Hi NetworkGuy,

Justine posted on a thread about this yesterday, here it is.

Best
MNHQ

Interesting - do you object to the TV watershed then MrsGF because it's paternalistic and takes the decision out of parents' hands?

Any other illegal sexual practices which i don't like to think of.

Evening MrsGordon - pleased don't be ashamed! Truth is we as a society make decisions all the time about what is and what isn't appropriate. Right now there's an organisation called the Internet Watch Foundation which sifts through everything on the net (not a jolly job) and slaps a label on a lot of very horrible illegal stuff which the ISPs then filter out.

I think there have been some really valid points about workability raised here but the "this is the thin end of the wedge on censorship" one doesn't make sense to me. We already censor loads of things in the name of child protection on the internet and elsewhere. Of course there are valid concerns about where you draw the line but you can't deny that we do draw the line already all over the place - we censor illegal images, we rate dvds, we have a tv watershed.

The issue of the blocking of harmless material in error because the mechanisms involved are insufficiently sophisticated have been raised here and we have said Ok fair point, we're not experts - some who are more expert than we are have told us it's possible and some others more expert than us, who have posted here, have said it's not. On that basis we are modifying our ask to reflect the issue but not pinning our colours to any method of achieving it. And in retrospect we should have certainly asked for input about this earlier, for which we apologise.

We certainly don't want to, nor would, back anything when a significant group of Mumsnetters object to us backing it.

And as a rule, we do try not to be hysterical.

By the by, we've just realised that apparently our registration email seems to have been blacklisted because it contains an offer for Nakedwines - this is absolutely not the desired outcome.

Wah! we are not for a minute suggesting that we would back something that censored breasts - for gawd sake MN would never get through that filter. But clearly we have not framed our argument particularly well [understatement]. So we shall take down the page and start again... it was due for an update yesterday anyway.

As ever thanks for all your input!

Yes, sorry that wasn't very clear - what I mean is that the logical extension of what you're saying is that businesses act in a way designed to make max profit - and that goes for the others too...

We have responded a number of times on this thread now saying if that if the call to block at source turns out to be unfeasible we will certainly not continue to call for it.

We turn up to be part of the process/ part of the debate. That process will go on whether we are there or not. Govn is after all elected to govern - I somewhat doubt whether our endorsement makes a difference.

But you know it takes considerable time and effort to get involved. And we take considerable pains to try to give an accurate reflection of the boards. We could just say well we're not going to take part in of any of this stuff because it's all too hard. Personally I think that would be a shame because we are in a position, I think, where politicians and business find it hard to totally ignore MN and it would be a wasted opportunity to leave them to it. But would certainly make life simpler .

Yesterday we were not batting for one side or another. We were batting for the best possible solution to reach our desired outcome, on which there is a broad consensus. After the recent discussion of the issue here it seemed appropriate to raise the question of whether a block of material at source is actually feasible - as Katie said the ISPs are going away to think about that and report back. And we will modify our campaign page/ ask to reflect the current situation in the next little while.

Well you could argue that the other way, MdmeLindt - the other ISPs are trying to sell something too...

As you've said yourself - no one disagrees with the aim of this campaign - isn't that a consensus?

Ok so what I find bizarre here from the is that folks here are so willing to discount the fact that one of the major ISPs has said that this solution - blocking hardcore porn at source - is indeed completely feasible. I mean I don't pretend to be an expert but I'd suggest that if it's possible for one ISP, it's possible for them all. Maybe we should get Talk Talk on to talk it through...

We want to stop hardcore porn, that kids can stumble across unwittingly, from being readily available on the internet. Don't you?

Because we think it is an effective way to focus the mind and get the outcome we all want. But as said, we are more than happy to modify the ask based on feasibility. This is the advantage of being a discussion site - we can modify our ask based on discussion. I don't care if we end up saying, OK based on the submissions of all the ISPs it seems there's a better way of achieving this - as we've always said we are not the experts here. The point is to try to achieve the outcome.

If so, I've had better ones.

Well, we're only backing it if it's feasible obviously, as said. At least one ISP seems to think it might be but folks have raised valid arguments against here which we reflected yesterday - as Katie said the ISPs have gone away to think on. We are absolutely prepared to modify "the ask" based on their response. But the fact is Mumsnet is in a good position to ask the question - why not block it at source? It's very easy to start from the premise that "There's nothing to be done". What matters here is the outcome and raising the question helps focus everyone's mind on how best to achieve it, we believe.

Our general view with campaigns is that we can do a good job of raising issues and starting a discussion that are good outcomes in themselves - as with Let girls be girls. I disagree that a broad consensus isn't worth reflecting. The issue of widely available hardcore porn is really worth reflecting if it means it's more likely that something gets done, isn't it?

We refer you to one's earlier point "Switching the default to off is an idea that has been supported on MN boards when it's been discussed in the passed. The objections voiced here are about the feasibility/practicality of achieving the desired aim, rather than the aim itself. "

This is not about my views - tis about the views that have been expressed here (though not so much on this thread admittedly). As you know, my personal views are irrelevant - I am merely a plaything...

The point here I think it that there seems to be broad agreement that very easily accessible hardcore porn, that kids can stumble across unwittingly, is undesirable. So it comes down to what's the best way to stop it, which is clearly not a decision that should be made by Mumsnet.

I see our role as one of keeping the pressure on the relevant authorities to make sure the issue is addressed in the best way possible and not swept under the carpet - accurately reflecting (I hope) the broad consensus expressed by users of this site that widely available hardcore porn is a worry.

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.

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.

Ok well it might be the only option, I spose. We have a websafety section on MN here but as said am sceptical as to effectiveness of parental controls.

All comes down to feasibility of filtering really. Will feedback on ISP position on that next week. Night and thanks for your input. Sleep well.

Think you could quite quickly find a lot of the nasty stuff with a few key search terms don't you?

Or maybe we should just not bother to try because it's potentially imperfect?

Again, humans make decisions on appropriate material for kids all the time - Film classification, watersheds, video game ratings. Why not porn?

Again, you're not arguing against the aim - to stop kids stumbling across wholly inappropriate material - but that the the mechanism for delivering is unfeasible.

Those experts we've spoken to - who've spent a heck of a lot more time on this than we have - say filters have moved on, and that it is possible for ISPs to switch the default to off re porn. If they are wrong and you are right Snorbs, then clearly it shouldn't be done because it would be a waste of both time and money.

Think we'll have a better sense next week because obviously the ISPs will have no wish to spend lots of money...

Or another way of looking at it is - Why should I have hardcore adult material available as standard via a device that I purchase for and is marketed for the family if (can we agree this is a crucial if) it can be standard that it's opt-in, not opt-out?

Motherfunster - we will most certainly ask the techies for a techie pov. (Not Ed Vaizey )

But NetworkGuy (and Motherfunster) - loads of people just won't do it - because they're technophobes, because they're lazy, because they're apathetic, because they're just too busy and they forgot (that would be me, probably). So we're back to the problem of your kid seeing it at the neighbours'... 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. If there's a whiff of opportunistic censorship the net would go apeshit. (Hell we'd go apeshit ).