That bloody ISP porn filter bollocks is back again

[MurderOfGoths]

BBC News article

And because I can't be bothered to type it all out yet again, here's a load of reasons why it's a load of bollocks

Why it's wishing for a unicorn

exoticfruits

Yes, but you are actively saying that you don't want to reach it and you don't want it handed out. It makes sense for that to be the default and then people can choose to reach it and be in line when it is handed out.

It's this sort of post that makes me wonder whether or not you've read the technical explanations doled out earlier in this thread.

I think the technological limitations are secondary because there already are technological limitations. There will always be technological limitations but at the moment the default is porn (with technological limitations as to the filters that can be applied) and the proposal is that the default is not-porn (with technological limitations as to the filters, or anti-filters as it were, that can be applied).

That's why I said the technological limitations matter less to me than the ordering of the default.

Well I've just had my eyes opened. I read the first link and found myself nodding along, thinking oh yes good idea. Then I read the second link and was appalled that I had had that reaction to the first link because I ought to have thought about it more and having read the second link I can totally see why the first cannot be achieved and why it is undesirable. I don't know what the answers are but this is not it.

I for one would like to see a higher standard of it teaching in schools, education, it seems might be a better route. I'd certainly like to know more about my computer, about the internet and about how to make my own whitelist. I'd also like to know how I do that on an ipod as my stupid exh has given my 4 year old one so he can facetime (presumably he doesn't like me having to be present when we cam on the laptop). The ipod is only used under supervision in my home but no idea at his. And of course, I have no control over computers in his home. He for one, would be opting out.

Thanks MurderofGoths. Lots to think about.

Quangle

I think the technological limitations are secondary because there already are technological limitations.

There will always be technological limitations but at the moment the default is porn (with technological limitations as to the filters that can be applied) and the proposal is that the default is not-porn (with technological limitations as to the filters, or anti-filters as it were, that can be applied).

That's why I said the technological limitations matter less to me than the ordering of the default.

And I'm telling you - again - that the technical reasons why it can't be done over-ride your fantasy that we can have a 'default off' for porn.

You might as well say "Spaceships can easily travel to the moon and back on a cup of diesel, they don't need any more fuel than that because I say that the laws of physics don't matter." Just as the laws of physics are not secondary to the amount of fuel required to reach the moon in a spaceship, so the technological aspects of the internet are not secondary to understanding why a blanket 'off for porn' default setting is not possible.

But Quangle to use you're magazine analogy, for this to be successful a lot of perfectly innocent magazines would be banned as well, and even then it still wouldn't stop all 18+ magazines, frankly it'll be the worst ones that get through as the mainstream ones are easier to find and ban...

There's already safe search on google which is the presumed setting anyway so this hysteria of people accidentally stumbling onto porn is bizarre. And before anyone complains that they found porn with safe search on, then you have to realise that if safe search didn't recognise it as porn and remove it, then it would probably have got through a filter as well...

If you don't understand computers then its your job to learn to at leas the level of your child's understanding, if you can't do that then you shouldn't have one in the first place. Considering there are a far greater amount of houses without children, its odd to any censor system as opt in.

"At least it is a start- I am all for it. You have to start somewhere."

I'd rather they started with logic and common sense personally, rather than unicorns.

NumTumDeDum Thank you, means a lot. I do feel like a ranty lunatic about this, so nice to see it someones comes across as useful instead!

lunatic Quite! Btw people when Tim B-L says the technology doesn't exist - it really doesn't exist!

If you don't understand computers then its your job to learn to at leas the level of your child's understanding, if you can't do that then you shouldn't have one in the first place

Really? I look forward to the mumsnet quiz on how televisions work because apparently unless you understand the physics behind them, or have a full knowledge of the regulatory system that approves content for broadcast, you can't have one.

