Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
Starwisher · 12/05/2012 16:41

"Presumably your are ok about your kids viewing porn."

Im wondering the same. Maybe the truth is, some of these posters dont see it as big deal if they do see it underage.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 12/05/2012 16:48

I have never seen porn accidentally.

If someone wants to see porn they will easily bypass any filters put in place.

NovackNGood · 12/05/2012 16:56

There is no need to give children smart mobile phones or televisions in the bedroom or unsupervised internet access unless you ware happy to do your parenting by proxy.

Xenia · 12/05/2012 17:07

The people supporting the block are effectively abdicating their responsibilities as parents. It is up to the parent to determine what the child sees. If you think womens houdl be covered up or women don't work or whatever your views, anti hunting etc and you want to bring up children in a particular way you ensure that. you do not expect the state to block things for other people.

There are a huge range of views on topics in the UK and one of the nice things about this country is that we tolerate each other and do not impose our views on others. The French ban burkas. We are not like that. We want to be one of the most free nations on earth.

exoticfruits · 12/05/2012 17:17

I think that you do impose your views on others Xenia! I want to impose mine on others. All DCs should be protected from porn- end of.

Starwisher · 12/05/2012 17:25

"There is no need to give children smart mobile phones or televisions in the bedroom or unsupervised internet access unless you ware happy to do your parenting by proxy."

So lets give children the right to live in a free country!

Oh wait.

Except dont let them have a mobile, TV or any privacy on the internet.

But its very important they can live in such a free country of course.

Who really is arguing for our children's freedom here?

Ryoko · 12/05/2012 17:26

Exactly NovackNGood

I find it utterly ridicules all these kids walking around with mini computers with continues internet access.

if we called them what they are rather then Smart Phones (the word phone seems rather redundant) perhaps these parents would think twice before buying them for their kids especially with them sighted as the number 1 cause of classroom disruption and the amount of cyber bullying going on.

Years ago people used to insult my fave hobby gaming (well some still do) saying it's an addiction that their kids are playing these things all day yet not a single person complains about the scourge of smart phones being addictive, they are taking over peoples lives, you see them everywhere endlessly poking at the little screen reporting every aspect of their lives on FB "hay look at me I'm driving to work" etc.

You want a phone for your child to call you in an emergency buy them a phone you can still get normal phones, they don't need Smart Phones.

Starwisher · 12/05/2012 17:37

If your worrying about smart phones been addictive, then you should worry about the effects of seeing porn underage far more.

NovackNGood · 12/05/2012 17:37

Starwisher that is a straw man argument you are making.

If a child wishes to be as free as you imply they could take action to be emancipated from their parents. If they go to that trouble they can have all the freedoms they want. Otherwise they have to live under the parental responsibility. If you don't want to take on board that parental responsibility that is your choice.

Starwisher · 12/05/2012 17:39

Wrong.If you dont want to take on board that parental responsibility to try our best to protect kids at the source that is your choice.

Its not me who needs to question my parenting by any means Im afraid.

Xenia · 12/05/2012 17:50

Proper libertarians want parents to be free to protect their children as they wish. The default position should be state freedom, not censorship,

Any parent supporting this ban is in effect saying I am a bad parent and I want the state to do my job for me and I want everyone to be clones, forced into the norm the state decides, like good little Communists.

Starwisher · 12/05/2012 17:57

This is not about a "ban".

Ryoko · 12/05/2012 18:06

Parental responsibility is to understand the buck stops here, that a parent not the state is responsible for the conduct of the child and all that they see and do.

If your child swallowed all the medicine in your cupboard who is to blame?. The medicine makers for creating such dangerous things?. or the parent for not locking the cupboard?.

Starwisher · 12/05/2012 18:11

"the conduct of the child and all that they see and do."

All they see and do? How unrealistic.

Animation · 12/05/2012 18:49

" The default position should be state freedom, not censorship,"

i want PORN to have an 18 censor.

Why don't you?

Is it cos you a bad parents - innit?

Grin

Good Grief!

bibbitybobbitybunny · 12/05/2012 18:51

"Any parent supporting this ban is in effect saying I am a bad parent and I want the state to do my job for me and I want everyone to be clones, forced into the norm the state decides, like good little Communists."

What a load of absolute fucking twaddle fgs Xenia.

bibbitybobbitybunny · 12/05/2012 18:52

IT IS NOT A BAN!!!

I thought you were an intelligent person?

