M&S/furries/school kids

it's probably becuse no one enforces the rule that you need to mark it as such. if they did and banned people that didn't then people would start doing it.

like on mumsnet when people break the rules and it's deleted and they do it more than 3 times and they are not banned nothing happens and they keep breaking the rules and othera see thst and do the same.

It's so simple you have to wonder why furry art creators generally don't do it.

but they just ask and you just click yes I'm over 18 what young person as not done this.

Actually if you brother to look, you tube requires you to have an account.

Google doesn't let it show up on safe search.

but they just ask and you just click yes I'm over 18 what young person as not done this.

The video i linked to on the previous page, youtube has it as age restricted, you need to be an adult to view it.

That's youtubes part done.

But the creator of the video needs to click the box that say's it's adult.

It's a responsible thing to do, lots of furry porn isn't age restricted.

is it the sites reponcablity to restuxt children's access to there site. how do you do that ask what someone's age is

SITES DO THIS!!!!!!
YOUTUBE DOES THIS!!!!
GOOGLE DOES THIS!!!!!!!

But the content creator has to flag their own content as adult, it's their responsibility to do this.

they have posted it on a sight that is not aimed at children. is it the sites reponcablity to restuxt children's access to there site. how do you do that ask what someone's age is. or is it the parents at the other end who know there child is underage to stop them from trying to access it in the first place.

as become the default of the art world since the 80s

Right, but this has nothing to do with my question.

The creators responsibility to children is not being met, as they've not done anything to prevent children from seeing their porn.

"I wanted more money, so i let anyone see my art"

as become the default of the art world since the 80s

Of course, another rather small minority also likes kids seeing things.

the reason it does not is money it costs because algarithams can not spot content or context so you need real people and they cost money and we want the services free or cheap. and they want huge profits

That's part of the reason, another is less viewers.

But do you think those are moral reason for not restricting sexual content?

"I wanted more money, so i let anyone see my art"

the reason it does not is money it costs because algarithams can not spot content or context so you need real people and they cost money and we want the services free or cheap. and they want huge profits

amy*

YouTube for example lets creators restrict adult content, some creators don't bother.
Creators don't so kids can see their collection of sonic in nappies being chained to aim drawings when searching sonic the hedgehog.

content that is sexual should be marked as such the Internet providers need to do far more.

No it's not an issue for the host of the content, the makers need to restrict who sees it. There is a few reason they don't do that though.

and we equally have parents who feel that it is someone else's responsibility and take little or jo responsibility themselves to educate themselves around the things that there children are doing. it's a two way thing and needs a complex answer to address the underlying issues.

content that is sexual should be marked as such the Internet providers need to do far more. like newspapers and page 3 back in the day. they worry thst restricting will effect growth of service. as porn is often the number one selling point of new media.

I don't think there are easy answers, but first of all you have to recognise a problem exists. We have child protection scandals because people assume that child protection is the responsibility of another responsible adult

Yes I agree with this but unfortunately we've never (as a society) been able to protect children very effectively from their own parents.

A good start would be a total ban on phones in school I suppose. Although that again just protects well parented children from less well parented ones, it doesn't do anything to help children with unrestricted internet access at home.

As Merry points out above you’d also need to restrict printed material which children could show to one another.

The difference is that when I was at school the worst we were doing was passing round a copy of 'Lace'. It was difficult to access anything that couldn't be found in a newsagent, and it was impossible to contact children through the material that they were reading.

I don't think there are easy answers, but first of all you have to recognise a problem exists. We have child protection scandals because people assume that child protection is the responsibility of another responsible adult. 'Blame the parents' is an easy get out that completely fails children who don't have parents to blame, and its the second time this week I have seen that sentiment expressed on a discussion about fetishes that involve imagery that is attractive to children.

Bespin
If it was properly flagged as adult by the creator it wouldn't show up on google safe search, or youtube for one thing.
Do you not think that would be a start for Furry art, having the people who create it take responsibility for who they allow to see it?

I can't even see Peter Gabril's video for steam without confirming my age.

Yet i can see Sexual drawings of bugs bunny.

This is a conversation about safeguarding for all children, regardless of the quality of the parenting they receive.

I completely get the sentiment but what action do you think should be taken? The only way to prevent adult material (horror films, pornography, drug paraphernalia, computer games etc.) getting into children’s hands (in the absence of parents stopping them seeing it) is to ban it completely. Personally I’d happily ban (for example) violent pornography and misogynistic stuff - so basically all of it - but I’m not up for having no adult material available.

oh this is a proper mumsnet conversation maybe we should be on the main boards lol

No, this is not a conversation about my children (who may or may not exist) and their phones.

This is a conversation about safeguarding for all children, regardless of the quality of the parenting they receive.

It’s a pretty radical proposal to say that no material unsuitable for children should be allowed on the internet. As Merry points out above you’d also need to restrict printed material which children could show to one another.

oh this is a proper mumsnet conversation maybe we should be on the main boards lol

yes like I said other young people can show your child stuff. So when they do educating them is always the best way so they know what it is and how to deal with it. If other parents feel that there child needs a smart phone at age 10 then that is upto them.