Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
Empusa · 13/05/2012 23:28

"Would they risk imprisonment and milions of pounds worth of fines?

See how many actually go on to do it in all reality"

By that logic piratebay would be the only P2P website. It isn't. Not by a long shot.

ravenAK · 13/05/2012 23:29

Ah Starwisher now we come to the real issue I have with this.

'Raven if it was a goverment goal with the funds it would start getting advanced. There will be bidders who do have the technical know-how and solution finding skills.'

Not my funds, if you don't mind. I don't want my taxes widdled up the wall on this. On account of it being, y'know, complete bollocks (please see the last 8 pages of thread for explanation why).

Starwisher · 13/05/2012 23:30

There would also be a lot more if the risk wasnt there, and it hardly anything to so pleased about in the first place if you are a parent

DioneTheDiabolist · 13/05/2012 23:31

It will not work effectively?

I'm fine with that. Alcohol and drug laws don't work effectively. I know tgere will come a time when i will have to educate him on the effects of alcohol on the body and mind, but I'm still glad that my 5yo can't buy alcopops if he picked brought them up to the checkout.

Opt In legislation is not a ban on porn. It is another tool to help prevent children and those who aren't interested from inadvertently accessing it. As such I support it.

I have not yet seen an argument that has convinced me otherwise and I am well open to arguments against government policy.

Starwisher · 13/05/2012 23:33

Raven, you dont want to find solutions you dont money spent trying to protect children.. Which leaves the questions of what do you want?

Empusa · 13/05/2012 23:34

"There would also be a lot more if the risk wasnt there"

No really?

I'm honestly losing track of what exactly you are hoping to achieve? Just removing a few porn sites?

Dione Let me repost something I wrote earlier.

The way I see it, an ISP filter could actually potentially expose more children to the unsavoury side of the internet.

Think of it this way, as it currently stands there are essentially two groups of parents. The ones who do care what their children view online (and take steps to guard them), and the parents who don't (and who do nothing).

Put the ISP filter in place and there'll be no change to the parents who don't care (obviously), but with the parents who do care will be split into two groups.

One group will still use their own filters and keep an eye on their kids, the other group will (possibly through lack of knowledge) assume the ISP filter is the whole solution and so will not bother with additional filters/watching what their kids access.

So, you'd end up with more kids having access to dodgy content. Because even with the ISP filter in place, it cannot block all porn, and it also will not block the other dodgy content online. (Eg. violence, racism, etc)

Starwisher · 13/05/2012 23:36

Empusa and Im seriously questioning what you hope to acheive.

Empusa · 13/05/2012 23:37

I hope to not have an ineffective, potentially harmful ISP filter put in place (at great cost) and for parents to find more effective/realistic ways to protect their children.

Starwisher · 13/05/2012 23:39

Realistic? What by watching them like a hawk on the pc and never leaving the room!

You kid is very young, come back and tell me how thats goes for you when they can use a pc and you have more than one kid!

ravenAK · 13/05/2012 23:41

'Raven, you dont want to find solutions you dont money spent trying to protect children..'

That's about as logical as me saying I don't want to pay for an initiative to issue a full suit of plate mail armour for every toddler in the UK, because some loon thinks it's the best defence against them getting run over, & you saying 'Oh so you don't want to spend money to protect children!'

I don't want to spend money on pointless, unworkable CRAP that will lull anyone who's a bit ignorant about how t'internet works into a bogus sense of security that their children are protected, when they aren't. Unless said parent actually steps up & does a bit of very straightforward, painless, sensible stuff which will work - ie. a decent home filter, education & supervision.

DioneTheDiabolist · 13/05/2012 23:43

Erm, you missed the parents (and grandparents) who do care but don't know how best to protect their kids due to lack of computer literacy or just ordinary literacy.

Then you have the parents who don't care. They can always Opt In. In the meantime, society will say "we care" enough to try to lessen the effect of parental neglect, so if these parents don't Opt In, their 7yo will be protected if they type Black Beauty into a search engine.

Empusa · 13/05/2012 23:44

"Realistic? What by watching them like a hawk on the pc and never leaving the room! "

Like installing filters at home, educating them, and supervising them as much as is realistically possible.

