Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
Snorbs · 29/05/2012 12:57

I thought you were leaving? Grin

theodorakis · 29/05/2012 13:58

DD

Snorbs · 29/05/2012 15:21

I think the content of your post got censored Wink

theodorakis · 29/05/2012 15:24

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

theodorakis · 29/05/2012 15:25

No it is an abreviation love

flatpackhamster · 29/05/2012 15:40

So, theodorakis, you're comfortable with internet censorship. That's fine for you. But you're not the only person living in Qatar. Do you not think that its effect can be pernicious for political freedom? Why should people who want to express their views be denied that? If they're exposing state brutality and they suffer for it, shouldn't that brutality be reaching as wide an audience as possible? This isn't just about internet porn.

Snorbs · 29/05/2012 15:47

OK, let's talk about illegal invasions for oil while you desperately try to take attention away from your massive change in position from "Floggings? What floggings?" to "Oh, those floggings, well he deserved it."

So, the invasion of Iraq. The governments in question have been widely and thoroughly criticised and ridiculed in the press and online. There were massive protests in the streets over what was widely seen as an unjust and unjustified war. There are still bits of incriminating evidence coming out. Whistle-blowers posting leaked evidence on sites such as wikileaks can be sure that their revelations can be seen by everyone living in the UK who has an Internet connection. I'll admit it's sadly unlikely that Blair will ever be put in the dock for war crimes but you will at least note that the government he represented is no longer in power as he was voted out.

Could that have happened in Qatar? No. Public criticism of the Emir within Qatar is effectively banned. Public demonstrations of the sort seen in London would not be allowed. Press criticism of the Emir is a quick way of finding out what a prison looks like from the inside. There is no Freedom of Information law in Qatar at all. Wikileaks and other websites outside of Qatar that criticise the Emir are blocked. And you can't even vote the bugger out.

theodorakis · 29/05/2012 16:05

Again I di not give a fuck that some guy got flogged years ago. I do not give a fuck if public floggings happen now just surprised that I haven't seen any in all the years I have been here. If there are fine for them. And poor old us for not having the London riots, how teddibly uncivilised. How ghastly for us, this country is just jam packed with happy wealthy people just looking for a good old demo. Again, just to clarify, just in case, I am not turning around on the flogging issue I genuinely do not give a shit. Public flogging or Jeremy Kyle? Both circus acts, just our people have teeth

Snorbs · 29/05/2012 16:15

I know that you (now) profess that you couldn't care less about flogging. I just find the disparity between your pronouncements now, and those mere hours ago, amusing. So I'm going to keep mentioning it purely for shits and giggles.

I know that Doha has many happy, wealthy people in it. Walking around with wads of cash in your pocket makes it easier to ignore the hundreds of thousands of migrant workers that prop up Qatari society and who are treated no better than slaves, doesn't it?

Indeed, given the track record of places you have lived it seems you have a real penchant for countries with atrocious human rights records. Still, as long as you can make some cash who cares, eh?

theodorakis · 29/05/2012 17:38

No shame in it I like being rich. It is because I have lived in these places that I can actually talk about human rights without having to Google although I did enjoy reading about the great flogging of 1993, we are still laughing about it now in the office. You don't know very much and are a bit immature if you believe all you read on the internet.join us if you like for our holidays, I am off to thailand to work with a charity trying to protect the vulnerable poor girls with no human rights who are exploited by the free men of the west. Unfortunately you will not be invading them. They haven't got any oil. Really will switch off now, this conversation is ridiculous and we will never agree. Hopefully due to your hatred of my country our paths will never cross.

Snorbs · 29/05/2012 19:16

Ooh, nice try at the "rather than try to refute the embarrassing but irrefutable, I'll be condescending and try to pretend it's all beneath me" defence. And laughing at state-sanctioned torture? Nice touch. Says volumes about you.

I am off to thailand to work with a charity trying to protect the vulnerable poor girls with no human rights who are exploited by the free men of the west

Of course you are. No, really, I totally believe you. And, I'm sure, you will follow that up with a campaign to rescue kittens from trees and to remove thorns stuck in the paws of puppies.

