Talk

Advanced search

please MNHQ (on silly blocking of PMs)

(17 Posts)
NetworkGuy Fri 26-Aug-11 19:24:40

If you're going to block sending of PMs to particular people (you know who they are!) then can you not remove the 'Message poster' link (or when you act on the link, check the 'to' nickname and give an immediate error message before someone types their message.

Here's what I was planning to send. I'm not going to bother with e-mail to contactus@mumsnet.com as I must dash to get some cat food, so here's what I had prepared:

(intended for Justine as she had contributed on 'porn filter' thread)

> LINK < to Ckaure Perry MP's 'news' item about setting up of Parliamentary inquiry on child protection...

You might want to check the terms of reference - item 3 in particular.

best wishes, Peter in N Wales.

LeBJOF Fri 26-Aug-11 19:38:21

Who can't you PM? <nosy>

TheMagnificentBathykolpian Fri 26-Aug-11 19:45:45

Justine, I think

PinotsWolefCubs Sun 28-Aug-11 14:45:44

You'd have to be a right ego-maniac to PM Justine fgs.

RowanMumsnet (MNHQ) Sun 28-Aug-11 15:35:32

Hello there

Thanks for this; I will pass the message on.

NetworkGuy Mon 29-Aug-11 14:07:56

PWC wrote "right ego-maniac to PM Justine fgs"

on the contrary - Justine contributed on a thread back in February concerning a proposal to have ISPs block acces to websites... MNHQ had decided to support the Minister and indicated so on its Campaigns page, but after a number of others put forward valid technical and other concerns, MNHQ was persuaded to reverse its position to being against the dumb idea (my bias).

MP Claire Perry is now being put in the driving seat (hardly an unbiassed person, and perhaps not the best choice, but again, my view only!) and I want MNHQ to be aware of the possibility that in 'evidence gathering' there may be some request to attend, but if not, MNHQ might want to put forward a view independently (eg by open letter via the media to the committee) so others can see how misguided this web filtering idea is, and how parental education and commonsense might be perfectly adequate without the white elephant idea going as far as legislation, costing ISPs hundreds of thousands or more (being passed on to customers) and setting up a ridiculous filtering/blocking system which is relatively easy to bypass.

Ofcom has already come out and said it is impractical to attempt to block sites, and the anti-censorship bodies can see it as being a thin end of the wedge.

MNHQ was at one point seen (mistakenly) as being in favour of censorship and slightly ridiculed by one of the more 'blokey' websites, but some at least saw that MN's view was based on the technical aspects and were not in favour of the Minister's viewpoint but offering an alternative approach.

( > the other thread < might be worth reading if you want to know more about the arguments made against an ISP web blocking system being imposed on the internet-using public. Sorry - it is quite a long thread already!! )

OliviaMumsnet (MNHQ) Mon 29-Aug-11 18:16:13

Thanks NG
We'll make sure that she sees this thread and ask Tech to remove her message poster icon.
Thanks
MNHQ

KatieMumsnet (MNHQ) Wed 31-Aug-11 17:28:02

Hiya

Thanks for the link NG. As you thought, we have been asked to attend the inquiry. We're doing a short survey, to get some data about Mumsnetters experiences (will update with link shortly), but we also reflect the views on all previous threads - including those on a network block. We really want to be able to represent what Mumsnetters think could be the most effective solutions that will help make parents lives easier, give greater protection to children, but not change the way we all use the web. So do fill in the survey!

NetworkGuy Thu 01-Sep-11 09:40:18

Good to see you have been invited.

(Actually, I thought you might not have been asked !!!)

BadgersPaws Thu 01-Sep-11 10:11:21

(cross post from Geeks forum)

I've said this before but if Mumsnet lends any kind of support to MP Claire Perry's extremist friends (Safermedia, who, let's remember, consider homosexuality an abomination, sex education damaging and Steven Seagal's acting skills impressively influential) and their quest to censor the internet then I will quit this site and never give any advice here again.

Consorting with groups that have such disgusting views is bad enough.

