability, or some such rot.

Needless to say, I was more than a bit miffed that my internet browsing was being controlled by what was doubtless some fundie who didn't like that The Portal of Evil made fun of certain Christian sites.

The school district I work for has its own ISP, and they block a lot of websites. Ostensibly, this is to protect the kids from porn. In reality, however, the kids find the porn just fine, but sites on such things as breast cancer and the dangers of drug abuse are blocked. Probably the most lol-worthy site block I ever encountered was when a student was trying to look at Harvard's website and it was blocked because it was categorized as education.

Mally wrote:

And 'early sexualisation of children'? Kids generally start fapping shortly after they hit puberty, and many start before.

Mally knows this from personal experience.

Mally wrote:

Now, granted, I think that's all they SHOULD be doing until they can afford to move out and live on their own or with a partner, but I really have very little idea of what they are going at here.

And, predictably, Mally starts babbling on about her asinine, holier-than-you philosophies, having deluded herself into thinking anyone gives a shit.

Mally wrote:

Rather than parents actually getting up off their asses and learning how to use the damn parental controls -- I guess that's just too damn hard.

You express your butthurt like Elmo. Speaking of butthurt, you are far too butthurt over this.

I swear, you're the most irritating failure of intelligence on this board.

Lady Anne wrote:

The school district I work for has its own ISP, and they block a lot of websites. Ostensibly, this is to protect the kids from porn. In reality, however, the kids find the porn just fine, but sites on such things as breast cancer and the dangers of drug abuse are blocked. Probably the most lol-worthy site block I ever encountered was when a student was trying to look at Harvard's website and it was blocked because it was categorized as education.

NO! NOT HARVARD! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Jay/Cris wrote:

ALSO!
If you're not quite this vigilant, there's this thing called 'history'. It lets you check what sites your dearest offspring has visited. If the history is, for some reason, gone, you know something is up.

In a role-reversal that seems hilarious in hindsight, this was how I found out my mother was gay.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Malganis wrote:

And 'early sexualisation of children'? Kids generally start fapping shortly after they hit puberty, and many start before.

Mally knows this from personal experience.

And you... don't?

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Malganis wrote:

Now, granted, I think that's all they SHOULD be doing until they can afford to move out and live on their own or with a partner, but I really have very little idea of what they are going at here.

And, predictably, Mally starts babbling on about her asinine, holier-than-you philosophies, having deluded herself into thinking anyone gives a shit.

Ignoring the self-delusional ranting of Mikey, I do have to say this made me raise my eyebrows. Um, what? Teenagers can't have sex until they can take care of themselves? Why? Because of the Possibility of Children? Does that mean I can't have sex either? 'Cause I live with my parents - I know, such a loser, etc.; but my education has some steep costs and the housing market in Amsterdam has all kinds of exploded - does that mean I have to stop fooling around with the cute boy with the hat I met on the train?

Jay/Cris wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Malganis wrote:

Now, granted, I think that's all they SHOULD be doing until they can afford to move out and live on their own or with a partner, but I really have very little idea of what they are going at here.

And, predictably, Mally starts babbling on about her asinine, holier-than-you philosophies, having deluded herself into thinking anyone gives a shit.

Ignoring the self-delusional ranting of Mikey, I do have to say this made me raise my eyebrows. Um, what? Teenagers can't have sex until they can take care of themselves? Why? Because of the Possibility of Children? Does that mean I can't have sex either? 'Cause I live with my parents - I know, such a loser, etc.; but my education has some steep costs and the housing market in Amsterdam has all kinds of exploded - does that mean I have to stop fooling around with the cute boy with the hat I met on the train?

No, darling, no it doesn't.

I do think emotional maturity is important before having sex--without it, I'm not sure one can say that the sex was completely consensual.

As for where one lives, meh. I used to fuck like crazy when I lived at my parents'. It wasn't ideal, as I'd have to wait for them to go out, but fuck it. I wanted to get laid, he wanted to get laid, we were safe and it was great.

ETA: Demolition of the statistical claims behind the ban. For you, WD40

I'm in favour of some laws to protect minors. I'm in favour of prohibiting shopkeepers from selling tobacco and alcohol to people under eighteen. I'm in favour of consent laws. But to me the problem is kids having internet in their bedrooms. Even if they're not looking at porn, they could be talking to weirdy people, or playing Warcraft all night. Supervise your child when s/he's on the internet, people.