Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

recent decision by MNHQ

508 replies

NetworkGuy · 02/02/2011 23:33

Please, MNHQ, do have a read of this thread and consult your Tech people so they can give you the answers as to whether your support for this campaign and the Minister's plans are worth going on with.

I would hope you not only reverse your position but assuming you get sufficient technical reasoning in 'Plain English', that you go public and explain how unworkable the proposal is likely to be. I feel sure journalists at Computer Weekly and Computing will be able to provide confirmation that filtering is a hiding to nothing and can be very costly because of the millions of GB of data flowing through the bigger ISP networks.

For anyone baffled, and wondering if I'm a nut case, this concerns a proposal to get ISPs to "filter out" all porn, unless a customer "opts in". For numerous technical reasons the idea is never likely to achieve filtering without blocking access to legitimate sites or not blocking access to better than say 95% reliable, thus making it a costly exercise in futility, while parental vigilance and filtering software at the home would still be essential for peace of mind.

(Incidentally the wording of the campaign page implies the parents need to ask, at the same time as someone wanting not to have censored content needs to ask - it is one or other, but not both that would need to contact ISP. )

OP posts:
Eleison · 08/02/2011 08:20

Even I am tech-savvy enough to know that the incident described in that Times article wouldn't happen if very basic already-existing protection was being used.

And kitchgoth's point is a good one: "if you are going to link to an article that is pro this, maybe you might want to try finding one that explains how it is technically possible, rather than relying on emotional hand wringing."

Justine, are you prepared to think about being more careful about distinguishing between your own views/actions as MN's owners and the views/actions of your talkboard? When you say "We're backing his call" in your copy re the default filter, "we" will clearly be taken to mean Mumsnet, and in the public mind that means the talkboard. You need a term (like the use of the term 'MNHQ' within MN threads) to distinguish between what your company does and what the talkboard has 'concluded'.

Otherwise you are at risk of advanced Thatcher Syndrome -- "We are now a grandmother"

BaroqueAroundTheClock · 08/02/2011 04:11

I don't believe that article for one minute.

What the hell search terms were they putting in to find sex sites with looking for pictures of the moon

As even with safe search turned off (no parental controls on this computer - so just relying on the google safe search)

It was moons all the way until about page 6 when I found \link{http://www.hollywood-celebrity-pictures.com/Soleil-Moon-Frye-6-Picture.htm\this) (which is photo of a women in a bikini, lying on a furry rug, trying to look sexy I guess). Ok not great - DS1 would probably have a little stare at it in that "mmm girls are getting interesting" type way - but as a one off image don't think it'd scar him for life.

Page 7 then has one more similar type picture.

So that story doesn't quite sit with me......

I believe that the "standard" filters would block content such as Mumsnet.......

TheKitschGoth · 08/02/2011 01:34

Aaagh, so I had to come back to see if there was an update didn't I? I'm de-registering after this post and blocking myself from here (with computer based filtering!!)

That article is a joke.

  • With computer end filters, that wouldn't have happened.

"So what?s to be done?"

Oh I don't know, maybe try supervising kids? Stopping really young kids from having computers in their bedrooms? Bothering to learn about filters? Or pushing for easier filtering software?

As for TalkTalk? They can't even block spam email! Hmm They are also struggling with losing users since their Tiscali takeover (worse than Tiscali, now that's an achievement)

Also, if you are going to link to an article that is pro this, maybe you might want to try finding one that explains how it is technically possible, rather than relying on emotional hand wringing. Except there aren't any, are there?

I can't even find a Talk Talk explanation. Just one line in a Guardian article about how other ISP's need leaning on. I'll take them seriously when they starting saying something solid instead of acting like a school child whining "miss, miss, the other ISP's wont play!"

To all the other geeks on here, hi, I'm sorry I can't stay and fight. Got too much other shit to deal with right now :( and this is one more thing I just cannot waste my energy on. I'm easy enough to find online though if any of you want to stay in touch.

KM

Motherfunster · 08/02/2011 00:51

You researched the trial in Australia right?

I despair.

Your cutting your own throats.Have you noticed the swearing round hear?

Australian satire on the attempt to block

Over and out.

Motherfunster · 08/02/2011 00:29

Jennys Mum (RE: times article)didn't have filters on the famly PC then, or did they, and it got through the filters anyway?

This is cock and you know it.

Snorbs · 07/02/2011 23:45

Katie, thanks for the update.

