hibs.net Messageboard

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 61
  1. #31
    3pts away from home - i'm a happy glory hunter. jonty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Dunfermline
    Age
    41
    Posts
    20,543
    Blog Entries
    4
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: jonty Wii Code: 7580 5998 4272 1376
    Its nothing more than putting the porn mag on the top shelf. if you want it, you'll get it.

    A lot of folks getting their knickers in a twist over nothing. This is about protecting young children from adult content which has become far to easy to access anonymously.

    Its not about censorship for adults, but I'm sure there's plenty of conspiracy theories going on.

    Out of curiosity, how many of those who ware against this 'censorship' have kids who access/or will access online content (browser, games console, smart/apple tv etc?)?
    Last edited by jonty; 22-07-2013 at 02:11 PM.

  2. Log in to remove the advert

  3. #32
    @hibs.net private member Peevemor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Saint-Malo, Brittany
    Age
    47
    Posts
    13,432
    Quote Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Daily Mail shows a typical lack of self awareness in welcoming this news:

    https://twitter.com/frasernelson/sta...334592/photo/1
    What's he describing in the photo?


  4. #33
    3pts away from home - i'm a happy glory hunter. jonty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Dunfermline
    Age
    41
    Posts
    20,543
    Blog Entries
    4
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: jonty Wii Code: 7580 5998 4272 1376
    Quote Originally Posted by Peevemor View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What's he describing in the photo?

    For the first time in several years, David Cameron can see the palm of his hand.

  5. #34
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    13,206
    Quote Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Daily Mail shows a typical lack of self awareness in welcoming this news:

    https://twitter.com/frasernelson/sta...334592/photo/1
    There is a law somewhere that declares that use of the word "sleaze" automatically disbars the writer from being taken seriously.


    And is Cameron saying.... "under these tough new proposals, I will have to find other things to do with THIS."
    Last edited by CropleyWasGod; 22-07-2013 at 02:33 PM.

  6. #35
    Testimonial Due Geo_1875's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In my Joy Division Oven Gloves
    Posts
    1,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Peevemor View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What's he describing in the photo?

    I think he's saying "If you spit on it first it reduces the friction."

  7. #36
    Coaching Staff hibsbollah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    43
    Posts
    12,456
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo_1875 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think he's saying "If you spit on it first it reduces the friction."

  8. #37
    Testimonial due Baldy Foghorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo_1875 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think he's saying "If you spit on it first it reduces the friction."
    Is this from experience Dode?
    "There's class, there's first class and there's Hibs class" - Eddie Turnbull

  9. #38
    Coaching Staff snooky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Down East
    Posts
    5,608
    Quote Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'd consider that a public health issue.

    Point taken, though. What is "morality" to some is "protection" to others. And what is "moral" to some is "immoral" to others. It is a minefield, and one that I don't envy anyone trying to negotiate.

    As a parent, though, and a liberal (small L), I think the Government has this wrong. I am surprised, too, that a party espousing Libertarianism would go down this road.
    Every law that is passed, whether good or bad, is another encroachment on our freedom. Chip, chip chip, day by day, year by year until one day it'll be all gone. Like all decent folk, I abhor all the sicko stuff that is apparently available on the www however, is the loss of our freedom to us all the price we have to pay to somehow control it?

    And as for politicians the likes of Cameron 'taking a stand' on the grounds of morality - give me a break.
    Those Gothic speakeasys in London have given sanctuary to parcels of rogues and scoundrels since time immemorial.
    A plague on both their Houses!
    Last edited by snooky; 23-07-2013 at 11:37 PM.

  10. #39
    Veni, Vidi, Posti degenerated's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    At a post-punk postcard fair
    Age
    43
    Posts
    9,545
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: dave7062
    Quote Originally Posted by Peevemor View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What's he describing in the photo?

