Why you shouldn't support legislation blocking internet porn

[Andrewjh]

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.

I apologise I made a grammatical error

Still doesn't invalidate my points though.

Empusa, look it doesnt matter abou the error, we all know there is the power to remove certain sites, but we are talking with no purpose because this is not about banning or removing sites. We are just veering off now.

I simply want there to be tighter restrictions in place to make it difficult for children to see porn. i simply feel that sites like redtube just need some tightening up to gain access.

Clicking a "im over 18 button" doesnt really cut it.

We all want to make it harder.

The measures currently proposed will not achieve that; and that is why they do not command support.

There are good statements on this thread about the more advisable and technically rather better measures that parents can take.

Wanting there to be better restrictions is definitely a worthy aim, but vague talk of "tightening up" isn't going to make it happen. Do you have actual proposals?

"I simply want there to be tighter restrictions in place to make it difficult for children to see porn. i simply feel that sites like redtube just need some tightening up to gain access.

Clicking a "im over 18 button" doesnt really cut it."

Right. And how are you going to achieve that? Tell them to do it? Think that'll work?

Empusa something I've found on MN is that even when you prove an argument to be wronger than a really wrong thing some non thinking mouth breathing Daily Hatemail readres come along with the self same arguments you've successfully debunked.

If I was to try to look at bomb making I wouldn't completely trust private browsing and https everywhere, I'd use an onion router, even though it's slower.

Despite the UK courts banning The Pirate Bay I just accessed their site with no problem without using a VPN. That's how effective an ISP block is. Not at all.

Yes, we get that you want to limit children's access to porn. You just don't seem to be getting your head round the fundamental fact that Mr International Porn Baron doesn't have to oblige you by setting his site up the way you'd like it to be set up.

Actually, if you did manage somehow to compel all the relatively respectable porn sites to do the credit card thing, you'd simply create an excellent market opportunity for someone a bit less respectable to cater for all the teenage porn customers & adults with bad credit histories.

"came on site just to publise their no ban campaign"

There's a campaign??

But seriously..

"read the whole thread and still stick with my view that porn shouldn't be so easily available."

No one and I do mean no one has said it should be easily accessible. The opponents of the ISP filter are advocating computer based filters as there are significant advantages to them.

Raven

Rather than using this thread to constantly have a go at me, why dont you do something useful and suggest ways we can futher protect all children since you dont think the idea is EVER possible?

What ways have you thought of to protect all children on a practical level.

You keep claiming you care yet you have offered no actual resolution. So why dont you prove you actually care rather than laying into other posters?

Im waiting to hear your ideas

"Actually, if you did manage somehow to compel all the relatively respectable porn sites to do the credit card thing, you'd simply create an excellent market opportunity for someone a bit less respectable to cater for all the teenage porn customers & adults with bad credit histories."

It would not surprise me in the slightest if there aren't already sites out there taking content that was originally behind paywalls and making it freely accessible.

booki: everyone on the thread agrees that porn should not be readily accessible.

The difference of views is between those whose argument is (essentially): "we must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do it"

And this who say: "we need to do something effective. This proposal is worse than ineffective, and should not be done. Instead we need to use home filters, age appropriate supervision and education, all of which outperform the measure in the proposal".

Starwisher How many times do people have to point out that computer based filtering is the superior alternative to ISP filtering. We've been repeatedly telling you of a workable solution.

Starwisher: as you are interested in what can be done, could I suggest you look back to the excellent post by PlentyOfPubeGardens on Fri 11-May-12 at 11:50:02.

And we have been repeatedly telling you that that idea has massive flaws. Its hardly an idea thats yours, people have been doing it for years, they do it already.

People want EXTRA protection. You are totally naive and have poorly thought this through if you think thats all the protection children need.

Relying on doing things to your own computers is not enough

So what next?

Yes we get it, your agaisnt isp filtering.

What soloutions do you have?

If you care so much you must have at least an idea

The only solution to ensure your children never access porn online at all is one of two things.

1 - you install a filter which only allows approved sites through
2 - you don't allow them online

If you want to minimise the risks of them viewing porn then you install a filter, set it to a level that you find acceptable for your children, you supervise their access (even if it's just having the computer in a family area to discourage them from actively looking for dodgy content), and you educate them to the dangers of the internet.

That is the best solution.

How about other peoples children who might not have filters set up?

How about when your children leave the house?

Should point out, what I am planning on doing is starting off with a filter where everything but a select few sites are accessible, then adding to the list till I feel my child is old enough to be given freer access. At which point I will switch the filter to having a "block" rather than "allow" list.

They will also only be allowed to access the computer when in a room with DH or me. They will not have a smart phone till they are responsible enough to deal with it.

On top of that I will educate them.

I can't 100% guarantee that they wont see porn, but I'll make it damn hard for them.

Also how about the chance your children work their way around the filter? Its very likely they can, if not know then one day.

I really dont need a basic lesson in setting filters up. Everybody knows this stuff. I am pointing out to you it is not fool proof.

Ok - I'd make education re: internet safety mandatory in UK schools. It already might be - we do loads, I teach a unit on it myself as part of year 7 English, but I don't actually know if it's a Government requirement or just something we do as good practice. If it isn't mandatory, it should be - embedded in both ICT & PSHCE lessons for a start.

I'd also produce a clear, informative leaflet on parental controls, with links to some of the excellent free providers of effective home filtering, & insist that every PC sold in this country had a copy of it in the box.

I'd run a TV campaign ('Charlie Says' style public information films).

I'd promote voluntary signing up by social media websites to a code of conduct (no porn hosting, active moderation of forums for dodgy links) that entitled them to a 'Family Friendly Internet' certificate. If a site displayed the certificate, parents could know with some confidence that it was one they'd probably be safe to allow via their filtering.

I might make it offence to allow a child access to unsuitable material, if you're the account holder on the internet provision - so in theory parents por carers who didn't protect their dc could be prosecuted.

Off the top of my head! Feel free to pick holes .

(& I'm not having a go at you Starwisher btw, it's called discussion).

Starwisher, I just want to say thank you for doing battle with all the defeatists. Your points are all completely sensible.