This topic is for discussions about campaigns Mumsnet is running or may be planning to run. Go here for other campaigns or petitions.

Internet porn may be blocked at source

(366 Posts)
David51 Mon 20-Dec-10 11:05:27

Communications minister Ed Vaizey is working on plans designed to prevent children gaining access to internet pornography.

He hopes to introduce a system that would enable parents to ask internet service providers (ISPs) to block adult sites at source, rather than relying on parental controls that they need to set themselves.

Adults using the internet connection would then have to specifically 'opt in' if they want to view pornography.

Full story:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/850896-new-porn-contro ls-for-children-on-internet-planned-by-government

Mumsnet PLEASE think about doing a campaign about this. Or at least keep us posted on if & when the government decides to ask for our views.

In the meantime maybe we should all contact our current ISPs to ask what they plan to do and letting them know what we want as their customers.

confidence Fri 22-Jul-11 11:19:23

Sorry networkGuy, I probably didn't put that clearly. I realise any teenage boys she goes out with are likely to have watched porn. What I meant was, "What makes you think they will have high demands of her sexually because of it?". This fear seems to imply an assumption about a specific way that porn must always affect peoples' behaviour, and I don't think that assumption has really been examined.

I don't really get the "not matching real life" thing either. Real life is incredibly varied, and people are into different things. Pretty much everything that happens in porn is something that someone, somewhere is into - indeed it must be for it to have an audience.

But no one piece or genre of porn pretends to speak for the whole of human sexuality. People erect a strawman by pretending that it does. The fact that there is plenty of anal porn doesn't mean people are going to "expect" that a particular individual likes it, any more than than the widespread availability of hamburgers leads us to expect that everyone likes them.

NetworkGuy Fri 22-Jul-11 12:15:20

While no-one should expect everyone to enjoy everything, the simple fact is that after a few drinks, the "no means NO" message is unlikely to matter to bunch of immature young 'studs' so if they have seen a gang-bang and all manner of activities, and consider them "the norm" (despite some being liked by a tiny portion of women), the odds are some young women may be expected to do things which they may have no wish to do. Yes, it would amount to assault, rape or similar, but seeing (done easily, and free) the 'extremes' (aka variety), could cloud judgement over what is acceptable, and/or expected.

I agree that life is varied, but in terms of some of the less common activities that may have been seen, is likely not to be seen as a 'specialist interest' but as 'normal'. Where you and I may disagree on is that bit about hamburgers, and the (immature) male incomprehension that it is not something this girl wants to do, and the emotional blackmail that might be used to get it from the girl.

confidence Fri 22-Jul-11 12:23:56

Sure, that's all possible. It's a reasonable speculation.

It's just that one could also come up with plenty of other speculations that are equally possible and reasonable (such as boys actually finding it easier to go out with girls who don't feel ready for sex, because they can satisfy themselves with porn instead). And there's no basis for believing that your speculation is the way things actually play out in reality.

NetworkGuy Fri 22-Jul-11 21:46:51

It's not my speculation, by the way, just that of whomever put together the piece for the TV.

With the way the internet has been changing in the last say 3-5 years, almost any studies would easily be out of date because 'content' and ability to access it is probably significantly easier in every 6 month period than it was in the previous months, because of changes to mobile phones, addition of 'tablets' etc, etc (even if the iPad doesn't have easy access to Flash or Windows Media Player [perhaps], there will be plenty of other methods to view the web such as games consoles etc).

NetworkGuy Fri 26-Aug-11 02:46:00

> UK Parliamentary inquiry into possibility of blocking websites <

MNHQ - if you see this please consider providing input to the inquiry.

You've previously accepted there are issues over
'who decides' and
'how would blocking work' and
'parents need more education'

and I hope the lengthy threads arguing against blocking (partly as impractical and partly as false sense of [parental] security) don't need to be repeated.

ISPreview article in link above seemed pretty balanced about the main objections, without going into the lack of impartiality concerning the chair of this inquiry!

spiderslegs Fri 26-Aug-11 03:05:49

Eeek - I expected to disagree with you Network - I hate thye idea my son could access all manner of vileness - horrid.

spiderslegs Fri 26-Aug-11 03:06:14

Hate the idea.

NetworkGuy Fri 26-Aug-11 13:04:40

Unfortunately 'all manner of vileness' is easily available via the internet. I'm not in any way promoting free access, but worried that attempts to block, widely regarded as relatively easy for teens to work around, would give parents a belief it 'cannot be done' when it is easy.

