Mumsnet in favour of continuing to provide porn to children via the internet???

[lucyloo1]

I am shocked that you all at mumsnet have backed down over your initial support of the work that Ed Vaizey is doing to encourage ISP's to provide a default internet porn filter because some of your members have objected!

1. I don't see how you can justify not supporting this, regardless of what some of your members might say. It isn't rocket science - the sort of hard core free porn that is currently being piped into everyone's home is well known to be harmful to both adults and children but, especially to children.

2. Although, technically, it probably is impossible to filter out all porn, it certainly is very straightforward to filter out the majority of it. I set this up on my own personal connection using a free service (www.opendns.com/familyshield) - it took all of 3 minutes and is completely free. Those who tell you this is not possible probably have their own interests uppermost in their minds, rather than those of young people.

3. Have you not wondered why your members who are objecting to this, are actually so vociferous in their objections? There are a great many who are in favour of porn and many who are addicted to it. These individuals will fight tooth and nail against any threat which may make it more difficult for them to access porn. They are not however, the slightest bit concerned about the damage it does to young people. You, on the other hand, should be.

4. As for parents being responsible for controlling what their children can get access to, on the internet, the most concerned and knowledgable parents may not know exactly what they need to do to protect their home internet connections, as far as is possible. ISP's on the otherhand, have the technical expertise to do this if they wish to or can be persuaded to, which is exactly what Ed Vaizey and others are trying to do.

I hope you will reconsider your stance on this issue for the sake of your many members who are parents concerned about the welfare of their children - by the way, shouldn't that be all of your members.

"One argument against the Ed Vaizey?s proposal is that children will get round any measures to stop them viewing unsuitable hardcore porn."

The main argument is that the filters will fail and that even without trying children will continue to be exposed to porn while their parents are tricked into thinking that their job is being done for them.

Once someone tries to get around the filters they will be completely useless, and getting around them won't be hard.

Where as home based safety measures will not only be more successful at blocking porn but will also be more resistant to older children working to get around them.

So which should we push?

ISP filters which block a little and are easy to get around.

Home protection which blocks a lot and is harder to get around.

"The proposal will, at the very least, ensure the subject is debated snip I was a complete innocent on the subject. If more women become aware of what is going on under their roof they will be in a position to control any unsuitable viewing."

So we have to debate and possibly end up paying for an unworkable and inefficient solution just to have a debate?

Why not just have the debate?

Why not just have a sensible proposal about trying to educate people?

"Much is made of problems which these proposals will cause, one of the problems being that some sites will be blocked erroneously, however it will be a simple matter for those managing these sites to appeal to the isp concerned and for the isp to judge their case on merit"

No it won't be "simple". The filters will be dealing will millions of sites and will get many many complaints about incorrect filtering being applied. Mumsnet will, for example, almost certainly be blocked. And then when some person does get through their massive backlog of sites that have been blacklisted they then have to make the very tricky decision as to whether Mumsnet frequent sexual discussion is inappropriate or not.

The IWF deals with a tiny number of blocked pages, less than a thousand, yet it blocked the entirety of Wikipedia for several days because of one suspect page on it. And that was with the much stricter and more obvious definition of child porn.

And what about businesses who loose trade through their web site being down for weeks while the ISP filters try desperately to copy with their backlog?

"Yes, of course this proposal, if implemented, will be expensive, but what price do we put on our children?s well-being?"

So why not pay for someone to sit over every child's should and watch what they are browsing?

China is willing to put almost unlimited resources into censoring the internet and they have the determination to run over their citizens with tanks if they want to. And China can't manage to do what you're talking about.

This sort of filtering is beyond the capabilities and resources of one of the biggest nations on earth. If they can't manage it, and they do put up with many sites being permanently blocked, what hope do we have?

The same money being spent on educating parents could genuinely make a difference and genuinely protect them from inappropriate materials.

That is where we should be spending our time, money and effort rather than chasing a fantasy of some magic filters doing our job for us, a fantasy that even the most determined nations on earth have never been able to accomplish.

I have a big problem with the Internet Watch Foundation anyway. They are not a government body, they are unelected and unaccountable and basically a handful of cranks inflicting their own prejudices on other people.
Pro-censorship screamers are invariably dim as well as aggressive: they have little or no imagination, are rarely technically literate, hence the way they fall madly in love with completely unworkable and sometimes dangerous proposed 'solutions' to the problems of porn/horror films/video games/popular music.
'If censorship's the answer, it's a fucking stupid question'.

Just another addition about safermedia, the group they are linked to (cofounder of safermedia is in a high up position in this other organisation - would look up their name but I'm on phone) does not approve of sex ed for children and is also anti abortion. They don't just want children protected from porn, they'd happily hide all sites about sex ed too. I'm also fairly certain they aren't too keen on homosexuality either -though again I cant check that one. Wonder what their accessible sites list would look like?

