No more technical help until Mumsnet listens

[BadgersPaws]

I will not be providing any more technical assistance on this forum.

Mumsnet have announced that they are backing a campaign to have ISPs block "porn" automatically with home users having to "opt in" if they want to receive it.

This has been debated many times on here and on purely technical grounds this is an utterly unworkable idea that will cost a fortune and have more leaks than a sieve.

It will also put children in more danger as parents will believe that their children are safe when nothing could be further from the truth.

Mumsnet has utterly ignored the technical responses it has received.

Until Mumsnet listens to the technical advice it is being given and stops doing something that will lead to more children being exposed to inappropriate materials then feel that I can no longer support it.

So I won't be giving any more answers in this forum until we see a change in policy to something that will genuinely help parents and safeguard children.

I urge the other technical users of this forum to take a similar stance. And just maybe Mumsnet will sit up and take notice and back away from this ridiculous idea.

Maybe I'll look an idiot because of this. However I know that other technical users of this site disagree strongly with those proposals. If you do then please join in with me.

I apologise to those whose questions may now go unanswered, please contact Mumsnet and ask them to drop this campaign.

We can make a difference if we all club together.

For more details and links to the various threads and campaigns please look here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/geeky_stuff/1143749-blocking-internet-porn

In the end remember that it's not my children that will be put at risk if this campaign succeeds.

When the Government turn around and say the filters are in place I'll know that the filters will be useless and will still be taking all the precautions that you need to to protect my children on line.

It won't be me that will trust that my children will now be safe.

Yes I'll have to pay the extra tax that will be needed to fund the lumbering and inefficient technical monstrosity required to support this.

And yes I'll be facing the distinct possibility that I'll have to request the "opt out" when it turns out that all sorts of other innocent sites are being "accidentally" blocked by the filters as we've seen in Australia.

But my children will stay as safe as they can.

And that will happen because I'll be doing all the things that the Government could be spending money helping you to do rather than waste it on a futile technical attempt to hold back the tide.

And further more, in all honesty, I might get work out of this crazy proposal.

So why am I against this if my children and I will be OK?

Because in the end this is wrong, this is dangerous, you will still not know what to do and your children will not be made any safer.

And that's why I oppose it.

Think it's time I paid proper attention to one of these threads, need to learn the ins and outs of the issue.

Just a brief note to point out that in the thread in Campaigns about "blocking porn at source" (well, by the ISP at least), one poster (Niceguy2) suggested readers try a search for "how to bypass school filters"

Go on, try it. I suspect exactly the same will be done with any ISP block that might be put in place, it's really so easy it is frightening. Even if there are blocks put in place to stop attempts to link to these proxy services, it won't stop use of public libraries (OK, moot point if your local library is closed) to search for alternatives.

There will be some which just get used via an IP address. Yes, that can be blocked too, but it will be a game of "cat and mouse" to find them all. Anyone unscrupulous could rent a server and sell access.

In the thread on Site Stuff, Justine quoted from a newspaper article suggesting that the ISPs might have a lucrative sideline if they offer a 'filtered' connection and then, because a high proportion of men view porn, some 'secret' access for a further fee, just for Dad to use.

I know there have been services with firewalls under user control (such as Metronet used to offer before it was bought by PlusNet) so if "Dad" could disable the block via an ISP menu, odds are that he will forget to re-enable it one day anyway!

I agree with you totally NWG

"I agree with you totally NWG"

If you agree with this then please register your disapproval by refusing to enable Mumsnet by answering questions on this forum.

Internet Safety is going to be one of the big technical issues over the next few years and we can't allow it to be carried out in complete, and wilful, technical ignorance.

I am completely with you as well. It is not going to work and the govy will spend an absolute fortune, they don't have, in finding this out for themselves.

"I am completely with you as well. It is not going to work and the govy will spend an absolute fortune, they don't have, in finding this out for themselves."

Again then please join in the boycott, make clear that the technical part of the community is not backing this campaign.

Please pick the threads you would normally answer, and please be honest about that, and set out your stand asking the OP to contact Mumsnet.

Signing on with my approval here, too. I'm on Network Guy's other thread, but discussions like this can't be confined to just one thread.

I back the campaign to stop MN's support if this idiotic plan but I will not join the tech help boycott because MN is not a tech site and you are nor hurting MN by ignoring posters who need tech help, but the posters themselves.

As I have mention previously I also think it is very rude to post on threads asking for help by saying 'I could help but I won't.'

If you're not helping, just don't help.

i agree with Tee2072
techys like yourself have helped me out when in a fix with ppt/excel every now and again...

why refusing to help me will that influence MN? I think posting and reposting at every opportunity why it is a crap idea, and some alternative solutions is the answer.

"I will not join the tech help boycott because MN is not a tech site and you are nor hurting MN by ignoring posters who need tech help, but the posters themselves."

I think that a boycott could help because...

• It makes it clear the the technical element of the "Mumsnet Community" are dead set against this plan.

• Given that the technical element of this community is comparatively small then if the people seeking help also start to badger Mumsnet about this then it increases the chances of us actually being listened to.

• This plan will put children in harms way as people are continually given the impression that they cannot do anything and the solution is at the ISP level. I will not be a part of any organisation that is pushing that plan.