    Not sure but the similarities with this chap are uncanny
    ImageUploadedByTapatalk1374647434.977913.jpg

  11. #40
    @hibs.net private member Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Aggravated mayhem
    Posts
    25,506
    Quote Originally Posted by snooky View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Every law that is passed, whether good or bad, is another encroachment on our freedom.
    What about the Freedom of Information Act?
    Buy nothing online unless you click here first. I'm already 566.25 better off!

  12. #41
    First Team Regular EuanH78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Age
    36
    Posts
    961
    Although occasionally I have my doubts, I suspect that David Cameron isn't stupid - a little political grandstanding on a current issue even though the solution is far from workable is my take on it.

  13. #42
    3pts away from home - i'm a happy glory hunter. jonty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Dunfermline
    Age
    41
    Posts
    20,543
    Blog Entries
    4
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: jonty Wii Code: 7580 5998 4272 1376
    Quote Originally Posted by EuanH78 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Although occasionally I have my doubts, I suspect that David Cameron isn't stupid - a little political grandstanding on a current issue even though the solution is far from workable is my take on it.
    I'd say it was pretty straight forward to implement. There are numerous lists of websites, categorised into the areas they're looking at (gambling, adult content etc) used on a daily basis by companies, educational establishments, councils etc for employee, pupil and employer protection.

    Its relatively straight forward to setup an opt-in page asking the bill-payer to tick a box (or boxes if its broken down by category) confirming that want to access the normally blocked content and they simply get redirected via another route or passed through the filter. Some households may even employ it on their router/modems or software based on PCs (ie Norton)

    If this is not limited to adult sites, but includes gambling sites as has been alluded to above, then this could include sites such as the national lottery so its not limited to just those looking for content of a sexual nature.

    Its protection, not censorship - its perfectly legal to opt back in or out. The problem is, for some it appears, that is too much hassle! Even then, it wont block all content, simply restrict it. Even the newer software which analyse each page are 100% perfect.

    For non-tech savvy parents, I've no doubt it'll be something less to worry about. In the age of mobile devices, not every family can have adult supervised pcs and with so many devices accessing home wifi it makes sense to move the filtering further up the chain so that the categories are managed in a smaller number of places generating less traffic.

    (I'm also assuming that it'll cover mobile contracts on data tarrifs etc if those same ISPs have to filter content.)

    If there was a financial incentive to sign up (ie free broadband) i'm sure many would take it without argument. ie McDonalds offer free wifi which they filter with no option to opt out.

    Seems to me like its similar to CIPA (American law) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childre...Protection_Act

    Like bandwidth throttling, speeds, pricing etc it'll be part of the package from the ISP. As far as I'm aware theres no law that states you must be given free unfiltered access to the internet. (although you could always work in a university)
    Last edited by jonty; 24-07-2013 at 09:54 AM. Reason: a bit longer than intended.

  14. #43
    @hibs.net private member Sergio sledge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Inverness
    Age
    30
    Posts
    2,364
    Quote Originally Posted by jonty View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'd say it was pretty straight forward to implement. There are numerous lists of websites, categorised into the areas they're looking at (gambling, adult content etc) used on a daily basis by companies, educational establishments, councils etc for employee, pupil and employer protection.

    Its relatively straight forward to setup an opt-in page asking the bill-payer to tick a box (or boxes if its broken down by category) confirming that want to access the normally blocked content and they simply get redirected via another route or passed through the filter. Some households may even employ it on their router/modems or software based on PCs (ie Norton)

    If this is not limited to adult sites, but includes gambling sites as has been alluded to above, then this could include sites such as the national lottery so its not limited to just those looking for content of a sexual nature.

    Its protection, not censorship - its perfectly legal to opt back in or out. The problem is, for some it appears, that is too much hassle! Even then, it wont block all content, simply restrict it. Even the newer software which analyse each page are 100% perfect.

    For non-tech savvy parents, I've no doubt it'll be something less to worry about. In the age of mobile devices, not every family can have adult supervised pcs and with so many devices accessing home wifi it makes sense to move the filtering further up the chain so that the categories are managed in a smaller number of places generating less traffic.

