Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
MarieFromStMoritz · 13/05/2012 06:44

This isn't an argument about whether you want to live in the UAE, ItsAllGoingToBeFine. It's about whether our children should be exposed to instantly available porn or whether measures should be put into place to restrict it.

MarieFromStMoritz · 13/05/2012 06:45

... and as for your censorship argument, do you not believe in censorship at all?

NovackNGood · 13/05/2012 06:50

Well since you don't live here Marie but are ensconced in your tax haven of the UAE I really don't see what UK laws you should have any say in.

However if I am wrong and you do pay taxes on all your incomes to the UK treasury then forget I said anything. But I'd rather not have another class on censorship from someone who must find turning a blind eye to human rights abuses daily quiet easy.

MarieFromStMoritz · 13/05/2012 06:57

But I'd rather not have another class on censorship from someone who must find turning a blind eye to human rights abuses daily quiet easy.

And this coming from someone who is happily defending images of sexual abuse of women and children on the internet. Classic.

NovackNGood · 13/05/2012 07:02

No one has tried to defend any images of sexual abuse of anyone and definitely not of children!!!!

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 13/05/2012 07:03

mariefromstmoritz

But children aren't exposed to instantly available porn!

Porn is there to be consumed if they want to see it.

My views on censorship are irrelevant. The point is that it is not possible to effectively censor the internet.

As an aside I would not want to live in a country with state mandated censorship no.

The state already makes it illegal to possess extreme porn. This is as far as it practiably can go, and as far as it should go.

Starwisher · 13/05/2012 07:03

Novack you still never did answer why kept mentioning naked children?

Xenia · 13/05/2012 07:04

Marie, many of us are either happy with that or prepared to control the children. I would say most mothers are against the new rules. The fact they cannot work anyway technically just shows either how stupid those who think they will are and secondly shows how much this is just a political game and those supporting the move are just being controlled like puppets by those who want to bring it in or pretend for vote catching reasons that they want to do so. As I say about this is a measure for those who want to abdicated responsibility from parents. It is the nanny state at its worst.

What we want most for our children is to preserve English rights and freedoms.

Starwisher · 13/05/2012 07:07

Xenia on one hand your "prepared to control the children" on the other you want to preserve english freedom.

You stance is contradicatory at best.

MarieFromStMoritz · 13/05/2012 07:08

What we want most for our children is to preserve English rights and freedoms.

What English 'rights and freedoms' are these, Xenia? The 'rights and freedom' to view images of abused women and children, presumably?

NovackNGood · 13/05/2012 07:11

Starwisher stop trying to stifle this by attempting to sling mud.

If you read above I asked YOU what you considered porn or where you against all nakedness. Some people get all uppity if they see under 8's running around on a beach naked or by the communal pools in hotels. Other people get annoyed if a woman is topless e.g. almost any part of the USA where as 90% of europe don't bat an eyelid. Germans would look at you very strange if you entered a sauna with a swimsuit on and consider it rather unhygienic if you did. Some people expect a burkini is required for teenage children.

Instead you did not reply you just tried to create a vile lewd mendacious slur.

If you want a blanket ban on porn and censorship on your net feed feel free to sign up to talk talk they do it supposedly.

NovackNGood · 13/05/2012 07:12

Why do you confuse porn with images of abused woman constantly Mariefromstmoritz???

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 13/05/2012 07:14

ISPs in the uk already filter out child porn via a system called "Cleanfeed"

Paper here:

www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/cleanfeed.pdf

Explains why it (and other) filtering systems don't work. It's not too techy and makes for a very interesting read for those interested in the issue whether for or against.

MarieFromStMoritz · 13/05/2012 07:15

Why do you confuse porn with images of abused woman constantly Mariefromstmoritz???

Because I have seen it with my own eyes. Internet porn is not like the porn you get in magazines. Even searches for 'mainstream' porn bring up images of girls who are obviously not even at the age of consent. Girls who's breasts have not even finished growing. This is not porn, it is abuse. How you can even begin to defend this is beyond me.

NovackNGood · 13/05/2012 07:28

I've never seen that kind of image nor would I defend it so I think your searches are very different to the normal view of porn.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 13/05/2012 07:29

Why do people keep thinking this is an argument about the pros and cons of porn.

The vast majority of people (myself included) will agree that some types of pornography are unequivocally "bad".

This argument is not about the merits/dangers of pornography.

It is about:

  1. Whether it is technically possible to introduce ISP level content filtering in the UK.

  2. Whether it is desirable to introduce ISP level content filtering in the UK.

exoticfruits · 13/05/2012 07:30

I don't think that most women are against it- Claire Perry certainly thinks most women are behind her. It depends on who you talk to.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 13/05/2012 07:31

mariefromstmoritz how have you seen it with your own eyes when you live behind a firewall in the UAE.

And I agree, you must have been making some pretty detailed searches to find that sort of pornography.

MarieFromStMoritz · 13/05/2012 07:31

Just to be clear NovackNGood, this was as a result of a forensic exercise in relation to an employee's internet behaviour carried out to decide whether to involve the police.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 13/05/2012 07:32

exoticfruits I am fairly sure you misread my post :-D

MarieFromStMoritz · 13/05/2012 07:32

Oh, and I have not always lived here. I have lived in Europe all my life up until fairly recently.

NovackNGood · 13/05/2012 07:37

Claire Perry comes from a religous right wing stance and not based her opinion on a study by the Mothers Union which is a christian right wing theocratic group.

exoticfruits · 13/05/2012 07:39

I was replying to Xenia at 7.04am

NovackNGood · 13/05/2012 07:40

Well maybe with if your working for the police then you have seen much more horrific images than what is normally. But these images are ilegal anyway and I doubt are freely/widely available on the internet.

MarieFromStMoritz · 13/05/2012 07:42

NovackNGood, no, I don't work for the police!