I think the distinction between "porn sites" and "adult sites" is the critical issue and one that needs clarification.

Here's my prediction: this will become a moral campaign to filter all non child-friendly Internet content under the banner of it being about protecting children from porn. At which point it would remain to be seen how many of your favourite sites are regarded as "safe".

Original poster
NetworkGuy · 07/02/2011 23:07

Thanks for feedback. Hope you've started to feel better, Justine.

I am a bit surprised at the internet-ready TVs at 25% in USA, but then again, cable is more widely used there [ thus giving higher speed internet connection and making streaming of videos more easy than much of UK - even Spotify cannot offer the full quality audio tracks as they know we in the UK would have speed problems when attempting to stream just music ] and terrestrial TV sigs (the ones I've seen at least) seemed pretty poor in cities).

It is quite a different situation with some areas still not getting DSL service or for a person to be just too far from the exchange (the case for a friend in Northridge, close to Los Angeles, so he had to go with RoadRunner cable until he moved home).

I will re-read the MNHQ posts tomorrow - was up at 04:00 this morning.

OP posts:
MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 07/02/2011 22:49

Article from yesterday's Sunday Times by Eleanor Mills whcih might be of interest - copied as can't link (paywall):

The other day my friend Jenny was helping her daughter with her homework. The eight-year-old was doing a school project about the moon, so they were clicking around the internet trying to find some images to download. Striking lunar gold, they tried to enlarge some pictures on the screen but, with one wrong click, suddenly a series of incredibly graphic group sex scenes filled the screen. My friend, who is 41 and has knocked around a bit, was shocked; she?d never seen anything like it. Frantically, she grabbed the mouse and tried to get rid of them.

But her daughter had already got a serious eyeful of the kind of adult content that would make even the most worldly of us blush. Jenny tried to explain it away. Rather resourcefully, I thought, she said it was just ?grown-up naked wrestling? and told her daughter to just forget it. Unfortunately that hasn?t happened. The little girl is obsessed. Every day since then she has asked her mother what was happening, why people do that to each other. Despite Jenny?s ingenuity, there is no way she can turn back the clock. My friend is distraught at this sudden loss of innocence and knows nothing can erase those images from her daughter?s brain.

Jenny?s experience is far from an isolated incident. It is ridiculously easy to access porn on the internet; these days you don?t even have to get out a credit card ? the sex equivalent of YouTube, RedTube, offers any possible flavour of sexual congress in moving Technicolor, free of charge and just a click away.

Now don?t get me wrong. I?m not approaching this as a latter-day Mary Whitehouse ? what adults want to watch in the privacy of their bedrooms is entirely up to them. No, my particular beef with internet porn is the ubiquity and the way that material that until recently required a trip to a sex shop is now piped into all of our homes.

I don?t think it?s right that a child should stumble upon XXX-rated images while researching the moon. I?m sick of worrying every time my daughter logs on to look up the Romans for her history homework that she?s going to get an eyeful of a pornified toga party. And the convergence of internet and television means such worries won?t be confined to the home computer: we will soon all run the risk of XXX pop-ups on our sitting-room tellys. This is a growing concern. A poll by YouGov last week found that 83% of British adults thought it was damaging to children to see pornographic content on the internet.

So what?s to be done? We can?t just ban our kids from going online; the internet is a fantastic resource and is now completely interwoven into all our lives. Sonia Livingstone, professor of media and communications at the London School of Economics and author of Kids Online, found that 93% of children aged 9-16 in Britain are online at least once a week, 60% go online every day and 49% do so on an unsupervised computer in their rooms. Parents are amazingly ignorant of what their kids are up to; a third of 10-year-olds have viewed pornography on the internet but only 8% of their parents knew that.

Until now, the only way to try and stop children accessing porn was to install a filter. But all that is set to change Adolescent culture is awash with porn ? teenagers are increasingly adopting porn-bald privates, as the journalist Rachel Johnson described in an article for Vogue last week; pubescent girls pose provocatively on Facebook; and, perhaps more worryingly, the brutality of much of the material on the web is giving many boys a ?rape-like? view of what sex is, according to a study by the respected Witherspoon Institute think tank.

Until now, the only way to try to stop children accessing such content ? either intentionally or innocently ? was to install a filter on your home computer?s search engine, such as Google SafeSearch (which bans access to certain sites) or to download software such as Net Nanny, which does something similar.