    (I'm also assuming that it'll cover mobile contracts on data tarrifs etc if those same ISPs have to filter content.)

    If there was a financial incentive to sign up (ie free broadband) i'm sure many would take it without argument. ie McDonalds offer free wifi which they filter with no option to opt out.

    Seems to me like its similar to CIPA (American law) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childre...Protection_Act

    Like bandwidth throttling, speeds, pricing etc it'll be part of the package from the ISP. As far as I'm aware theres no law that states you must be given free unfiltered access to the internet. (although you could always work in a university)
    I'd imagine that the simplest way to do it would be for ISP's to supply their routers/modems with the filters pre-loaded, perhaps asking when you take your contract out whether you wish to have the filters in place or not.

    With regards to mobile data, I'm pretty sure some mobile networks already have adult content filters as standard, I'm with vodafone and they certainly do as I was asked when taking my contract out if I wanted to disable adult filters.

  15. #44
    3pts away from home - i'm a happy glory hunter. jonty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Dunfermline
    Age
    41
    Posts
    20,543
    Blog Entries
    4
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: jonty Wii Code: 7580 5998 4272 1376
    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio sledge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'd imagine that the simplest way to do it would be for ISP's to supply their routers/modems with the filters pre-loaded, perhaps asking when you take your contract out whether you wish to have the filters in place or not.

    With regards to mobile data, I'm pretty sure some mobile networks already have adult content filters as standard, I'm with vodafone and they certainly do as I was asked when taking my contract out if I wanted to disable adult filters.
    Quite possibly but they'd need to ship it on new ones and update the various models/makes of existing ones they had.
    I was thinking of the category updates which would swallow bandwidth unnecessarily. Host at the ISP level they'd have less to manage and be less of a headache. That's assuming it was a simple category based system. Introduce page/content scanning (deep packet filtering) and the modem/routers simply aren't powerful enough (not to mention licensing costs)

  16. #45
    Doddie the Sneaky Proddie Doddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Caldera de la Cruz
    Age
    64
    Posts
    23,404
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: Eh? PSN ID: No comprendo, senor. Wii Code: What's a Wii?
    Quote Originally Posted by jonty View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'd say it was pretty straight forward to implement. There are numerous lists of websites, categorised into the areas they're looking at (gambling, adult content etc) used on a daily basis by companies, educational establishments, councils etc for employee, pupil and employer protection.

    Its relatively straight forward to setup an opt-in page asking the bill-payer to tick a box (or boxes if its broken down by category) confirming that want to access the normally blocked content and they simply get redirected via another route or passed through the filter. Some households may even employ it on their router/modems or software based on PCs (ie Norton)

    If this is not limited to adult sites, but includes gambling sites as has been alluded to above, then this could include sites such as the national lottery so its not limited to just those looking for content of a sexual nature.

    Its protection, not censorship - its perfectly legal to opt back in or out. The problem is, for some it appears, that is too much hassle! Even then, it wont block all content, simply restrict it. Even the newer software which analyse each page are 100% perfect.

    For non-tech savvy parents, I've no doubt it'll be something less to worry about. In the age of mobile devices, not every family can have adult supervised pcs and with so many devices accessing home wifi it makes sense to move the filtering further up the chain so that the categories are managed in a smaller number of places generating less traffic.

    (I'm also assuming that it'll cover mobile contracts on data tarrifs etc if those same ISPs have to filter content.)

    If there was a financial incentive to sign up (ie free broadband) i'm sure many would take it without argument. ie McDonalds offer free wifi which they filter with no option to opt out.

    Seems to me like its similar to CIPA (American law) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childre...Protection_Act

    Like bandwidth throttling, speeds, pricing etc it'll be part of the package from the ISP. As far as I'm aware theres no law that states you must be given free unfiltered access to the internet. (although you could always work in a university)



    Top post, jonty. I really don't see what the fuss is about.

    No one's saying that people can't opt in to receive this material if they want to - just that they won't be provided with it automatically.