There really is no policy argument that unless you know where the filters are, you shouldn't have one. That doesn't hold any water at all. Computers are actually increasingly essential to everyday life, hence the inclusion of broadband costs in the basket of "goods" used to calculate the inflation rate. And government is persuaded that access to the internet is an important part of social inclusion. So it's increasingly just viewed in a policy sense as just another utility. Quite rightly. But I don't need to understand what checks are in place to make sure the water that's pumped into my house is safe for human consumption - I expect the regulator to do that.

This is perfectly standard - it applies to TV programmes (a highly regulated medium by the way) and most other forms of broadcasting. All the "other" stuff is still there but not pumped into homes whether you want it or not.

I said learn to at least a childs level, christ its not a lot to ask. If you can't do that then you're not equipped to be a parent in the first place! Filter technology really isn't difficult to get a hold of, anyone who wants to can quickly learn to do so themselves.

You can't regulate the internet like tv, there's a small amount of tv shows and a small amount of tv channels, compared to billions of web pages of which countless amounts spring up every single day. I'd have a real problem if tv programs started to get banned because key words in their sypnosis were banned by an algorithm. The water comparison is just bizarre. Safety standards for consumption are just a completely different ball game. Again there's a finite amount of water companies for whom regulating their output is relatively simple.

"Really? I look forward to the mumsnet quiz on how televisions work because apparently unless you understand the physics behind them, or have a full knowledge of the regulatory system that approves content for broadcast, you can't have one. "

You're comparing apples with oranges.

TV isn't regulated using computers, it's regulated using humans. We already understand how they process information because we are humans too.

The internet has to be regulated by computers because of the sheer size of it, understanding how they process information is key to how we can use them.

"But I don't need to understand what checks are in place to make sure the water that's pumped into my house is safe for human consumption - I expect the regulator to do that. "

Fair enough, but if all the experts on how water is checked are saying that the system for checking it is deeply flawed would you still drink it?

If this is just offering a filter, then presumably the parents will have to set it, so someone is going to have to have the knowledge to do so.

I would like to know what the filter is, how it operates and what it monitors.

BoneyBackJefferson

I would like to know what the filter is, how it operates and what it monitors.

Hush now, and just let the government filter what you can look at on the internet. It's for your own safety, and the safety of all the children in the world. Asking questions will just make your head hurt.

I said learn to at least a childs level, christ its not a lot to ask.

Actually I think it is quite a lot to ask of many many parents. There are loads of parents out there in their 40s and 50s (so parents of teens sort of age) who didn't grow up using computers and don't really understand how they work, although they muddle through with email, FB and whatever packages they need to use for work. They haven't a hope in hell's chance of ever understanding them as well as their DC who have grown up using them. No wonder the magic button is so attractive! Lots of them already feel a bit stupid and a lot scared and I don't think it does any good to berate them further.

What's needed is support and education for parents as well as children and teens, regular and ongoing for as long as is needed.

I don't think the water analogy or the TV analogy work. It's more like owning a car and being responsible for its roadworthiness. I've never owned a car and if I did get one I'd not only have to learn to drive it but how to maintain it to keep myself and other road users safe.

flatpackhamster

.

If I thought that I could trust the government etc.

"There are loads of parents out there in their 40s and 50s... They haven't a hope in hell's chance of ever understanding them as well as their DC who have grown up using them."

That is just BS.

I think there are a lot of people who just aren't good with technology, but they need to at least try for their kids sakes!

Can you imagine if people used the same excuse for other areas of children's safety?

"I don't understand car seats so I just wont bother!"

"Removing risks from the house is too complicated, I'll only childproof if someone else does it for me"

They'd be, rightly, called out for not putting their children's safety before their own problems. Why isn't keeping children safe online viewed the same?

I didn't understand a thing about nutrition for babies when I had DS, but I damn well found out.

People have been aware that this is mainly aimed at porn and won't block all internet nasties though so will continue to supervise their children's computer use. It wouldn't lull me into a false sense of security at all, that's no kind of argument.

You realise you only speak for you right? I have spoken to people who think this is a fix all.