We are not Mumsnut, but through our traffic, chat and discussion we enable Mumsnet. And if you oppose this campaign then that enabling has got to stop.

"As I have mention previously I also think it is very rude to post on threads asking for help by saying 'I could help but I won't.'"

Ultimately there's no point going on strike unless people notice, and if we just fade away then no one notices.

In the end it's not our children who will suffer because of this, we know that it's nonsense and will make sure that we continue to take our own safety precautions.

We're doing this for the other children and for the parents who just don't know how to help protect them.

Ok BadgersPaw I will (even though I know little to start with) :)

I understand your reasoning. I still don't agree with your methods and will continue to help MNetters who need technical help where I am able.

I don't agree with any boycotts, BTW, not just yours. I think the one thing the approximately 40 year boycott of Nestle has proven is that boycotts don't work.

Also, if your ultimate goal is to help those parents who don't know about how to protect their children, then your boycott of them asking for help protecting their children, if that's what they are asking in Geeky Stuff, is actually working against your goals.

Marking place (to understand issue and be educated further)

"I don't agree with any boycotts, BTW, not just yours. I think the one thing the approximately 40 year boycott of Nestle has proven is that boycotts don't work."

That's because most of the consumers of Nestle haven't boycotted it.

And that boycott has had at least some results in that there is higher awareness of the issues. No that's not ideal, but imagine how much further from an ideal situation we'd be if 40 years ago people had though "oh it's not worth it". And in the end don't you also feel content that you at least are not supporting them?

Mumsnet are doing a bad thing.

We need to make clear that Mumsnet has absolutely no technical backing for this.

"Also, if your ultimate goal is to help those parents who don't know about how to protect their children, then your boycott of them asking for help protecting their children, if that's what they are asking in Geeky Stuff, is actually working against your goals."

True, and maybe there will be exceptions from time to time. But most of the questions I've answered are not about child safety but general IT problems and questions.

MNHQ (Justine) has posted (14:12)

But clearly we have not framed our argument particularly well [understatement]. So we shall take down the page and start again...

I eat Nestle constantly. Because I don't believe in boycotts. Didn't I just say that?

Anyway, we're not going to agree on this. And I'll continue to help people I can help and hope those who need help that I can't help have someone else who can help them.

And, according to MN, they do have some sort of technical backing for this, although they have not said who specifically they have found backing them. I do not think they think much of us as technically backing, TBH. Actually, I don't think, on this issue, they care what their actual membership cares about this at all. I, personally, feel they have dismissed all members concerns because they don't know for sure what technical background any of us have, no matter what we post about the issue.

I also get a very strong feeling, based on nothing but instinct, that they know they made a bad decision but feel they can't back out now because of "The Power Of MN!" [sarcasm emoticon]

"I eat Nestle constantly. Because I don't believe in boycotts. Didn't I just say that?"

Fair point, at least you're consistent :)

"And I'll continue to help people I can help and hope those who need help that I can't help have someone else who can help them."

And that's why boycotts fail, but that said in the end if a boycott can't attract enough support then perhaps it deserves to fail.

"And, according to MN, they do have some sort of technical backing for this, although they have not said who specifically they have found backing them."

No, and I wonder if it's from the element of the IT industry that would benefit massively from there being an attempt at a "Great File Wall of Britain" type of thing, it's a huge money pit.

"I don't think, on this issue, they care what their actual membership cares about this at all."

Maybe but...

If enough users moan that they're no longer getting help they might listen.

If page impressions on this forum slump as people don't get help then they might listen (and yes I know that this sort of discussion will up the page impression count, ho and hum....).

At the least it'll be clear to any journalist that looks into this that there's a very strong swell of technical opinion against this and that MNHQ is just ignoring it.

I am sympathetic. I won't be actively boycotting, but I may not be as helpful as I have been.

"and that MNHQ is just ignoring it."

I'm not sure that is correct. Only when they have rethought, rewritten, and published a new version of www.mumsnet.com/campaigns/porn-default-filter (not available right now as they have removed it!) will we be better able to judge.

yes I object to mumsnet doing a campaign in mumsnetters names when a good proportion of them know that this idea is a nonsense.

try again, MNHQ

I have limited knowledge of all things technical but I know that if people want porn, they will get porn.

"I'm not sure that is correct. Only when they have rethought, rewritten, and published a new version of www.mumsnet.com/campaigns/porn-default-filter (not available right now as they have removed it!) will we be better able to judge."

Well they ignored everything that we had to say from the moment the discussions started up until the campaign was launched.

So for now I'll presume that the ignoring of and refusal to answer any technical objection will continue.

But I'll be only too happy if they just back away from the idea and push, and push hard, to educate parents.

yes i sincerely agree that they shouldn't be doing a campaign in mumsnetters names if a good proportion of them know, or believe, this idea to be nonsense.

So how about setting up a thread with your pov asking mumsnetters to post "for or against" the proposals.
That way mumsnet has to listen, they can't use "us" to back their suggestions/campaigns if the members don't agree. The media would have a field day and are probably just waiting to start the mumsnet backlash, they've been a bit too influential for the last year or so