Implementing proposals that would put more children in harms way and delay the time when parents begun to take the only action that would protect them is worse. Claire Perry isn't bothered about this, she's either ignorant or just delighted that she's getting attention from the Government. Claire Perry's friends aren't bothered about this, they're too busy working themselves up into a froth about men that like other men's bottoms and planning how they can age rate and censor everything on the internet not just porn.

Mumsnet has already wasted months on this, it could have begun its own campaign to educate and help parents. Please don't waste any more time.

Stop standing by while children come to harm.

Stop helping Claire Perry MP to use our children and put them at risk so that she can climb the greasy pole of politics at Westminster.

Stop being seen to endorse Safermedia and their extremist views.

Start educating people right now and lead the way by showing what really can and should be done.

There is so much that can be done, and so much time is being wasted.

niceguy2 Thu 01-Sep-11 10:44:37

Reading the terms of reference it seems to me that they are written in such a way that it doesn't matter what we say. Their mind seems made up already. It's just a matter of what regulation rather than if it is appropriate or not.

LeninGrad Fri 02-Sep-11 13:27:37

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

NetworkGuy Thu 29-Sep-11 11:19:18

FAO MNHQ : Have just spotted this news item re porn on the net:

> Porn-watching, net-savvy kids are a myth <

Maybe the teens (and younger) interviewed on C4's sex ed shows are more savvy than average (or selected from a number of interviews as they have admitted seeing porn) while others in the UK are only half as savvy, or even the anonymous polls get it wrong.

Further reading from > LSE < (EU Kids Online)

might prove useful before giving comments to the Parliamentary group, perhaps to be used to argue education of parents is more important than lulling them into a sense of false security.

While I agree with BadgersPaws that MN could have been campaigning for months about educating parents and should be, perhaps in co-operation with C4, I'm not supportive of BP's attacking style in the earlier post, and in particular, query whether MN is in any way "supporting" MP Claire Perry or "endorsing" Safermedia.

Perhaps an open letter to the Minister (after giving evidence to Claire Perry and the Parliamentary group), putting forward the suggestion that censorship of the type proposed [by attempting to block websites] is not the best way to go, will incur costs for ISPs, pushing up charges to the end users [which sours the Race Online campaign], and may be less useful than educating parents, would be in order. Getting it into various newspaper's "letters to the editor" might at least ensure some parents who may otherwise support attempts to block, will see their role in a different light, but also make the politicians aware that providing useful information for parents would be better than blocking websites and leaving less savvy parents with no clue as to how their children could be accessing sites they thought were 'blocked' !

Perhaps Martha Lane Fox's work, which reportedly includes cheap > PCs for all < should be broadened from getting people onto the net to address parental education, too ?

NetworkGuy Thu 29-Sep-11 11:31:00

and "ask Tech to remove her message poster icon."

someone better dig Tech in the ribs then...

I only suggested it cos I believe Tech is living in Florida, so a nice excuse to jet over there for someone at MNHQ smile Not intending actual violence, you understand !

NetworkGuy Tue 11-Oct-11 08:59:34

> David Cameron apparently has announced a plan for four big ISPs to block content. <

"Subscribers to four of the UK's biggest internet service providers will have to "opt in" if they want to view sexually explicit websites, as part of government-sponsored curbs on online pornography.

The measures will be unveiled on Tuesday as David Cameron hosts No 10 meeting with the Mothers' Union, which earlier this year produced a raft of proposals to shield children from sexualised imagery."

Still getting mixed comments about it. On FiveLive radio shortly before 9am, it was suggested that "new customers" would have the option. So it seems an easier opt in / opt out choice but unclear about existing customers having access blocked.

Technically, it is still quite easy to avoid many blocking techniques.

NetworkGuy Wed 12-Oct-11 14:55:18

ComputerActive has an article > about what the ISPs are ACTUALLY planning to do <

In a joint statement, the ISPs said that when signing up to a broadband package, customers would be told more about parental controls and asked if they want to use it. The statement also said that customers would be told how to personalise the software to match their needs while existing customers would be "reminded about it".

The article above indicates what each of the four ISPs (BT Broadband, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin Media) offers. New customers will be given information during sign up.

NetworkGuy Sun 16-Oct-11 22:22:53

Follow-up on how the media didn't handle this story well.

and a 'typical' headline from a different website

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