While Government is saying they want to slim down central government and get more 'local' decisions, what could be more 'local' than a parent taking control over what is and isn't available in the household, yet there is now discussion about mandating some 'block list' (with no clarity on what organisation controls the list) and for ISPs to use such a list of 'banned sites' as a part of their filtering out of sites, at ISP [therefore customer] cost.

Far from this being voluntary, so some ISPs like 'SO internet' (which offers a 'clean' feed for customers) could offer filtering and others be for 'adults only' (!) the ISPs will be expected to comply, or legislation may be brought in to force them. This is a massive waste of time and money, as anyone with a will to avoid the filters will get around them (including teens, who will pass on the information to others, running rings around parents, as is usual when it comes to technology).

Further, it's a slippery slope from banning porn and violence to banning political dissent sites or anyone the government of the day decides is not to be tolerated. It has already happened in Australia, where a 'block list' was implemented and had a variety of businesses included...

NetworkGuy Thu 05-Apr-12 07:13:09

There's > yet another proposal to force ISPs to filter internet content < (and link to AAISP's MD Adrian "Reverend" Kennard's Blog about why filtering won't work)

Acekicker Tue 10-Apr-12 19:36:07

On a related note, did anyone else do the MN survey about 'public wifi' - some extremely 'interesting' defintions about what is 'family friendly'...

NetworkGuy Thu 03-May-12 14:06:32

MPs from opposition and governing sides are still technically challenged or don't accept that Ofcom and the minister have been told it is impractical to attempt. There's another article > here <

There are others who think that they can force use of the .xxx top level domain suffix for porn sites. Didn't they ever come across descriptions of the internet which include "anarchy" ?

I know the (last) French President was advocating legislation and the USA throws its weigh around when it can (in requesting extradition for anyone merely using a domain name under American billing or hosting, even if the individual has never set foot on the US homeland).

There's simply no way to restrict "porn" sites or sites with descriptions or video of violence into some backwater that can be "blocked" easily, (a) because there are already tens of thousands using .com etc and the .xxx name may have already been registered [by a competitor] and (b) because by the nature of their 'unlawful' thinking (ignoring moral and other objections) the owners will simply give a two finger salute if asked, and may live in other countries where there can be no enforcement of a UK "idea" (or rather "wish"!!!).

Freedom of speech gets used as a defence by US firms peddling porn and nothing some dumb UK MP says will override that constitutional "right" for an American in a US court. No way to compel them from this side of the Atlantic, so the ISPs are the "soft target" and they (ISPs) know attempts are doomed to fail.

NetworkGuy Thu 03-May-12 14:13:12

Found a recent blog article about the Daily Mail and its anti-porn stance... > here <

NetworkGuy Sun 17-Jun-12 19:15:51

I know this is an old thread, but just recently spotted that OpenDNS offers their "FamilyShield" free for personal use. See their web page... > www.opendns.com/home-solutions/parental-controls/ <

NetworkGuy Mon 02-Jul-12 22:58:03

Acekicker - just wondered if you could remember where that public wi-fi survey was, as I did try to find it but couldn't.... ( unless someone from MNHQ can link to it, please ).

Consuelaa Tue 11-Sep-12 21:01:07

I agree with the people who said it's not a good idea and may not work or be difficult to implement.

There are so many porn sites (professional and free) so how can we possibly block them all (without blocking non-porn material). And what about websites which have nudity in a non-sexual context (eg medical websites)?

Even if there were no porn sites people could still share porn with torrents or file sharing software. People could upload porn to file-hosting websites then share the links on message boards. Or people could email porn to each other.

People can use proxies or VPNs to circumvent blocks. (for example thepiratebay has been blocked in the UK but there is nothing to stop Brits to access it through a proxy).

And even if the internet were to cease to exist people could just trade porn on memory sticks or DVDs.

My point is there is always a way. Bans don't work people will just find a way around them. IMO some people enjoy finding a way around bans it makes them feel clever and something which is banned may become a "forbidden fruit" and seem even more naughty and desirable.

Ouma Wed 14-Nov-12 16:42:50

OK this is a very late response to this old thread, but I looked for this earlier and didnt find it, and started a thread earlier today asking if anyone knew of an ISP that filtered at source. Two of the MNs above refer to such ISPs above Snorbs and David51. Please can you tell me who they are? I have a teenage son who has learned how to bypass our very mild effective filter (K9 - I recommend for parents with younger children on a shared computer) and is in danger of becoming addicted to porn. It is a huge, unreported problem amongst young men, and I need to protect my son. I’m not in favour of legislation to curb porn but I think a lot of MNs have yet to come across this problem and they don’t have teenage boys who skip school and are at home alone during the day = big problem.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now