    There are lots of unscrupulous people on the net and as things stand they have free access to every household and family with internet access. I would hope this filtering would be extended to internet gambling sites too - I know of too many people who have got themselves in serious financial trouble playing late on into the night. One family who lost their house through an internet gambling problem. The problem is that internet gambling is in every practical sense totally unregulated.

    I have a Sky box. I can watch the entertainment channels, the documentaries, the sport and the news channels. The basic standard deal. I don't pay for the 'adult' channels because I simply don't want them. I could, but I don't. This is no infringement of my freedom - simply an arrangement that places responsibility for choosing the content of the TV channels viewed in my house firmly onto my shoulders.

    Pornography isn't part of my Sky package; why shouldn't it be the same with my internet package?
    Last edited by Doddie; 24-07-2013 at 11:41 AM.


    "Once one accepts that one has bear-hugged full-blown barking there is great comfort in the bright lights and noises of the wibble-wibble show ..."

  17. #46
    ADMIN marinello59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    I still live in hope.
    Posts
    21,533
    Quote Originally Posted by jonty View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'd say it was pretty straight forward to implement. Its protection, not censorship - its perfectly legal to opt back in or out. The problem is, for some it appears, that is too much hassle! Even then, it wont block all content, simply restrict it. Even the newer software which analyse each page are 100% perfect.
    Exactly.
    Every gimmick hungry yob,
    Digging gold from rock and roll
    Grabs the mic to tell us,
    He'll die before he's sold.

  18. #47
    If porn is your thing does it not just mean you need to click a button to watch it? Don't know what all the fuss is about .

  19. #48
    What else can we get the state to legislate for in order to protect the children of lazy (or just couldnt give a ****) parents?

    - No more than one McDonalds' happy meal a month unless you opt out?

    - A minimum of two hours exercise a day unless you opt out?

    - Compulsory fruit and veg five a day unless you opt out?

    - You have to take an interest in their school work unless you opt out?

    - Over '15' movies blocked on TV unless you opt out?

    - I wouldn't be too keen on my kid seeing that Robin Thicke video, can we get that blocked unless we opt out?

    Why just porn, what about the countless disturbing images/videos of death, maiming and much more freely available all over the place?

    Where do we stop in allowing parents to abdicate their responsibilties and just assume that the state will take over?

  20. #49
    ADMIN marinello59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    I still live in hope.
    Posts
    21,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Beefster View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What else can we get the state to legislate for in order to protect the children of lazy (or just couldnt give a ****) parents?

    - No more than one McDonalds' happy meal a month unless you opt out?

    That is the choice parents already make isn't it? You can choose not to go in.

    - A minimum of two hours exercise a day unless you opt out?

    Again.....you can let your kids be couch spuds if you want. Most parents don't though

    - Compulsory fruit and veg five a day unless you opt out?

    Is somebody making pornography compulsory now?

    - You have to take an interest in their school work unless you opt out?

    it's an unwritten clause in the parenting contract, thankfully most do take an interest.

    - Over '15' movies blocked on TV unless you opt out?

    On Sky they already are, you need to enter a PIN to view them before the watershed.

    - I wouldn't be too keen on my kid seeing that Robin Thicke video, can we get that blocked unless we opt out?

    Maybe just going a bit OTT with that one?

    Why just porn, what about the countless disturbing images/videos of death, maiming and much more freely available all over the place?

    Agreed. There are other things out there. But this concern is being dealt with.

    Where do we stop in allowing parents to abdicate their responsibilties and just assume that the state will take over?

    It certainly doesn't let parents abdicate their responsibilities. But it can help them to protect their kids. Is that a bad thing? Dismissing this as a sop to lazy parents is.....well it's a lazy argument. You don't like it so you make those who possibly do look like lesser people. Not something I often see from yourself to be fair.
    It is such a hardship to opt in? Maybe you monitor your kids internet useage 24/7. We can continually look over their shoulders, click all the browser safety features and we can check back on their browsing history but another tool to help won't be unwelcome in our house.
    Last edited by marinello59; 24-07-2013 at 01:58 PM.
    Every gimmick hungry yob,
    Digging gold from rock and roll
    Grabs the mic to tell us,
    He'll die before he's sold.