KaliLoki: this is another factor very commong with antiporn activists - they are sexually dysfunctional nutjobs obsessed with stopping other people having or enjoying sex (this is not invariably true of people who object to porn on feminist grounds, but antiporn feminists sometimes find themselves allied with such nutters).

They like to think of themselves as taking up Mary Whitehouse's torch.

Their objectives:

"The protection of good mental and physical health, in particular of children and young people, by working in accordance with Christian values to minimise the availability of potentially harmful media content displaying violence, pornography and explicit sex, bad language and anti-social behaviour and the portrayal of drugs, and with a view to the reduction of crime"

This OP is incredibly disingenuous - overly simplifying in order to make a questionable point. Do you really believe this, lucyloo1, or are you just stirring to try to get limited people on your side?

• ISPs cannot block "undesirable" pages reliably, as what is undesirable? The presence of body parts on one page of a website could block medical information and breast-feeding support; "swearing" (presumably only in English) could earn a page a ban, but what if "shit" were spelled "sh1t" or "sh!t"? Or what if someone "took a huuuuge shiiiit"? Violence and bullying, as mentioned above, are CONTEXTUAL, so there is no way a key-word or image filter would even touch it. Any forum would have to be blocked, as users might at any moment write something naughty (and, in fact, trolls could easily infiltrate such sites with the intention of getting them shut out). Would online supermarkets/Boots be banned from selling condoms (whose description might include some sexual words), therefore denying an internet user access to contraception?!

Look at those dysfunctions to ISP "service" and tell me if such Internet Service Providers would actually be providing a service worth paying for, let alone a service worth paying more for?

That's only one reason why this is impractical in technical terms - unless you want to pay a China-level price in freedom and quality of life.

On a level of personal responsibility, let me turn your outrage back on you, lucyloo1: are you really saying you trust someone else to protect your children from the evils of the internet (and yes, I do know and believe there are evils on the internet)? You should be ashamed of yourself.

"Just another addition about safermedia, the group they are linked to (cofounder of safermedia is in a high up position in this other organisation - would look up their name but I'm on phone) does not approve of sex ed for children and is also anti abortion. "

It's not the other organisations that SaferMedia are linked to that we should be worried about, the beliefs of the organisation itself are sufficient cause for concern.

SaferMedia used to be known as MediaMarch and under that name organised conferences that promoted an anti sex education message (www.unitedforlife.com/christianresponse.html

"They don't just want children protected from porn, they'd happily hide all sites about sex ed too"

It's not just about protecting Children, SaferMedia are anti-porn and believe that "Adult pornography is a deliberate gateway to child sexual abuse".

And it's not just about Porn, they want to "minimise the availability of potentially harmful media content displaying violence, pornography and explicit sex, bad language and anti-social behaviour and the portrayal of drugs".

So you can see where they want the filtering to end up....

Quite, this isn't a group who should have any power at all.

"Quite, this isn't a group who should have any power at all."

I can't help but wonder what on earth Claire Perry MP was thinking when she got involved with them, it doesn't take a lot of checking to throw up some very unpleasant views that they hold.

Did she not bother checking whose campaign she was getting involved with?

Or did she check and decide that her career advancement was more important?

I'm not sure which is worse...

Then again Claire Perry also believes that the poor shouldn't be having children ("Given that the families are in extreme poverty, as the honourable lady points out, should they be having children at that point?") and Quenten Letts, who has seen more MPs than most, has characterised her as an "incorrigible crawler" and "an appalling sycophant".

And then Mumsnet HQ decided to get into bed with both Claire Perry and SaferMedia/MediaWatch so what does that make them?

Coatlicue, I assume you joined mumsnet only to post the above post, therefore I believe you have a vested interest in this one proposal.
You make me sound as though I have sinister motives. Please let me explain my interest in this proposal. When pornography became an issue in my household (not internet porn btw) I then decided to find out more about porn addiction and became aware of just how much extreme and violent misogynistic porn was available on the internet to anyone (youngsters) doing a very quick google search. I naturally assumed Mumsnet would back Ed Vaizey?s proposals. (By the way I am not a Christian, atheist actually, and imho if adults want to view porn that is entirely up to them.)

Pro-censorship screamers are invariably dim as well as aggressive Well I don?t think it is me being aggressive here and if I am regarded as dim for wanting to protect future generations from the harmful effects porn can have on young minds then I can live with it.

Wearing my ?dim? hat I would like to point out that all you clever computer literate peeps are quick (like lightening!) to point out why filtering porn by ISPs cannot be achieved but do not appear to have any constructive ideas. I am sorry but educating people to better supervise their children, while an excellent idea in theory is simply not going to succeed in practice. How do we set about educating parents, by using an advertising campaign? Good parents are already doing so, some like myself are too dim to understand how, some are too busy and the rest won?t bother. Nothing will change.