But these solutions are fiddly, and I don?t know about you, but my kids are a damn sight more adept with the inner workings of our family computer than I am. Most teenagers would have the skills to disable or go around such blocks.

So is there a way to turn off the porn tap at source? Claire Perry, an MP who is the mother of two young girls, has been campaigning to make internet service providers (ISPs) do just that. For a long time the ISPs have said this was impossible, pleading technical problems and an unwillingness to start censoring customer content. But that won?t wash. I can?t help feeling that the real reason for their reluctance to take action is that they are worried it will be bad for business; after all, 87% of men admit to looking at porn on the net and one in four clicks is thought to be sex-related.

But all that is set to change. Tomorrow the ISPs will hold a round-table meeting with ministers, Perry, the NSPCC, Mumsnet and sundry others to discuss how they might stop porn being beamed into our homes. The good news is that one ISP (interestingly the only one run by a woman) has broken ranks. TalkTalk, headed by Dido Harding and a board of directors that is 50% female, is to launch a service that would allow households to opt out of any porn being delivered to their home computer network.

The service would be free. Customers will be able to have all adult content removed from the broadband feed that comes to the house. The beauty of this is that it means all devices that work on the home broadband ? televisions, games consoles, laptops ? would be covered.

It sounds amazing, but technically it is possible. TalkTalk is working with companies that already trawl through the internet and block or remove any sites that show child abuse; a similar technique would work to block other adult-only content. This is not censorship; if you want porn, you can have it. It would mean peace of mind for parents: no more XXX surprises or boys trawling through every conceivable sexual fetish before they?ve even had their first kiss.

So will people choose the service? YouGov found that 58% would sign up for such a porn opt-out, while 26% said they wouldn?t. That is quite telling. Let?s not forget how popular porn is. But even men who do indulge in a little virtual titillation still don?t want to expose their children to it. This might be excellent business for the ISPs. They could even get double subscriptions: clean family broadband for the household and a secret little adult connection for the adults who want it. Everyone wins.

MNHQ
KatieMumsnet · 07/02/2011 22:42

Hi There

Justine wasn't able to make it today, bug related (of the poorly, not IT type), so I went in her place. Here's a brief(ish) summary:

To be honest, it was a bit ho hum. Lots of agreement that something should be done, but little concrete agreement on what, how and when.

Ed Richards from Ofcom put the question best, building on Claire Perry MP?s stat that in the States 25% of TVs sold last year were internet ready. He asked whether self regulation was moving fast enough to keep up with technological advances, and that as a society if we care about what sort of content we bring into our homes, do we need to find a way to catch up?

Most people agreed that parental controls were important, alongside ISP and network action and that there was no one single ?silver bullet? but Ed Vaizey felt parents needed a 1-click solution, and that, as a comparison, seat belts were only used, when there was a law change.

This was an obvious way of getting the ISPs attention, and he was quite clear that government doesn?t want to regulate, but that the public will expect action. He later talked about ISPs calculating the cost of making internet controls effective (including parental education) versus the cost of ?fending off government.?

All the ISPs were there and promoted the action they?re all taking to increase internet safety.

The topic of what was being regulated didn?t really get much time, some felt it was ?hardcore porn? others clearly had a wider definition. Claire Perry MP had what, to an amateur, sounded like a good solution, basing it on the standard filters used now, if you do take the time to install the McAfee or similar controls.

The next steps weren?t clear, general talk of another meeting, to hear more from ISPs, and but not a timetable.

As John Carr from UK Children's Charities' Coalition on Internet said (and building on the discussion in this thread), ?we can be agnostic about how, but what matters is that a solution to this issue is developed.?

Please do add your thoughts about the above and what you think could be done to help parents protect their children. We promise to feed them back.

Motherfunster · 07/02/2011 22:37

Checking in, no word I see.

There is of course the option of a Luddite smashing of every computer device in the world and imprison of all programmers before secondary school might just work.

No more ridiculous a idea then the ISP block.

I'm quite concerned by the lack of concern about this among people who Iv talked to. Someone on FB asked me in very simple terms to sum up whats happening, I think I may have got it a bit wrong but its the best I can do.

"The filters are shit, the internet too big and the internet service providers are the same as the post office, but we don't hold them responsible for whats in the post.

ISP level filtering only usefulness is to governments seeking to censor.

Thats why people have to get off there lazy arses and actually watch what there kids are up to.No internet connection computers in the bedroom, and figure out how to put up filters at home.Ask them where they are on the internet, and if playing a interactive game, how they block pedos or is there a panic button, if they don't know, tell them to get the fuck off it till they do, as I had to with DD last night."

