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

Mumsnet in favour of continuing to provide porn to children via the internet???

(78 Posts)
lucyloo1 Fri 11-Feb-11 16:45:04

I am shocked that you all at mumsnet have backed down over your initial support of the work that Ed Vaizey is doing to encourage ISP's to provide a default internet porn filter because some of your members have objected!

1) I don't see how you can justify not supporting this, regardless of what some of your members might say. It isn't rocket science - the sort of hard core free porn that is currently being piped into everyone's home is well known to be harmful to both adults and children but, especially to children.

2) Although, technically, it probably is impossible to filter out all porn, it certainly is very straightforward to filter out the majority of it. I set this up on my own personal connection using a free service (http://www.opendns.com/familyshield) - it took all of 3 minutes and is completely free. Those who tell you this is not possible probably have their own interests uppermost in their minds, rather than those of young people.

3) Have you not wondered why your members who are objecting to this, are actually so vociferous in their objections? There are a great many who are in favour of porn and many who are addicted to it. These individuals will fight tooth and nail against any threat which may make it more difficult for them to access porn. They are not however, the slightest bit concerned about the damage it does to young people. You, on the other hand, should be.

4) As for parents being responsible for controlling what their children can get access to, on the internet, the most concerned and knowledgable parents may not know exactly what they need to do to protect their home internet connections, as far as is possible. ISP's on the otherhand, have the technical expertise to do this if they wish to or can be persuaded to, which is exactly what Ed Vaizey and others are trying to do.

I hope you will reconsider your stance on this issue for the sake of your many members who are parents concerned about the welfare of their children - by the way, shouldn't that be all of your members.

coldtits Fri 11-Feb-11 16:49:06

1) It does not necessarily work

2) Regardless of your opinion, private citizens in this country still retain the right to privacy and freedom of information within their own homes

3) EVERYONE is free to set up their very own net nanny, if you can afford an internet connection, you can afford a net nanny.

4) Children should be supervised on the internet, and the majority of Mumsnet members understand this clearly.

I hope that in light of some careful thought, you will reconsider your use of hyperbole - by the way, here's a definition

onimolap Fri 11-Feb-11 16:52:53

Here is the geeky thread which explains techie objections to the proposals.

I do not have the knowledge tonweight up the pros and cons on this, and so will watch thisnthread with interest.

But the line of thinking: "something needs to be done, this is something, so we must to this" has its flaws too.

JenaiMarrHePlaysGuitar Fri 11-Feb-11 16:57:24

I see onmiolap has beaten me to it and posted a link to the very thorough discussion we've already had on the subject.

All of us are concerned about our children being exposed to pornography - which is why we believe in finding a solution that actually works.

Normantebbit Fri 11-Feb-11 16:59:38

I think parental vigilance is a far better tool than any software.

HettyAmaretti Fri 11-Feb-11 17:01:38

Good call MNHQ. What coldtits and onmiolap said.

Tee2072 Fri 11-Feb-11 17:02:43

That has got to be one of the most offensive OPs I have ever read, not just implying, but stating, that those of us with the technological know how to know this won't work are either: -

A) addicted to porn

and/or

B) not interested in protecting our children.

Have you read the actual discussion on this? Or are you having a knee jerk reaction, like MN did, when you heard 'children' 'porn' and 'block'?

You yourself say you already use filtering software. So continue to do so and don't expect the rest of us to agree to something that is: -

A) technologically difficult if not impossible

B) poorly thought out

and

C) not actually supported by the MN community at large, no matter what MNHQ has to say about it.

PuzzleRocks Fri 11-Feb-11 17:05:44

Applauds Coldtits

Normantebbit Fri 11-Feb-11 17:06:02

Porn isn't the only issue either - online bullying has certain effects on a child because they can 're experience' it in a way by visiting the site repeatedly. Parents need to be talking to children, engaged and concerned, not hoping a computer programme will do it for them.

UnquietDad Fri 11-Feb-11 17:12:32

Taking issue with this particular proposal to control porn and "being in favour of providing porn" are not one and the same thing. It is convenient rhetoric to pretend that they are.

(It's like saying that, if you don't think hard labour is a particularly effective punishment for burglars, you are "in favour of burglary.")

ChunkyPickle Fri 11-Feb-11 17:34:14

Offensive implications of the OP aside...

A kid with 10 minutes googling can get round a net nanny (or with a mate who tells them how), and that's the same for an ISP filter.

Why on earth would you want to waste so much money implementing a solution that can be got around with very little difficulty?

onimolap Fri 11-Feb-11 18:16:23

Press cuttings in this thread.

