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:
NovackNGood · 08/05/2012 20:59

So MAriefromstmoritz thinks knowledege of sex is bad for people to look for on the internet but feeling the need to alter your body with cosmetic surgery to fit in with a patriarchal societies image is a perfectly commendable activity?

banditqueen · 08/05/2012 21:48

I totally support the ban and don't know why something similar hasn't been introduced before. I think there are likely a lot of mumsnetters lurking on this thread (and previous ones on the same topic) who agree but aren't willing to go head to head with the people claiming techie superiority who are dominating this conversation.

NovackNGood · 08/05/2012 21:53

Banditqueen do you agree with a police nanny state and censorship is better so parents can abrogate their responsibilities.

exoticfruits · 08/05/2012 22:15

Since parents are not being responsible, many parents wouldn't let their DC go to the local shop on their own and yet let them have their own laptop in their bedroom, I think it is a great initiative and I am astounded that any parent wouldn't back an MP who is trying to protect DCs. I am all for a police, nanny state and censorship if it keeps DCs away from porn.
I don't see the difficulty, I don't want to access porn, those that do are not censored, they just opt in and pay extra to subsidise the filters. Porn is the extra and they should pay for it.

exoticfruits · 08/05/2012 22:17

Ask most parents the simple question Do you want your DC to access porn? and they would say 'no'.

Snorbs · 08/05/2012 22:20

exoticfruits, if you are so keen on ISPs filtering porn, can I ask if you have moved your broadband connection to an ISP that already offers such filtering?

By the way, filtering is an extra - it requires expensive kit if an ISP is going to do it - so it would make more sense for those wanting filtering to pay for it.

stargirl1701 · 08/05/2012 22:21

So why do the school filters work then? It is very difficult to access educational websites from school computers - multiple forms, etc. far less anything dodgy. It can be done and no child has managed to work round it yet.

NovackNGood · 08/05/2012 22:25

So now everyone in the country has to subsides the irresponsible parents who don't control what their children access on the internet. Wow what an entitlement those parents want.

exoticfruits · 08/05/2012 22:34

I don't have the problem, snorbs. Mine are beyond the age of censorship. When they were younger I kept a close check.

Empusa · 08/05/2012 23:09

"but aren't willing to go head to head with the people claiming techie superiority"

So we are wrong to use our technical knowledge?

"Since parents are not being responsible, many parents wouldn't let their DC go to the local shop on their own and yet let them have their own laptop in their bedroom, I think it is a great initiative and I am astounded that any parent wouldn't back an MP who is trying to protect DCs. I am all for a police, nanny state and censorship if it keeps DCs away from porn. "

So this is a good thing because it will protect the children of irresponsible parents right? Except irresponsible parents are
a) more likely to have the filter lifted
b) still not going to protect their children from the other unsavoury content on the net

"Porn is the extra and they should pay for it."

Except as we keep pointing out, it isn't just porn that's being blocked. Why should people have to pay extra to view innocent sites, just so some parents don't have to bother monitoring their kids internet use?

wannaBe · 08/05/2012 23:32

I am baffled. genuinely.

I have been using the internet for, oh, about twelve years now. And I have never accidentally happened upon porn, hardcore or otherwise, ever. I'm sure I could find it if I went looking, but isn't this talk of how easy it is to access porn awfully hysterical anyway? I'm sure there are instances where one might accidentally stumble across a porn site, but I simply don't believe that it is that common an occurrence. Why are your children not supervised when surfing the internet? Why do you not have google set to safe mode? Etc etc.

If you don't want your children accessing porn fine, don't let them access it.

Ryoko · 09/05/2012 02:08

irresponsible parents........hands up who here is one?.

No didn't expect anyone to say yes, it's just another buzz word so politicians can grab more power with the excuse of protecting the stupid and innocent, another vague group of people who's numbers are unknown and who's qualities and traits can't be quantified as it's all just a buzz word to help get laws passed
just like the Americans obsession with commies hiding under every bed, just like the constant belittling of those on benefits and protecting us from terrorists etc.

If a parent is irresponsible those kids are going to have far more things to worry about then seeing a few bits of porn.

piprabbit · 09/05/2012 02:28

My parental controls block mumsnet, due to the explicit language and content of some of the threads.

