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.

[MamaMary]

Yes, Tyler, the Relationships board is testament to the detrimental effect that secret porn use can have on relationships. I'm all for openness between adults while actively protecting children.

[MurderOfGoths]

They haven't built computers that can think for themselves. There've been some massive strides in "learning" computers, but that's not the same thing.

Ok, computers can read information. The information they can read is binary, eg. yes/no. So they can read "is file size 1080x1920", "does image contain colour black", "does file contain keyword porn".

They cannot distinguish concepts. A computer cannot tell you if something is designed to be arousing, unless you can define (using binary descriptions) what makes something arousing. Short of wiring a computer up to someones genitals and getting them to view images it cannot be done.

[MamaMary]

Old lady, good point about other depictions of violence besides sexual violence. Someone said Jamie Bulger's killers based the murder on a film they watched.

However, beheadings and murders will never be as widely circulated online as sexual content because there just isn't the demand.

[MamaMary]

Very interesting discussion about how this can be worked out by computers, or not.

What has struck me reading the comments on BBC and Guardian is how cheesed off people are that anyone dare to slightly inconvenience them in accessing their beloved porn. Very little concern about the children.

[Remotecontrolduck]

I'm really not sure about this. I just don't think practically it can work without limiting access to helpful sites about sex.

False sense of security as well, some parents might believe the content is blocked so they don't need to worry. I think for under 16s they should have filters in place anyway if having computers in their room.

Adults can be damaged by porn, they are still free to opt in and watch so the attitudes to women etc are unlikely to change.

I'm not keen on the whole censorship business and am a bit worried about where it will all end to be honest.

[MurderOfGoths]

mama That was meant to be Child's Play wasn't it? Aside from violence, there's also websites that are pro-anorexia, pro-self harm, tips on suicide etc. The internet isn't child safe, it's primarily an adult thing (created by adults, usually for adults), it has some kid safe bits, but it's silly to treat it as a kids thing that's got out of hand.

In the same way that I will take DS into some pubs that have a kid area, I wont assume that he should then be allowed in all pubs, and especially not unsupervised! And like the internet I wouldn't even allow him in a child friendly pub unsupervised! It's an adult space which has made some allowances for children, and should be treated as such.

[PlentyOfPubeGardens]

The scale of the problem (c&p from a post of mine a few months back) ...

According to this page there are 2,405,518,376 internet users in the world (actually a few more now as that was last June), any one of whom could post content to the internet at any time at all, from just about any country in the world. Nobody needs a licence to post anything and there is no committee of worthy people making decisions over what is posted online. Things will be deleted if they are illegal in the country which is hosting the content, but only after it's already been posted.

This video attempts to estimate the number of images on the internet.

They will not all be helpfully called prettyflower.jpg or violentporn.jpg. The majority will be called things like image001.jpg or picture2.jpg. There is no technology which can reliably tell the difference between porn and innocent content in an image.

This is all just talking about images - the same problems also apply to videos and live content.

[MurderOfGoths]

mama That is frustrating, and tars all of us who are against it with the same brush. I hate porn, really do, and want a solution but this is the wrong way to fix the problem.

[ICBINEG]

hmmm so I am sure I heard that it will become illegal to download or view on line videos that depict rape....

So when I watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer season 6 on love film, which contains a depiction of rape, I will be breaking the law?

There is no practical way to know if someone is viewing a film for the purposes of sexual gratification...as it depends on the viewer not the material. If we are not allowed to view film depicting rape, murder, child abuse etc then the TV is going to be pretty empty in the future...no more CSI for sure.

[mootime]

Sorry not managed to catch up on this, but DC mentioned that the filters would also restrict access to self harm and (I think) proana sites. That's surely not a bad thing.

[Snorbs]

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.

Fair enough. So how much faith do you have that the kind of parent who will allow their 9yo child unfettered access to the Internet won't just opt out of any filtering system because it blocks access to sites that they want to get to?

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.

What, do you think the reason why we don't have the kind of magic porn filter that you want is because nobody's tried? Computers cannot "think for themselves".

Porn is primarily a social issue. It's very hard to solve social issues with technology.

[MurderOfGoths]

Glad it's been mentioned mmootime But, as with the porn block, I do wonder how they intend to do it. Because if it's keywords then not only is it going to block pro-ana, pro-self harm sites, but it will also block support/recovery sites.

[MamaMary]

In recent years porn has become more and more of a social issue because of its technological and online presence. Problems to do with porn cannot be tackled without addressing this issue.

[Snorbs]

DC mentioned that the filters would also restrict access to self harm and (I think) proana sites

You're right. It is part of the proposals. Quite how you distinguish between a site that is aimed at supporting and helping those with eating disorders and those that are pro-ana, god alone knows.

[mootime]

And clare. No need for that thanks.

[PlentyOfPubeGardens]

but MamaMary, look at how they deal with child abuse images currently - they have to have actual human beings trawling through looking for it. If there was a technological solution all those people could be saved from doing what must be a horribly traumatic job.

[mootime]

I so agreed that these are all social issues, that we as parents need to protect our children from/ help navigate.

[mootime]

Sorry, posted too soon. Unfortunately there are parents who won't or don't for whatever reason. Perhaps a little less availability to such content might just protect some children who might not otherwise be.

[MurderOfGoths]

mmotime I don't think this will help parents who don't. Either they'll opt out anyway, or their kids will acess all the stuff they currently don't bother blocking. It doesn't actually change much. The only thing I can see it changing is that the parents who care but don't understand will not bother with their own filters/supervision as they think the ISp filter is doing it for them.

[TinyTear]

I will opt in just out of principle, I am an adult I don't need anything banned. I will or won't look at whatever I want. it's legal as far as I know

[RememberingMyPFEs]

I don't want any government to dictate what activity is or isn't acceptable within a household (assuming its not illegal of course). It's nanny state BS at its worst and its the thin end of the Orwellian dystopia wedge.
Who decides what is and isn't 'banned'? We all have a different view on what is and what isn't 'porn'.

I'm against it because I'm a libertarian, pure and simple. It is MY responsibility to keep my kids safe and I think that's easier now than 30 years ago because we can restrict and supervise online access whereas when I was growing up the mags were everywhere - they're less common now.

[Tee2072]

It sounds like it is a one time opt in or opt out and I will opt in just so I know my Internet isn't censored.

What will they add to the filters next? Anti-government websites? Sites that are negative to the church?

Where does it stop? This isn't Korea or China. But it's heading towards being like them with this announcement.

[missinglalaland]

Snorbs -
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?

Obviously, we have filters on our internet at home. Our children access the internet for school and play as you would expect.

Our house is not a tiny fiefdom, unaffected by those around us. We live in a society that we share with other people. My children go to play with friends, as they get older smart phones will be part of the scene without me or any other parent constantly monitoring what goes on, etc. As my children approach adolescence, the experiences of the children with whom they are interacting will matter.

For me, this is as much about the general atmosphere and environment that my children are growing up in as it is about any individual disturbing experiences they might inadvertently have.

[MurderOfGoths]

Call me Dave doesn't care about protecting your children from stumbling across objectifying images of women.

[MurderOfGoths]

missing But even with this ISP filter your children will still be able to access porn at other people's houses, because;

• other people may have opted out of it
  
• other people may assume that the filter has blocked all the bad stuff