Universal Porn Filter Coming to the U.K.
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well this is to be perfectly honest a load of a crap but I'm going to leave this petition [http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51746] here if anyone is interested.
It isn't just the blocking of porn. Its also how the UK government is putting into place an infrastructure which, via near-invisible changes to already existing legislature, will allow for the filtering of nigh-on anything they want. The whole 'for the children' thing has been used before, such as by Stephen Harper in Canada, making any opposition seem unreasonable at best, and as you said, worthy of prison time/beatings at worst.SonOfVoorhees said:
Also why so angry?
Art? lol. When people censor, out comes the art excuse. Its hilarious. So is child porn ok if its "art". Or if i raped your mum or sister and labeled "art" that would be ok? You say its not about the porn. IT IS. It says so. Its what this act is all about. An again, normal porn is fine. This is just blocking the sick stuff, that is only posted by criminals and scumbags. Not people releasing porn movies between consenting adults, which is what porn should be.ninjaRiv said:
But hey, atleast, for you, art means snuff movie videos are fine. Animal rape. Violating dead bodies. So what would you say should be blocked on the internet? Because there is a difference between art and violation/crime.
Not angry. Just find it funny people moaning so much about the lack of porn. Its hilarious. What the real issue is is "free porn" just go buy it. People are just complaining cos porn is free online. Its nothing to do with art or blocking. Just buy it. But its the pirating excuse....why buy when we get it free. Thats the reason people are moaning. End of the day, if people search for child porn, then we can then catch them when they are flagged up. For the record, i only watch porn with my wife. Watching porn alone is like starving and looking through a restaurants window at all the people eating.Da Orky Man said:
Mostly, dont care. If they banned all porn. Wouldnt effect me one bit....if you do, then you can just buy it. Thats the thing pissing people off. Free porn. Nothing to do with art or anything else. Just buy it. If your underage, then wait. When did "no porn" become such an issue to people. I find that really pathetic that this effects peoples lives that much. Its hilarious.The Plunk said:
Nope. I just find the whole online porn filter not a big deal to me. Really, this is all moaning about free porn online. You can still buy it. No one is stopping that. But people want it free....not buying dvds or magazines. This is why people are moaning. I respect your opinion but i find this whole thing hilarious....especially when they use the art argument. Was like when anon were arguing that they should be able to pirate games. lolninjaRiv said:
Except you're forgetting one big part of this; the internet offers everyone the ability to express themselves. Who in the government is deciding what counts as porn? Hardcore butt fucking that you can buy in the local porn shop? Or is it the tastefully artistic nude art that can be found online? Beauty with titties. Because that exists, man. Art and porn can be the same thing and both are forms of self expression. it really has nothing to do with pirating porn AT ALL and pretty much everyone here has said so, I think.SonOfVoorhees said:
You may not care but I'm sure the people who use the internet to express themselves artistically care.
Porn's teaching them false ideas about it, though. Lol.Deshara said:
Hey, does this mean they're gonna ban Tumblr, too? 'Cause that'd suck (Bdm Ch).
Seriously, though... I don't watch porn, but I know there's a tonne of sites people start on there for showing it. I looked up the meaning of "Bara" the other day and only a couple entries below the wikipedia page you could see all the drawings of dudes humping Pixiv has to offer.
There's another site... Pixiv!
Christ, looks like I gotta find new sites to post links to my artwork and music projects on.
As if Cameron wasn't giving this disabled, unemployed young person enough reasons to wanna lop of his head with a spork!
Just as annoying is the fact that this won't even TOUCH the main headlines of BBC news once this bill's passed (it probably will be) because all they'll report on the new Royal baby.
What I find bad about this is that this might actually keep some people from the material they like to get a sexual release from.
I've been around the Net, and there are people that are very secretive/private about what they look at and if they had to call in or whatever to a company or government agency to get their access turned back on, they wouldn't do it because it would be too embarrassing for them to reveal such things, even if it is a stranger on the other end, turning it back on, and doesn't care who wants it on the other end.
If people what to keep private, to the outside world, what they look at in their free time, they should be able to do it. They shouldn't have to call into some draconian Net police branch of their ISP to get it turned back on.
And another thing, as people have said already, if you bar access to people getting the sexual release they want, they are going to go elsewhere. They are going to go out into the real world, and some of those people you don't want wandering around, because while they were harmless when they had a release on the Net, they could be quite dangerous out in the real world.
It is extremely easy to find and they don't hide it.
It is easy to get it all to show up in a search engine by changing a slider in the Google site options. Even with the "safe search" in place, one can still easily find the real stuff, just by searching for very light stuff that gets by the filter and usually those light stuff sites have links to the real stuff.
On this, I'm speaking as a person that actively looked for sexual content online when he was a teenager. Filters mean nothing to a determined kid. And at that time I quickly figured out how to hide it too. I knew how to clear out the browser cache and delete the history points of what I had looked through. I even knew how to clear the proof of the fact I had cleared stuff, so there was zero trace of me doing anything on the computer.
But, the point is that people know and are saying that it shouldn't be an automatic system. People shouldn't have to call in or whatever to ask for the filter to be taken down. It should be the other way around, calling in to have the filter turned on.
It's not really the true and main point of why they are enacting this thing, but one point is that it is trying to take responsibility away from the parent.
The government shouldn't be doing the parenting. If the parents don't want their kids to see such stuff, it should be up to them to find ways to stop their kids from seeing it. It's the same point of parents actually paying attention to what games they are buying for their kids instead of blaming companies for putting all that violence and sexual content in games, if they don't want their kids playing it, they should pay attention and stop buying it for them.
Back on the filter subject, it is about being free to look at what you want. Searching for and viewing porn and whatnot is an act of freedom. People shouldn't have to call in to be able to unlock freedoms, that is downright stupid.