I'm currently reading up about the Digital Economy bill , and I'm quite embarrassed about missing it when it all went off.DH did try to tell me about it but I was too bizzy throwing plates at him at the time to listen.

Original poster
NetworkGuy · 07/02/2011 21:35

Hope Justine will stop by and give a briefing on whatever she is allowed to make public went on today, and whether she is still minded to support ISP-based filtering/blocking or can see other options being worthy of consideration.

OP posts:
Original poster
NetworkGuy · 07/02/2011 21:33

Had not spotted before, but Ed Vaizey was in for a webchat on 31.01.11 and answered a question about the internet here

(Most other questions were about Library closures and the 'talent competition' concerning Music. There was one other 'net question - about how unemployed people would manage in future to access the internet for job seeking if their library has closed.)

OP posts:
Niceguy2 · 07/02/2011 18:01

I've only just seen this as I've been quite busy recently so not on top of all things MN.

What a misguided campaign. Do we really need more censorship? It's no coincidence that the regulars on MN who are technically minded are united in our agreement that such a scheme will not work.

All that will happen is we'll get a monstrosity of a system which is full of holes that we all end up having to pay for.

It's not that I don't care about children accessing pornography. I just believe there are much better ways to control this than the nanny state approach.

The software is out there already. It's free! All we need is some education. If you want a campaign, campaign on that! Not some misguided big brother system which won't work .

Original poster
NetworkGuy · 07/02/2011 16:13

I suppose Justine might have expressed some scepticism at the meeting today, but if she is outnumbered 4 or 5 to 1 then the Minister may ignore her views (or consider she has moved to the dark side :) as banning pornography may well be on the agenda for most other 'bodies' that attend).

OP posts:
Original poster
NetworkGuy · 07/02/2011 16:11

I'll (reluctantly) support such a withdrawal of technical assistance. I know there are several other regulars (in geekystuff) who posted their objections to this ISP-based filtering / blocking strategy and suspect they will follow suit. I'd also do the same on chat and the products area where questions often arise.

I want to give MNHQ a breathing space, because there may well be a postponement from the Minister (if he has any sense and is familiar with the Digital Economy Act, given the Culture Secretary has asked Ofcom to consider the viability of blocking sites, as there is now some doubt of such blocking being reliable or workable).

Also, MNHQ has only had since Wednesday of last week to get some second opinions. Seems they had some advice which agreed with what posters wrote in December and this month, but the organisations they have liaised with are still (foolishly, in my view) optimistic that it is workable.

OP posts:
BadgersPaws · 07/02/2011 14:45

I can't believe that after all the technical responses that said this was unworkable Mumsnet have gone ahead with this campaign.

Mumsnet is becoming increasingly influential and they could genuinely help to push this ridiculous and dangerous plan forwards and that will result in more children seeing things that they shouldn't.

So to stop this all I can think to do is to withdraw my help and support from the technical forum where I feel that I do manage to help people.

A strike basically.

If technical people continue to answer questions then it will appear that there is a body of technical knowledge within the world of Mumsnet, and that impression could very well aid the campaign. By making clear that the technical people want nothing to do with this maybe, just maybe, we'll either see a change of heart or at least an understanding that there is no technical foundation or support for this plan.

So please Mumsnet back away from this and push an education policy that will genuinely help to keep our children safe.

And technical people please think twice before supporting Mumsnet by engaging in technical chatter on the geeky atuff forum in particular.

Motherfunster · 06/02/2011 17:53

Very true maryz, I fear that mediasafes righteousness may be large but technical knowledge of the internet very, very small.
Sadly I think we are going to see alot more of Mrs M Suit in the future.

maryz · 06/02/2011 15:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
NetworkGuy · 06/02/2011 13:28

I have to say again that since Jeremy Hunt, Culture Secretary, is getting Ofcom to review the site blocking provisions (to limit piracy), the meeting tomorrow could do best by waiting for the outcome, rather than have the Minister embarrassed by pushing for blocking, and then find that Ofcom says blocking a tiny number of sites (compared with approx 30 million porn sites) isn't workable !

Hope you see this Justine - please take a look at http://thinkbroadband.com/news/i/4558.html* if you haven't already. It's perhaps the same number of words as your Campaign page (around 10 paragraphs, and you can skip the latter half so long as you read the Terms of reference for Ofcom assessment of site-blocking in the Digital Economy Act* which are in the second "quote box".