  21. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by marinello59 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It is such a hardship to opt in? Maybe you monitor your kids internet useage 24/7. We can continually look over their shoulders, click all the browser safety features and we can check back on their browsing history but another tool to help won't be unwelcome in our house.
    http://www.netnanny.co.uk/

    My point is that you don't need legislation to protect kids from perfectly legal activities/goods. The tools to stop kids accessing porn, eating *****, getting fat, watching inappropriate movies and so on are already there (Sky parental controls as an example you gave). It's not controls I object to, it's the government getting involved.

    PS I wasn't painting supporters of this government policy as 'lazy'. It's the parents who don't have the wherewithal or inclination to know about this policy or what their kids are up to that are lazy.
    Last edited by Beefster; 24-07-2013 at 03:41 PM.

  22. #51
    Doddie the Sneaky Proddie Doddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Caldera de la Cruz
    Age
    64
    Posts
    23,404
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: Eh? PSN ID: No comprendo, senor. Wii Code: What's a Wii?
    Quote Originally Posted by marinello59 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It is such a hardship to opt in? Maybe you monitor your kids internet useage 24/7. We can continually look over their shoulders, click all the browser safety features and we can check back on their browsing history but another tool to help won't be unwelcome in our house.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beefster View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    http://www.netnanny.co.uk/

    My point is that you don't need legislation to protect kids from perfectly legal activities/goods. The tools to stop kids accessing porn, eating *****, getting fat, watching inappropriate movies and so on are already there (Sky parental controls as an example you gave). It's not controls I object to, it's the government getting involved.

    PS I wasn't painting supporters of this government policy as 'lazy'. It's the parents who don't have the wherewithal or inclination to know about this policy or what their kids are up to that are lazy.

    I agree with marinello. Goods or services may be perfectly legal, but still not appropriate for children. Unless I'm wrong, it's a criminal offence to expose children below a certain age to pornographic material, yet the law as it stands makes it easier than it needs to be for neglectful parents to do so. All this is about is shifting the line a short distance to make it necessary for adults who want to surf through pornographic images to tell their internet browser that they wish to be supplied with those images.

    I'm beginning to wonder why people who profess to believe that viewing pornography isn't harmful (or something to be embarrassed about) are making such a fuss. If the choice of viewing or not viewing pornography is just the same as the choice eating or not eating at MacDonald's', if it's the same sort of choice as whether or not to make sure your children get enough exercise or check up on their homework, why the fuss?

    And the fact is that parents who allow their kids to eat junk food all the time, who allow them to take so little exercise that they become obese, who don't encourage or discipline them in regard to school-work or who do nothing to monitor or control their kids' internet access ARE neglectful and irresponsible, and it's surely a legitimate function of the state to act reasonably to protect those children from the ill effects of their parents' neglect.

    My experience is that kids react badly to their parents constantly checking up on them. It's a lot easier if you can just say, 'We don't have that in this house.' No one can possibly monitor their youngsters' usage of the internet all the time - my browser has a function t either delete all the browsing data or to delete certain items. There's also a function for 'in-private' browsing - no records are kept of what you've been looking at. If I can work these, I'd guess any kid could too.

    Human society, it seems to me, always walks a line somewhere between oppressive totalitarian control on the one hand, and total anarchy on the other. I would fight for freedom of speech and thought, but not for cyber-pimps and panders to enjoy the freedom to become rich from the exploitation of others' fragility and weakness.


    "Once one accepts that one has bear-hugged full-blown barking there is great comfort in the bright lights and noises of the wibble-wibble show ..."

  23. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Doddie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm beginning to wonder why people who profess to believe that viewing pornography isn't harmful (or something to be embarrassed about) are making such a fuss.
    Just to be 100% clear, I haven't said anything remotely similar to "viewing pornography isn't harmful to kids or even not that big a deal". Given I have children, I'm well aware of what is and isn't harmful. To be honest, I thought I had made that perfectly clear.

    Seeing as we're getting away from the subject in question (i.e. government legislating on blocking certain legal media as the default) and into seemingly misrepresenting arguments, because of the nature of the topic, I'm going to bow out of this thread.

  24. #53
    @hibs.net private member lord bunberry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    edinburgh
    Posts
    3,674
    I think everyone is missing the main problem with this, when the time comes to opt in or out how do I explain to her who must be obeyed that I have opted in.

  25. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by lord bunberry View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think everyone is missing the main problem with this, when the time comes to opt in or out how do I explain to her who must be obeyed that I have opted in.
    Essential practical research for debating intellectual points on an ethics forum.

  26. #55
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    13,206
    Quote Originally Posted by lapsedhibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Essential practical research for debating intellectual points on an ethics forum.
    The Townshend Defence.

  27. #56
    @hibs.net private member lord bunberry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    edinburgh
    Posts
    3,674
    Quote Originally Posted by lapsedhibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Essential practical research for debating intellectual points on an ethics forum.
    I will give that one a bash

  28. #57
    First Team Breakthrough
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    280

    Angry

    FFS i'll need to find something else to do with my spare time

  29. #58
    Coaching Staff HUTCHYHIBBY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    EDINBURGH
    Age
    43
    Posts
    10,154
    Quote Originally Posted by lord bunberry View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I will give that one a bash
    Oo er missus! ;-)

  30. #59
    Doddie the Sneaky Proddie Doddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Caldera de la Cruz
    Age
    64
    Posts
    23,404
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: Eh? PSN ID: No comprendo, senor. Wii Code: What's a Wii?
    Quote Originally Posted by Beefster View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Just to be 100% clear, I haven't said anything remotely similar to "viewing pornography isn't harmful to kids or even not that big a deal". Given I have children, I'm well aware of what is and isn't harmful. To be honest, I thought I had made that perfectly clear.

    Seeing as we're getting away from the subject in question (i.e. government legislating on blocking certain legal media as the default) and into seemingly misrepresenting arguments, because of the nature of the topic, I'm going to bow out of this thread.

    Sorry, Beefster, I wasn't aiming that at you. Having quoted your post, I should have made that clear.

    However I do feel that this is a legitimate question to ask of a lot f those who're opposed to this move.

    I see no problem in filters being set up to make it necessary for WWW users to opt into receiving certain material, as long as they can do so within the limits of the law as it stands. As I understand it, the People's Republic blocks access but doesn't allow people to opt in. There's a difference.

    Also, I suspect that there are more than a few subscribers who're quite happy with the present set-up. They can log-on to porn sites without their nearest-and-dearest knowing what they're up to - SWMBO might suspect but she doesn't know for sure - but after these proposed changes they have to click on a button that suggests they enjoy viewing sites of an indeterminate degree of dodginess.


    "Once one accepts that one has bear-hugged full-blown barking there is great comfort in the bright lights and noises of the wibble-wibble show ..."

  31. #60
    Testimonial Due Future17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    "Galactidos!"
    Age
    30
    Posts
    3,928
    I'm a bit late to this party, but having now had a chance to read up on this topic (courtesy of this thread and other less intellectual sources) I'm not overly bothered by the proposal itself, more the need for it.

    With all that this Government could be concentrating on, is this really a necessary focus or an effective use of resource? If I'm picking this up correctly, the sole purpose of this proposal is to prevent children having access to images which may, in some way, corrupt them. There's a whole raft of issues to be considered here, some of which have been touched on already:

    What types of images are included in this definitions of the content to be blocked?
    How will the images be identified in relation to the proposed measures?
    What is the evidence that supports theories around certain images corrupting children?

    However, notwithstanding these observations, I don't really care either way about the propoal. My main concern is that this policy is a waste of time and money by a Prime Minister who will achieve very little except a few extra votes.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
hibs.net ©2012 All Rights Reserved