I have set up separate accounts for my children (which blocks mumsnet et al) and myself (doesn't block much at all). I would hate to be forced to opt-in to porn, when in reality I'm just trying to access perfectly normal sites like MN. I'll still need to set up my own controls too.

And if the ISPs were clever enough to be able to exclude mumsnet from the porn-block, well I'd still need to set up controls because I'd hate for my DD to stumble across a Friday night thread.

I don't see how opting in or out would make my DCs any safer than they are today.

piprabbit · 09/05/2012 02:34

Sorry the first line should read "My default parental controls block mumsnet".

mrscumberbatch · 09/05/2012 03:05

Love that 4chan are laughing at this thread right now.

For all those who are jumping on the Internet censorship bandwagon, you really need to get educated on how the Internet actually works.

Not necessarily your current usage, or your Child's current usage- but the potential out there is terrifying.

Look at anonymous! ( if you don't know about anonymous you can't deign to know anything about what happens online! ) do you honestly think that any of their parents or families know what theyre getting upto? ( Until the FBI show up at your door.)

Knowledge is power and we can influence positive behaviours, but there's always going to be horrible things online.

MarieFromStMoritz · 09/05/2012 03:34

So MAriefromstmoritz thinks knowledege of sex is bad for people to look for on the internet but feeling the need to alter your body with cosmetic surgery to fit in with a patriarchal societies image is a perfectly commendable activity?

What a stupid post. Obviously I do not think knowledge of sex is bad, but I would rather it came from a responsible source, not vile, abusive images from the internet.

And how do you know what plastic surgery I am referring to? It is a reconstruction procedure, not that it is any business of yours.

TheCatInTheHairnet · 09/05/2012 03:48

"The UK is the largest Internet economy in the world"

Riiiiiight, that's why Some of the biggest Internet companies are based in places like San Jose, California, as opposed to Swindon then.....

MarieFromStMoritz · 09/05/2012 03:56

I don't know how the fleshtones filters work, but I can see the pic that Empusa posted of the man and child. It is just one of a whole range of measures put in place here.

I don't like the way this has become a bit of a UAE-bashing thread. I brought it up only to show that it is possible to ban porn, as people were saying that it wasn't.

exoticfruits · 09/05/2012 07:04

I don't think it fair for people to say they are responsible parents and they don't care what the DCs of irresponsible parents can access. I am pleased that Claire Perry and others are thinking of protecting all DCs.

EdithWeston · 09/05/2012 07:16

If why was being proposed actually offered protection, then I would have no hesitation in supporting it.

But it doesn't (see techie bits), so I don't.

It doesn't actually work in UAE either - yes there are many banned sites; but no, that does not make an effective "porn ban".

Snorbs · 09/05/2012 07:20

You brought up the UAE as an example. Unfortunately for you it is an excellent example of the issues with this kind of proposal.

But yes, we do need to be careful not to criticise the UAE too much as otherwise they'll block access to mumsnet. It wouldn't be the first time they've blocked sites that are critical of their regime.

MarieFromStMoritz · 09/05/2012 07:30

No, it is an excellent example of how things can work. Sure, it's not perfect, but things are changing and evolving all the time in the IT world. We should focus on solutions rather than saying "it can't be done" and giving up.

EdithWeston · 09/05/2012 07:39

"sure it's not perfect" - spot on!

It isn't a porn ban in any meaningful sense. It blocks some websites, yes. But that is not the same as offering worthwhile protection.

The solution to this is unlikely ever to be technical (because of the moving nature of technology, and the agility of dubious sites, and/or dubious content on other sites). Not because of defeatism, but because of the nature of the wish list.

This is an area where it would be naive to think anything can absolve the parent of user-side responsibility. And energy should go into that, not chocolate fireguards.

MarieFromStMoritz · 09/05/2012 07:41

How do you know, EdithWeston? Do you actually live here? I said it's not perfect, not that it doesn't offer worthwhile protection, because it does.

ragged · 09/05/2012 07:42

I don't see the problem with both: the proposed regulations AND the home-computer censors too (K9). The more layers of filters & hurdles the better, ime. (Yes that's imE not just imO).