Starwisher · 13/05/2012 23:44

One last time....

its an EXTRA form of protection, like any of the ideas are to help protect our children

Not INSTEAD of, AS WELL AS! In ADDITION to

Like wearing a seatbelt, it doesnt mean you suddenly drive dangerously and anyone who wears a seatbelt only does it because they are a shit driver.

Blimey!

Starwisher · 13/05/2012 23:47

Empusa, yes you said that, yet fail to adress the issues with like dione has had to mention again, as well as kids get round your filters, them not giving a crap what you say and you having to do a wee.

Empusa · 13/05/2012 23:49

"Erm, you missed the parents (and grandparents) who do care but don't know how best to protect their kids due to lack of computer literacy or just ordinary literacy."

And the ISP filter wont solve that. It'll block some stuff, while still allowing a lot of dodgy content (and as a bonus it'll block some innocent content)

"Then you have the parents who don't care. They can always Opt In."

So on top of the points above you also wont be protecting the children of parents who opt in.

ravenAK · 13/05/2012 23:52

Have you decided you do like the ISP filter again now Starwisher? Sorry, it's just I'm having trouble keeping up. It's like arguing with a weathervane.

Empusa · 13/05/2012 23:52

"Not INSTEAD of, AS WELL AS! In ADDITION to"

Not everyone will use it as an addition. A lot will be lulled into a false sense of security.

Also, using it in addition seems slightly bizarre to me. Because you may as well only be using the home filters!

"yet fail to adress the issues with like dione has had to mention again"

Sorry for not replying fast enough Hmm

Starwisher · 13/05/2012 23:54

Yes you have a lot of trouble keeping up.Deary me you ae hard work. HARD work.

Its dull and frankly frustrating having to repeat the same thing over and over again and you still utterly not grasping what is being said.

Here is a clue: I wasnt talking about the filter.

Hth

Empusa · 13/05/2012 23:56

So if you weren't talking about the filter, what blocking system were you thinking of when you wrote this

"By changing the law for incoming websites that do not want to be blocked and advancing technology."

ravenAK · 13/05/2012 23:57

@Dione - yes, you're spot on about parents with (computer) literacy issues - it is where the real problem lies.

Not going to help if they're led to believe that the proposed filter is an effective solution, when it manifestly isn't.

Hence why I'd be spending on an awareness campaign instead.

DioneTheDiabolist · 13/05/2012 23:57

Current alcohol and ciggie legislation doesn't protect children whose parents buy it for them. It doesn't mean I don't want shops to be able to sell booze and fags to children.

ravenAK · 14/05/2012 00:01

Gosh, that's a bit rude, Starwisher.

You'll have to explain it more clearly, because one of us is obviously just a tad slow on the uptake.

What's going to be an 'EXTRA form of protection'?

Empusa · 14/05/2012 00:02

That's not really a workable comparison.

If you do want to compare an ISP filter to alcohol and cigarette legislation, the ISP filter would be like some shops selling to children and some not.

Starwisher · 14/05/2012 00:05

The controls to make sure the viewer is over 18 on all sites accesiable to UK viewers

Yes I know current law / technology does not support this, but it might be able in the future. Unless anyone on here has a crystal ball, you can say with confidence it will never happen because nobody knows what will happen in the future, do they?

And yes, I know there will still be ways around it but at least its one extra layer of protection is addition to what you can control from your own home.

I am NOT suggesting this as way to replace the responibites of the parents I am suggesting it as a way to help with issues like children accessing porn around outside the home or for children with no controls or able overide them.

If someone has a good soloution that can be addition to, not instead of, what we can within our own home ( not instead of) I would love to hear it,

Noone is advocating parents pass on their parental respobsibily, I think some of us just realise relying on just filtering your pc/ giving them a talk is only going some of the way to solving issues, but we can improve it somehow, cant we?

Empusa · 14/05/2012 00:10

So to recap, you are arguing in favour of at some point in the indeterminate future using currently non-existent technology to protect our children?

In a thread about a current proposal for a technically flawed and potentially dangerous filter?

Swipe left for the next trending thread