Jux · 12/05/2012 19:36

Think about books. When I was pg I was given a bag with some books for babies. This was to help me start off dd in the way sanctioned by the state, which had deemed it important that all children/babies have access to books. I believe every pg woman got a bag like this (does this still happen?). My house is filled to bursting with books, many from my, and dh's, childhoods. The books we were given were actually pretty crap and I wouldn't have bought one of them myself, but hey, they were mine whether I liked it or not and I was quite happy to read them to dd.

I'm sure that there were/are lots of people who never opened one of those books, some may have sold them, some chucked them, etc. There is a family near me. Both parents are so dyslexic that they can barely read a sign between them. Did they read their books to their children? I doubt it. In fact, it would have been amazing, a miracle, if they had. Where was the point in giving them books? None at all.

The answer to this government intervention is to actually spend the money on educating the parents. Making adult literacy/numeracy courses far more available and accessible. If you educate the parents then you have half a chance of educating the children.

So my point is, instead of making blanket, nannying gestures (you may not access porn on the Internet/you must read to your children) your energies and resources would be better spent in educating adults.

Starwisher · 12/05/2012 20:08

A parent could have a doctorate in "how not to let your kids see anything bad ever, ever and if they do your a crap parent" but that doesn't mean your child (who is a seperate human being from you) will not go off and find porn.

I wonder:

If your child does access porn,at say a friends house,will you in all reality blame yourself and come back on here and admit your a crap parent? I bet you wouldn't.

WidowWadman · 12/05/2012 21:01

What is porn for the purposes of your block? Are you ok with nudity as long as it doesn't contain erect genitals or penetration?

ravenAK · 12/05/2012 21:16

You see I think most posters on this thread would vastly prefer their dc not see hardcore online pornography.

I certainly don't want mine to - which is why I'm against this measure. It won't work, as numerous techy types have explained, over & over again.

What might work is educating my dc as to why porn is a (IMO) a Bad Thing, & installing the free, effective filters that I as a parent can already download.

Yes, they may well then see unsuitable material at a friend's house where the parents aren't so bothered or so aware. That's unavoidable, & less of a risk than that presented in a world where we all rely on some crappy government filter that everyone over 8 knows exactly how to circumvent.

Being against this filter isn't a pro porn position, it's an anti unfounded complacency position.

Starwisher · 12/05/2012 21:44

Im not all about the "block"; Im all for tube sites becoming sign up only.
"Are you ok with nudity as long as it doesn't contain erect genitals or penetration?"

Why would I want my dc to see that underage? No thanks. That's grim.

"What might work is educating my dc as to why porn is a (IMO) a Bad Thing, & installing the free, effective filters that I as a parent can already download."

Yes, because teenagers always go along with what mum and dad tell them not to do!

Im not saying lets block and ban all the porn, but Im saying what we have now is far too open and far too easily accesiable.

It reminds me of leaving a child near an open-log fire with no firescreen.

All Im asking is the guard is somehow put there to stop children getting burnt.

ravenAK · 12/05/2012 21:51

Well, you're asking for a chocolate fireguard tbh!

Of course teenagers won't do what we tell them to, all the time; but there's more value than you might think in saying 'Obviously you will be able to access porn if you really want to. Here's why I think it's exploitative & why I don't think you should have anything to do with it.'

You probably won't stop them altogether. A more thoughtful attitude, though is no bad thing.

Putting an ineffectual filter in place is likely to be counter-productive - at the school where I teach, the geeky kids swap firewall work-arounds more for the fun of beating the system than to access dodgy stuff (they have smart phones for that...)

Actually, if this legislation is passed, it'll probably boost a generation's IT skills no end, as every bright teenager in the country focuses their attention on busting it. There's that in its favour.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 12/05/2012 21:58

Why do you people not get it!

You can say make redtube and similar sign up only...

You can say remove porn from the internet...

You can say censor porn to 18+...

... But it isn't fecking doable (head. Desk)

Freedom of speech, nanny state etc aside IT IS SIMPLY NOT TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE TO DO ANY OF THESE THINGS.

Yes, they have a firewall in china, uae etc but they are easily bypassed and we know uae at least allows mumsnet which has v v unsuitable content.

Starwisher · 12/05/2012 22:03

Dont be daft of course it do able, tube sites havent always existed.When I was a teenager looking for porn I couldnt see any because you had to pay. It should be the same. You should need a credit card to sign up. Its not that hard, it easy peasy.

If mumsnet wanted to make this forum to able to read to signed up members only it would be very easy.

Im making my own website right now. I can make some pages memebers only by clicking a button.