This is the type of stuff that needs to be reigned in, because this is where freedoms die. The progression of such laws will be as such:
First, you have to call in to have your the ability to look at such stuff unlocked.
Second, a few years later they will change it so you will have to buy some kind of porn license to be able to unlock the ability to search and look for it.
Third, a few years after that, you will have to undergo extensive tests to see if you are "normal" before being able to buy the porn license.
Fourth, the price and requirements over the years will steadily increase, to the point where it is near impossible to get one unless you are rich and have connections.
Fifth and finally, the government will stop the license program and say that it is just outright illegal. Then you will have Prohibition level crazy shit going around with people trying to get access to stuff in secret dens(secret internet sex content search bars). Silly as it maybe, it could happen.
I've been around the Net, and there are people that are very secretive/private about what they look at and if they had to call in or whatever to a company or government agency to get their access turned back on, they wouldn't do it because it would be too embarrassing for them to reveal such things, even if it is a stranger on the other end, turning it back on, and doesn't care who wants it on the other end.
If people what to keep private, to the outside world, what they look at in their free time, they should be able to do it. They shouldn't have to call into some draconian Net police branch of their ISP to get it turned back on.
And another thing, as people have said already, if you bar access to people getting the sexual release they want, they are going to go elsewhere. They are going to go out into the real world, and some of those people you don't want wandering around, because while they were harmless when they had a release on the Net, they could be quite dangerous out in the real world.
Are you saying it is hard to find porn, or that creators of it make it hard to find?Zipa said:
It is extremely easy to find and they don't hide it.
It is easy to get it all to show up in a search engine by changing a slider in the Google site options. Even with the "safe search" in place, one can still easily find the real stuff, just by searching for very light stuff that gets by the filter and usually those light stuff sites have links to the real stuff.
On this, I'm speaking as a person that actively looked for sexual content online when he was a teenager. Filters mean nothing to a determined kid. And at that time I quickly figured out how to hide it too. I knew how to clear out the browser cache and delete the history points of what I had looked through. I even knew how to clear the proof of the fact I had cleared stuff, so there was zero trace of me doing anything on the computer.
It isn't really scaremongering. It is people that know that there is more behind this act, like trying to target pirates.Festus Moonbear said:
But, the point is that people know and are saying that it shouldn't be an automatic system. People shouldn't have to call in or whatever to ask for the filter to be taken down. It should be the other way around, calling in to have the filter turned on.
It's not really the true and main point of why they are enacting this thing, but one point is that it is trying to take responsibility away from the parent.
The government shouldn't be doing the parenting. If the parents don't want their kids to see such stuff, it should be up to them to find ways to stop their kids from seeing it. It's the same point of parents actually paying attention to what games they are buying for their kids instead of blaming companies for putting all that violence and sexual content in games, if they don't want their kids playing it, they should pay attention and stop buying it for them.
Back on the filter subject, it is about being free to look at what you want. Searching for and viewing porn and whatnot is an act of freedom. People shouldn't have to call in to be able to unlock freedoms, that is downright stupid.
This is the type of stuff that needs to be reigned in, because this is where freedoms die. The progression of such laws will be as such:
First, you have to call in to have your the ability to look at such stuff unlocked.
Second, a few years later they will change it so you will have to buy some kind of porn license to be able to unlock the ability to search and look for it.
Third, a few years after that, you will have to undergo extensive tests to see if you are "normal" before being able to buy the porn license.
Fourth, the price and requirements over the years will steadily increase, to the point where it is near impossible to get one unless you are rich and have connections.
Fifth and finally, the government will stop the license program and say that it is just outright illegal. Then you will have Prohibition level crazy shit going around with people trying to get access to stuff in secret dens(secret internet sex content search bars). Silly as it maybe, it could happen.
I guess i missed the point where a woman taking 2 cocks up her arse is considered art. Im sure there are plenty of sad lonely men looking at their PC right now seeing it as useless now porn is gone. You seem to find this a big issue, fine, i find it sad really.ninjaRiv said:
Again you've ignored points already made for the sake of sarcasm.SonOfVoorhees said:
What about Michelangelo's David? If that were built now, would it count as porn?
Besides the artist side, I think the biggest problem here may be the government censorship. That's... Not a serious issue to you? To have regular, ok porn censored by the government without putting it to public vote? Kinda like they did with books and films.
Have you considered that there may be possible implications of this that you hadn't picked up on. You seem to argue 'I don't use porn, porn use isn't a right, stop whining'. However, the thing other people are saying is where is the line drawn? Much of the rhetoric has used phrases like 'obscene material' or 'extreme and objectionable content'. Which sounds like it means terrible things no-one should want to see anyway.SonOfVoorhees said:
But in Russia, would include anything that told homosexuals they weren't evil deviants. It could arguably mean anything that would be post watershed on telly is restricted. It could easily be expanded to things wholly unconnected to pornography or sex. Amnesty uploads footage of violent human rights abuses. That's very graphic, can't let kids see that can we.
The real worry is that it provides the government with the infrastructure to engage in a more general censorship of the internet.
edit: to clarify, I'm talking about the rhetoric used by politicians and media involved, not this debate
This was proposed in Australia a few years ago by our thankfully now ex-Minister of Communications. Every major ISP very rightfully pointed out that a filter would: a) slow download speeds by up to 30%, b)not be effective enough to block 100% of porn, c) block many legitimate sites by accident.
I just signed the petition, this country is going to the dogs with tossers like Cameron running it. Why should the government have the power to decide what's right and wrong for our children? It wouldn't be too bad if it was an Opt-in program but to have everyone in by default takes away our power to choose, democracy my ass I like how nothing has been said about his law until it had already been passed.Glademaster said: