Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Why you shouldn't support legislation blocking internet porn

899 replies

Andrewjh · 07/05/2012 00:21

Ed Vaizey and Claire Perry and a number of other politicians are trying to force ISPs to block adult content under the pretence of "think of the children", however this will have the opposite effect and could lead to children being exposed to far greater problems.

  • Children these days are very tech savvy, especially with regard to the internet. And they need to be - the UK is the largest internet economy in the world. To succeed in the UK in the future, you'll need to know your way around a computer and around the internet from an early age.

  • What happens when ISPs block sites is something called the Streisand Effect. Basically by banning it, they generate a huge amount of publicity and support for the sites. The Pirate Bay site last week got blocked in the UK, and it received traffic increases of 12 million users downloading millions of pounds worth of software, music, films and games. Blocking something increases its internet traffic, its exposure, and suddenly 30 times more people know about it than did before.

  • What also happens when you block these sites is a huge amount of internet users figure out free and easy ways around the blocks. ISP's don't have the resources to stop this, and in most cases, it is impossible for them to do so. anyway. The Pirate Bay blocks can be got around within 20 seconds, and that is just googling "how do I get around pirate bay blocks".

  • Many of the methods employed by users to get around the Pirate Bay blocks so they can illegally download files will also be posted as guides to get around porn blocks. These are accessible through any search engine (google, bing, yahoo).

  • The problem is that tech savvy children (it only takes one to find out how from the internet or an older brother, then tell his friends, who tell their friends etc) can easily find out how to get around it. I mean it is as easily as it is to look up something for their homework, if not easier.

  • The other more dangerous issue is that whilst once they've gone through those guides, they can easily find links to far darker sites which host horrific viruses, hackers, as well as references to drugs, drink and other adult content. They can also find links to anonymous chatrooms where they could meet anyone without you knowing.

  • This is the danger that opt in and blocking poses. They will give you a sense of security when there is none.

  • This is also based on the assumption that the block actually blocks all porn. They rarely ever do, and sites posing as sex education sites which don't get blocked get through with adult content. So you'll be under the illusion that the internet is safely blocked when it isn't.

Think of it like this. Imagine the internet is a cliff, and we are having a picnic at the top of the cliff. It's a mostly beautiful view, but if you let your guard down, you could fall off. You wouldn't let your child play near the edge. Installing the opt in system is like putting a strong looking but flimsy fence in place. You could be fooled in to thinking it was safe but left to their own devices your child, could easily fall through. We can't put a brick wall there otherwise it spoils the natural beauty of the view (the educational benefits of the internet).

So what to do? Firstly don't support legislation calling for blocks. It doesn't work, its been shown not to work in the past as well as more recently. Children can easily find a way around it, and in doing so find a far darker side of the internet.

Secondly: If you are concerned, use censoring software on your computer, but don't be content with just that. Use Browser tracking software like this - www.any-activity-monitor.com/free-browser-history-recorder.html so you can accurate tell what your child has been viewing, even if they delete it off the browser. There are also many simple, free and easy tutorials written online on how to better protect your computer and your child.

Thirdly: Take some time to talk to your child about internet use. It can be an amazing tool but it can be dangerous. They need to know that right and wrong, safe and risky, they all still apply online (something easy to forget I assure you). They'll avoid things if they know its wrong. They will be curious about things if its only blocked.

Lastly, don't be fooled by people using the "think of the children" line. It's an alarmist appeal to emotion. There is very little danger so long as you use your common sense and only allow a child a sensible amount of time on the internet. As a politics student, I have to question whether this has been saved up till now to gain support for the government after an miserable turn in recent polls.

Thanks very much for reading, I hope you'll consider your position.

OP posts:
Xenia · 12/05/2012 14:52

I don't think it would be sensible to change the thread, as asked, to a defence of porn althoughI I swould be perfectly happy to debate that. Sex is one of the b iggest reasons many many people use the internet. It is the force which drives us to life and keeps our species going. It is why we are here.

I want to live in a world where someone can do an internet search on pro hunting or anti hunting, where there is material on topics I find abhorrent (like sexist housewives talking about cooking and washing powder - ugh one recoils but I will not censor them or views I hate). I love that maltestrom of difference. It is part of our national character as the English to tolerate the difference and not ban things. If Cameron is not careful he will be doing worse than the Labour lot in terms of reduction of our rights and liberties.

Animation · 12/05/2012 14:57

Widow - we could start by focusing on getting rid of all 18 material; - hard porn; - intercourse, blow jobs, anal sex, group sex, homosexual sex, masturbation....and work through gradually. Yes, retain sex education material.

...just on a temporary basis, for the purpose of safeguarding children, until a better solution could be found.

Starwisher · 12/05/2012 14:58

:) At washing powder being "abhorrent"!

WidowWadman · 12/05/2012 15:00

starwisher - I wouldn't want my children's first sex education to "accidentally be some horrific porn movie" either - it's my duty as a parent to ensure that - both by not just let them trundle off on the interwebs on their own without having tought them some online-saviness, and by ensuring that they've received some sex-education from us parents well before the age where they go online without any supervision.

