AIBU to think Cameron's porn-blocking plans won't appeal to 'the mumsnet vote'?

[BreconBeBuggered]

I've just seen someone on Twitter dismissing the government's latest Big Idea to automatically block porn sites, unless you actively opt in, as a gimmick designed to attract votes from MNers who won't care about whoring out our civil liberties.

AIBU to be seething at the implication that as a parent I rely on the government to protect little Billy from computer nasties, and don't have the capacity to imagine restrictions and censorship being applied in other areas? Or is she right to think this will be a popular move in some quarters?

[flatpackhamster]

It'll be very popular on MN, who share the Guardian's view that government is brilliant and can fix everything. MN has good aspects to it, but a bastion of libertarianism and freedom of thought it ain't.

[TylerHopkins]

I think it's a good starting point from which to tackle the issue. Will it work, who knows? But if it doesn't then at least we've tried it and can move on from there.

[MurderOfGoths]

They should come on here and read the fights about it!

[MurderOfGoths]

Bearing in mind that there was a backlash against MN endorsing this before and MNHQ ended up withdrawing support.

Thyler Come read the other threads and see if you still think it's a great idea.

[wanderings]

Funny how it's announced when the news is full of the Royal birth.

Burying news, anyone?

[isitsnowingyet]

I think it's a great start. It's a lot better than doing nothing at all. And no, I'm not a fan of David Cameron or the Tories in general, but think that porn is degrading for a lot of women.

[MurderOfGoths]

It's worse than doing nothing.

Porn is degrading to women, but this isn't the answer.

[BreconBeBuggered]

Haven't seen anything about how 'porn' will be identified in order to restrict its availability, for a start. I tried one of those family-friendly filters once and it blocked out most of the sites I look at, none of which could be classified by even the most puritanical censor as pornography.

[TylerHopkins]

I don't think it will work in isolation but only alongside a number of other approaches.

[BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability]

Wanderings, thats a very good point!

[MurderOfGoths]

Tyler All of the other options negate a need for it.

[josephinebruce]

I would support it more if it wasn't a cynical ploy to try and grab female votes (MN or not) whilst covering up the real problems in this country.

[TarkaTheOtter]

I would imagine that; either it will be so restrictive that most people have it removed to access "innocent" sites, or, it won't be able to adequately prevent children accessing porn.

Surely it's better to supervise Internet access and explain to those older children/teens that normal sex isn't always like porn sex. Or maybe just tell them that you and dad like watching porn and they'll be put off for life.

[ButThereAgain]

Yes a cynical ploy to grab womens votes is exactly it. I hope Mumsnet won't give them any help with this.

They aren't burying it Wanderings, on the contrary one speculation is that this big, high-profile announcement (of nothing at all, since they know it won't work) has been timed to itself bury some of the criticisms over the Linton Crosby lobbying story -- and perhaps it is also designed to temper the image created by recent tobacco and alcohol stories, of a govt totally unwilling to rein in anti-social, damaging commercial interests.

If this offered an effective policy against porn I would support it. But it does seem like a dishonest initiative, suggesting illusory possibilities.