One last thing before you really, really, no-actually-theodorakis-means-it-this-time leave:

"I think Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, Emir of Qatar, is an over-privileged but woefully under-moralled cock of the highest order who isn't fit to run a whelk stall let alone a country."

I double-dare you to say the same :)

(P.S. If you think I'm just being anti-Qatari, I think David Cameron is a useless twunt as well.)

OldLadyKnowsNothing · 30/05/2012 02:04

Snorbs.

theodorakis · 30/05/2012 03:56

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Snorbs · 30/05/2012 05:41

:) I knew you couldn't stay away.

But you really can't do anything you want online or in print or in public because as you very well know criticism of the Emir is forbidden.

But as we're on the subject of exploitation of young girls for sex, what is the age of consent in Qatar?

theodorakis · 30/05/2012 07:05

The age of consent is 16.

You really do think you are so clever, i just don't get why you hate people so much. You are so liberal and nice as long as you don't actually have to travel or live a life that is not Middle england. I think the term is champagne socialist dear.
I am just champagne. Just in case you need a bit of help with it, I don't live in Saudi.

This could go back and forth and I can't really say much more because you are so horrible and find me amusing, ok I know I am laughing at you too but it doesn't sit well with me, you have brought out a violent hatred of a strange little man I didn't know I had in me. Why not agree to leave it now and go and post on threads that do not contain each other. Please, I have had enough now.

Snorbs · 30/05/2012 08:58

You don't get why I hate people so much because I don't hate people, therefore you are trying to find an answer to a question that doesn't exist. That, and I don't think empathy is your strong point.

Maybe you should be asking yourself why merely having someone disagreeing with you causes you feelings of violent hatred and why you think state-sponsored torture is a laughing matter. Could you discuss these frankly worrying aspects of your personality with a therapist or similar?

But while I don't hate people, I will admit to a severe distaste for regimes such as Qatar's where the hereditary ruler chooses who is in the government and can freely ignore what they say, where there is no free press, no judicial oversight of those in power, no ability for the people to vote out their ruler, no freedom of information, where people can be locked up for criticising the Emir and the state, and whose small rich population is propped up by armies of migrant workers who are treated abominably and who have little if any legal rights. I know you're cool with all that, but I'm not. Which is why I don't live in Qatar. I couldn't stomach the hypocrisy.

Hell, we used to have a very similar society in the UK. But then we got smart and realised that, actually, hereditary rulers are a bad idea for all sorts of reasons, not least the cronyism and the difficulty in getting them to stop being selfish twats. You should try it. A good, solid revolution can bring many benefits.

But you can't even bring yourself to criticise the Emir even in fun, can you? It's just too risky. I understand that.

Nevertheless, I will post where and when I like. If you don't like that feel free to take it up with MNHQ.

theodorakis · 30/05/2012 09:30

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Snorbs · 30/05/2012 09:42

Why not walk away? I could say the same to you. You've already said you're leaving this thread four or five times.

You're obviously going to continue to studiously ignore any and all criticisms of Qatari society despite the mountain of evidence that shows it to be rotten to the core. So as you're not going to address the important issues, I'll continue poking you with a stick and seeing you froth at the mouth because it's funny.

Go on, be a devil, nip off to the loo and whisper "I think the Emir is a bit silly". Work your way up from there. It'll be good for you.

theodorakis · 30/05/2012 10:13

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Crumblemum · 30/05/2012 10:50

Thanks, ItsAllGoingToBeFine. I realise people can choose to go to Talk Talk and use their service, but if all ISPs used it, then people could simply opt out. I get the whole 'it's not perfect' but neither are seatbelts, but we still use them and try to drive a bit more safely.

Snorbs · 30/05/2012 10:54
Wink
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 30/05/2012 11:25

crumblemum but they couldn't opt out of the increased price of internet, they couldn't opt out of their name being on a list of opt-outers (filthy pervs that they are), they couldn't opt out of the probable slow down in service.

Birdsgottafly · 01/06/2012 14:07

Cases such as these are going to help push the law through.

www.telegraph.co.uk ? News ? UK News ? Crime

Birdsgottafly · 01/06/2012 14:07

try again
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/.../boy-12-raped-nine-year-old-girl-watch...

New posts on this thread. Refresh page