MissTeese Sat 12-Feb-11 14:31:19

Good news that mumsnet has decided not to support Ed Vasey! I am not very technical, and don't understand filters and stuff, but that doesn't matter as I am quite happy that my son and his friends all look at hardcore porn round our house - all part of a good education!! We really mustn't be too prudish about this subject must we, and they are all 13yrs!!?

lucyloo1 Mon 14-Feb-11 09:51:41

I have to wonder if the parents of your son's friends are all as keen on encouraging them to get an "all round education" as you seem to be! Never mind - as long as you're doing it for them, that's OK then.

lucyloo1 Mon 14-Feb-11 10:17:06

Thanks for this link. I thought I would go back and have a look at it. What I found was just a series of posts objecting to the whole idea and some were threatening to boycott mumsnet if they continued to support it. I didn't find any alternative technical solutions or any clear information about exactly how this proposed filter would work or why it would be so easy to get round, if implemented). So if these are the "Geeky" mumsnet members, perhaps they might want to provide some information about this for the benefit of the rest of us?

The solution I have explained in my post is simple, works & costs nothing. I imagine that the proposed ISP filter would work in a similar way.

StuffingGoldBrass Mon 14-Feb-11 10:19:03

An excellent example of the pro-censorship mindset there OP: hysterical, self-righteous and poorly informed.

SoupDragon Mon 14-Feb-11 10:22:39

I use parental controls and teach my children what to do if something unexpected comes through. This gives them the tools to deal with it should they encounter it elsewhere.

I don't need an nanny state to parent my children.

maryz Mon 14-Feb-11 10:29:59

Have you really investigated this fully lucyloo, or are you so fixed on this idea that you have already decided that everyone who is against this is "pro porn for children" hmm. You need to read this thread, it is very illuminating.

Your initial post is incredibly ignorant, your last post is equally rude - the so-called "geeky" mumsnet members have provided, and continue to provide loads of information and support for many members.

The ISP filter won't stop children accessing every undesireable site, it will simply give parents a false sense of security, meaning that even fewer parents will bother with parental controls on their computers.

The "simple" three minute set up you have - have you set it up for your children only, or for everyone in your house. Have you considered that you might want different controls for a 5 year old, an 18 year old and an adult, or do you really think a "one-size fits all" solution for every user of a broadband connection is sufficiently flexible for most families?

I resent your assumption that I am in favour of porn and addicted to it hmm. I have just taken the trouble to educate myself on these issues, something you maybe should consider angry.

JenaiMarrHePlaysGuitar Mon 14-Feb-11 10:30:10

But it wouldn't work, OP! That's why we object to it. Every one of us would have to opt out of the filters in order to access things like Mumsnet. And even if you don't opt out of the filters, if any of your neighbours have opted to allow "adult content" (or whatever it's going to be called) and haven't locked down their WiFi (several of mine haven't) your DCs would still be able to access pornography if their laptops/PCs aren't suitably protected.

The only way to protect your children is to ensure that you apply proper content controls to any devices they use - and to monitor what they're accessing.

maryz Mon 14-Feb-11 10:32:42

Anyone who doesn't understand the issues but is interested should really read the thread I linked to above, as it is explained really well by a number of posters who have been kind enough to educate those of us who are concerned enough to find out, but not "geeky" at all hmm.

Eleison Mon 14-Feb-11 10:34:25

Actually, Soup, that is a very important part of the parental response to the problem that is mentioned relaitvely infrequently: telling your children in advance what they might do if they come across something disturbing (whether porn, violence, bullying or whatever. I often remind DSs that they can (and should) talk to me -- or someone else if they prefer -- if/when they see something unsettling.

I think I would do more in the way of specifying to them what sort of things I feared they might see, if there was a strong public conversation about how these sorts of exchanges with our children might develop.

RowanMumsnet (MNHQ) Mon 14-Feb-11 10:39:14

Morning all.

lucyloo1, MNHQ is still absolutely committed to working with other organisations, and the government, to a find a solution to the problem of children's exposure to online porn. We think that the most important thing is that a way is found to minimise children's exposure; we remain open-minded about what the best way to do that might be. We're talking to lots of different people about the best approach, as well as (most importantly) listening to what MN posters have to say about it. We'll keep feeding back as our conversations progress; in the meantime, do please keep telling us what you think.

MNHQ x

Snorbs Mon 14-Feb-11 10:45:08

lucyloo, you only mention protecting children from porn.

So does that mean you are in favour of continuing to provide graphic violence, hate-filled language, autopsy photos and obscene language to your children via the Internet?

maryz Mon 14-Feb-11 10:47:21

Snorbs, I will add to that sentence: while preventing you from buying lingerie online, or accessing breast-feeding support, or going on mumsnet shock.

Snorbs Mon 14-Feb-11 10:48:08

Bah! You just spoiled my punchline!

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