to pleased that something is being done about online porn.

[mootime]

Don't get me wrong, I am not totally anti porn. Each to their own. I have been reading more and more articles about the impact of online porn on our children due to it being so easily accessible and frankly it scares me.

I have nieces who are 18 and 16 and they constantly post pictures of themselves on FB pulling "porn pouts" and basically posing provocatively. I also know that they have been active for a good few years. I know that when I was that age I was no angel (far from it) but I'd seen one porno (by accident at a friends boyfriends house) and was horrified by it. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be viewed in that way. It seems like its now considered the norm.

I genuinely hope that restricting access makes it less "normal". Its a bit like an online version of having to go to the newsagents to buy it. It doesn't ban it, it just makes it something you deliberately have to access.

[DuelingFanjo]

Murderofgoths, thank you for your postings here (And on other thread) - the links you have provided have been put to good use on my facebook to explain why this is just pointless bollox.

[SlangWhanger]

I think it is a fantastic idea. It is not a nanny state thing to do - you can simply request porn if you want it.

I am 100% in favour.

[MurderOfGoths]

Glad to know it's been useful. I've been bombarding my FB friends with it. Favourite response so far in support of the filter "it's all coding and stuff isn't it?"

[MurderOfGoths]

slang SO how do you think it will work? How can they block porn without blocking innocent stuff?

[bobbypercy1]

agree with mama

teens are smart and will easily find a way to get past the filter. Also they could phone up the service provider and opt in???

[missinglalaland]

I think it is a good idea. I just hope they can technically make it work. I have no sympathy for grown adults, who want to watch porn but are too immature to click a button to opt in. Why should we protect them from embarrassment and leave our kids exposed?

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

For those in favour of the block, what is your precise definition of "porn"? A definition which is do-able in binary yes/no terms a computer can understand?

That's why this is impossible.

[MamaMary]

Bobbypercy, only the account holder can opt in or out.

[bobbypercy1]

but mama

teens voices would have broken, they could simply pretend. but then again the service provider might ask for a password.

[Snorbs]

Why should we protect them from embarrassment and leave our kids exposed?

Are your kids exposed to accessing online porn today? Are you not monitoring what they are doing? Do you not already have filtering on your PCs? Do you really allow them to have unrestrained access to a global network that you already know contains content they should not be subjected to?

[TylerHopkins]

I had to 'opt in' with my mobile phone provider in order to get the Lottery on my phone. I was asked for a password and also my debit card details.

[Ashoething]

We really are beginning to live in Orwells 1984.Its frightening.

[NeoMaxiZoomDweebie]

Porn belongs under in sex shops where men or women who want it can go and buy it in person.

It simply shouldn't be available on networks which are open to the public in general. It's highly damaging and although it will always exist, it needs heavy regulating.

If you want it, then you should be the one to make an effort to go and find it...YOU should be the one inconvenienced not those who aren't interested in it.

[NeoMaxiZoomDweebie]

Ash no...what's frightening is that anyone can type a few words into the internet and access violent and degrading images of usually women but sometimes children and men being degraded.

[NeoMaxiZoomDweebie]

Snorbs I have always monitored my children online...they barely get online unless I am with them. I cannot say the same about their friend's parents though. I can't stop my 9 year old from seeing her friends but I know that some of her friends have unfettered access to the internet.

[NeoMaxiZoomDweebie]

OldLady Porn = any sexual images or action. Nudity with the express intent of causing sexual arousal.

[MurderOfGoths]

"It simply shouldn't be available on networks which are open to the public in general. "

Maybe, but it is. How do you stop it?

[MurderOfGoths]

NeoMaxi She said binary terms, eg ones that computes can use. A computer cannot understand "any sexual images or action. Nudity with the express intent of causing sexual arousal."

[valiumredhead]

I agree Neo

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

Thanks, Neo, but as Murder says, a computer doesn't understand that. This is why it is impossible to do what is intended.

[NeoMaxiZoomDweebie]

Goths I'm not a tecno wiz...I don't know...but I am sure they'll come up with something. They can build frigging bombs which kill thousands...and computers which think for themselves....this will be manageable.

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

How can a computer tell the difference between an image of a naked body which was produced with intent to arouse, and an image of a naked body which is intended to educate?

[meditrina]

The announcement is so much less than it is being spun as (no surprise there).

Some Internet companies already offered the ability to set a level of filter. This only means all companies must now do so.

It isn't a "porn block". It won't reliably exclude material you may not wish your children to see. It may block material you do (like Mumsnet, which has fallen foul of filters before).

[TylerHopkins]

I think there will be a few worried people out there who hide their use of porn from their partners. If they opt in then their partners will find out which will make for a few heated discussions no doubt.

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

And while we're at it, why so much fuss about images of shagging, when this proposed (impossible) filter will still allow images of murders, beheadings, wars etc? You want you dc to see that kind of shit?