It's a fact that it is impossible to censor the internet in a way that only porn becomes unavailable, but matters related to sex which aren't porn remaining unaffected.

People asking for filters are trying to pass on responsibility to an outside agent for something they should bloody well do themselves.

WidowWadman · 12/05/2012 15:02

Animation - how would you do it? You can't have sex education material which doesn't reference sex.

Starwisher · 12/05/2012 15:04

Oh a serious note some censorship is always a good thing.

MN for instance. Although we all self moderate I am glad for instance deeply offensive comments can be censored and removed.

There is a difference between simply not liking something (i.e washing powder talk) and something being offensive or damaging or even dangerous. (Im talking on wide spectrum here not just porn)

amillionyears · 12/05/2012 15:10

You wont get reported on this thread whatever you say.Because they believe in complete freedom of speech.

amillionyears · 12/05/2012 15:12

I think that is the point.The people who believe in complete freedom of speech dont mind it being offensive,damaging and dangerous.

Starwisher · 12/05/2012 15:13

widowman I think this has already been discussed to death on the thread why parental responsibilty cannot be the only barrier to accessing material- kids finding way around it controls, seeing it at friends houses etc.

I simply want "tube" sites to become members only as they are far to easy to see the material within seconds.

Starwisher · 12/05/2012 15:15

amillion but people are reported and deleted on here every day. Whole threads get deleted.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 12/05/2012 15:16

Animation: you misunderstand me. I was saying that it was impossible to remove porn from the internet.

Amillionyears: the government would struggle to turn of the internet tbh. They would need to shut down every mobile network/phoneline/cable and satellite.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 12/05/2012 15:18

Starwisher, but for e.g. You need to be a member of facebook to view most material on it. You need to be over 13 to be a member.

That works well...

WidowWadman · 12/05/2012 15:21

what are these tube sites you're referring to? Youtube? I'm actually not fond of the idea to have to give up my personal details everytime I click on any link to any video.

amillionyears · 12/05/2012 15:21

starwisher, im not talking about MN.Im talking about the people on this thread who believe in complete freedom of speech.
ItsAllGoing ToBeFine.I may be wrong but I thought there was some switch somewhere that can turn off the internet.Maybe I am just thinking of the internet in this country, not worldwide?

Starwisher · 12/05/2012 15:25

Itsallgoing- yes so over 18 for all porn sites, that would work very well too imo!

Widowwadman- Im not sure if Im allowed to give the site name on here, but replace the word "you" with "red" followed by tube into google. Dont do it your kids are nearby though!

amillion- sorry, I understand what you mean know

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 12/05/2012 15:28

The internet was designed by the military in order that it couldn't be destroyed, turned off etc. As long as there is a way for computers to "talk" to each other there is an internet. Hence the need to kill all communications to shut down the internet. There are some major nodes and constrictions and undersea data cables etc, and they could probably be shut down, but that a tiny part of the internet as a whole.

WidowWadman · 12/05/2012 15:28

So you think making redtube members only would stop porn from being pretty easily accessible on the interweb?

You come across as scarily naive here.

Starwisher · 12/05/2012 15:29

Imagine if there really was a big "turn off t'inet" button and someone accidently leaned on it.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 12/05/2012 15:30

Starwisher: my point was that there are millions of under thirteens on facebook. (I always forget sarcasm doesn't work online)

Most organised porn sites make you click a disclaimer saying you are over 18 already.

Starwisher · 12/05/2012 15:31

It would be a fantastic barrier and a great start would it not? Seeing as its easy as pie to get on them.

Not just on that site but all the similar ones.

Starwisher · 12/05/2012 15:32

Yes, but you would need a credit card. I have already explained this above.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 12/05/2012 15:35

Starwisher:

Firstly very easy to "borrow" a credit card number

Secondly: how do you intend to make every site offering porn put these restrictions in place? (and thats without even going into what is porn?)

Starwisher · 12/05/2012 15:42

Its possible you could steal someone credit details, but not easy (especially if need it verified) and very easily traceable to it's a pretty big barrier first of all. Yes there are ways around but at least some effort has been put in place to stop this site being so readily available.

You would have to make it compulsory under law to restrict material to over 18s only with sign up sites

Xenia · 12/05/2012 15:44

It is very wrong for people to impose their views on others. A parent is responsible for their own children. It's up to them. There is nothing to stop anyione on here not even letting their children have a television if they choose and plenty do not. Ban the internet, nintendos the works. Be Amish if you like.

However imposing your views on others and essentially introducing even more of a nanny state which probably will not work anyway is very wrong and plenty of mothers are against this measure.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 12/05/2012 15:47

Starwisher:

Under whose laws? I don't think any porn sites are owned or hosted in uk.

Even if there was some international agreement, it would still be impossible to police. See all the arguments on why filtering content doesn't work.