OP posts:
Original poster
NetworkGuy · 06/02/2011 13:15

It only came to be a thread here (site_stuff) by a bit of chance, by the way.

Maybe it would be a good policy to post something here for fuller discussion before MNHQ says "We're making this a Campaign".

Certainly the other thread in campaigns went on for a while in December and had quite a bit of technical input (which may make some eyes glaze over, sorry) but also lots of parental discussion, though one poster did seem to have a bee in her bonnet that something bad is better than nothing, along with a view that the ISPs would just shoulder the cost and hadn't thought anything about them recovering the costs, nor about the intended blocking being as good as a condom with a hole in it, since it will let through violent and other 'family unfriendly' websites, and using a free proxy service, (in the words of some other poster) a 9 year old could circumvent the blocking system.

OP posts:
Eleison · 06/02/2011 12:02

I'm sure, incidentally, that they will take on board the points made here -- but even that is a dozen or so people who happen to have stumbled across a partial fait accompli, and who happen to talk on MN: not a well conducted consultation of a real membership (i.e. people who have joined something in order to pursue some broadly coherent set of aims, and who have consultative rights defined by the organisation's structure, as with the membership-based bodies that MN is acting alongside.

Eleison · 06/02/2011 11:56

Absolutely agree PParsnips. This is the trouble with MNHQ campaigining as a whole. It is very offensive that the talkboard is being used as a source of legitimacy for campaigns in relation to which it has little input (except in repect of overarching aims, that are in any case pretty much entirely consensual).

PlentyOfParsnips · 06/02/2011 11:11

Have now read the thread.

MNHQ - this is the conversation you should have been having before you made this campaign official.

'Our over-arching aim is to address the concerns that Mumsnetters have repeatedly expressed about the ease with which children can access pornographic material on the internet, intentionally or otherwise.'

Nobody is arguing with the aim but it's as if you've said, 'something must be done, here is something so we must do it' while completely failing to respond to the many concerns people (including me) have already voiced on the other thread.

I would wholeheartedly back a campaign for greater education of parents, coupled with the distribution of effective, easy to use and free client-side filtering software.

'I thought it boiled down to it being unworkable? Re. defining porn - we define all sorts of things when it comes to children - we classify dvds, we have watersheds etc etc. No one's saying ban porn - we're saying there is some porn that shouldn't be stumble-able across. Maybe the bar should be set at very hardcore porn. Quite frankly that would something. Some of the stuff that is easily accessible to young children quite by chance is horrific.'

The technical difficulties are, in part, difficulties with definitions. With DVDs, TV programmes, games etc. a panel of people decide the rating based on context, as much as anything. The www is too huge to filter by human judgment - it would need to be automated and that is a very tricky thing to do because computers are not (yet) truly intelligent. Whether you want to filter just 'very hard core porn' or 'anything remotely dodgy' you need to first of all define what that is in terms simple enough for a computer to understand.

'We - as a society - i.e. some recognised body or other (usually chosen by democratically elected parliament) decide things all the time about what is appropriate for kids and what isn't. I just don't get what's so different here.'

Here's what's different: Mumsnet is not a democratically elected body

I know it's not popular when noobs such as myself suggest extra site features but what about a poll function for the campaigns topic? We've had a couple of high profile 'power of Mumsnet' moments recently and I am very concerned that MNHQ wield such power without taking on the responsibility to truly listen to the membership.

LeninGrad · 06/02/2011 08:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Eleison · 06/02/2011 07:22

That Guardian article about the religious free-ride on feminist concerns around sexuality is very interesting Motherfunster. It reminds me of the fact that the yet-another commission into sexualising commercial pressures on children (in the areas of clothing and popular music culture) that Cameron has ordered is to be chaired by the CEO of the Mothers' Union, a Christian organisation -- potentially another instance of important feminist concerns being subverted into a restatement of traditional/Christian sexual morality.

I wish that MN hadn't given such credence to the term 'premature sexualisation' and instead had chosen the term 'sexual objectification', which leaves full scope for endorsing a young person's self-originated exploration of sexuality whilst criticising the massive hijack of that development by commercial and other pressures.

Possibly on this issue of internet safety, as on the clothing issue, it will be hard for a feminist agenda to retain a strong separate self-identification in the face of other interests. There does seem to be a massive reflex in the media to present MN as a socially conservative force, in utter opposition to its reality.