Still wearing my ?dim? hat I was wondering if it would be possible to manufacture a special family-friendly computer which used a dedicated ISP? IF (a big if!), as is stated here it is impossible filter hardcore porn maybe there is a market for a new ISP which started from scratch, as it were. I think it would a big seller, I suspect most things can be achieved if the financial rewards are high enough.

I am sure I will soon find out why this is a stupid idea, but would love to read some constructive suggestions.

Coatlicue: How would the super family friendly computer distinguish between naughty porn and breastfeeding/sexual health/classical art images which might show a nipple or even a willy? Just because people are parents doesn't mean they have to restrict all their viewing/listening/reading to stuff that's suitable for small children.

Coatlique, why don't you just learn how to protect your children instead of expecting others to do it for you?

"Still wearing my ?dim? hat I was wondering if it would be possible to manufacture a special family-friendly computer ..."

This already exists. It's called parental controls.

wow 3 replies in 7 minutes!!

"I naturally assumed Mumsnet would back Ed Vaizey?s proposals."

Why?

People are coming up with technical examples that demonstrate the immense problems with filters. And these aren't just abstract theoretical examples, they're real world examples that spending some time looking into the Chinese and Australian experiences would show.

Why would Mumsnet back something that the technical members are saying "this won't work" and real world examples prove don't work in practice?

"I would like to point out that all you clever computer literate peeps are quick (like lightening!) to point out why filtering porn by ISPs cannot be achieved but do not appear to have any constructive ideas."

Even if the technical people weren't providing "constructive" ideas does that mean that we should be supporting a scheme that even the most committed and oppressive of countries cannot make work no matter how much money and time they threw at the problem?

A bad and unworkable idea is a bad and unworkable idea even without any other suggestions being put forward.

However time after time the technical people have said that the only solution is to do something on each machine and that that means educating the parents.

That is the "constructive" solution.

Yes there are some parents who just won't bother to do anything, but there are also some parents who just don't bother to stop their children smoking, drinking or many other damaging activities. We can't allow the vast majority of parents who want to do the right thing to be lulled into a false sense of security by the chocolate fire guard of ISP level filtering because of those very few bad parents.

We need to do something that will protect as many people as possible in the best way possible.

And the proposed filters do not meet those requirements.

Even if the technical people weren't providing "constructive" ideas does that mean that we should be supporting a scheme that even the most committed and oppressive of countries cannot make work no matter how much money and time they threw at the problem?
No but it would stop people like myself wondering if some of you had a hidden agenda! lol

"it would stop people like myself wondering if some of you had a hidden agenda"

If anything many of us should be in favour of these proposals.

It won't be our children left in harms way, we'll never trust the filters and will always take our own precautions.

It won't be our internet connection that slows down, if it does we'll just get around the filters.

It won't be us that will see sites like this get continually blocked, we'll just go around the filters if that happens.

On the downside we will end up having to pay for the monstrosity that the filters and their associated organisation will become. But in return we'll see the IT industry granted a never ending supply of public cash while it fights a never ending battle that it can't win to make the filters work.

This isn't about us and our agenda's.

This is about the safety of your children. And isn't it great that we care enough about other people's safety and what is "right" more than we want to just take the money and run?

There have been suggestions, if you go through the other threads you'll see. In fact there's a thread in Campaigns

So it seems that absolutely nothing can be done about children viewing hardcore porn doesn't it?

Apparantly the technology isn't available, the will to make it available isn't there and the only answer seems to be that parents should supervise their children. Many reasons could be put forward to suggest why that won't work, the main one being that parents would already be doing so and they are not.

The campaign by Mumsnet against "Lads Mags" visible in stores is great, but the harm caused by them is nothing compared to the harm being done to youngsters by hardcore porn, but as nothing can be done about it we will just have to let it continue won't we? Never mind let's look on the bright side, dad's will still be able to get there daily internet fix of porn without mum knowing

sorry KaliLoki! just seen your post, I will take a look.

"So it seems that absolutely nothing can be done about children viewing hardcore porn doesn't it?"

No one said that, what is being said is that these filters will not do the job and are destined to be an expensive failure.

"Apparantly the technology isn't available, the will to make it available isn't there"

The will to make it available is most definitely there. As I've said before China has been chasing it for years and throwing money and other resources at the problem. And they can't crack it. The best they can manage is a very leaky filter, vast swathes of the internet just flat out blocked because they can't cope with checking it and an admission that each computer needs software put upon it.

It's not "will" and it's not "technology", ISP level filtering is just the wrong place to tackle the problem.

And as if the filth still getting through the filters isn't bad enough the moment any child becomes determined to try and get around them they'll just fall to pieces completely.

Parental awareness on the other hand will cover both accidental and deliberate inappropriate (as determined by the parent not by somebody else) use (as determined again by the parent, not just web browsing) use of the internet.

"the only answer seems to be that parents should supervise their children"

That genuinely is the only answer, and many parents are not doing it because they're quite simply not aware of what they can do. And all this talk of ISP level filtering constantly misleads them with the impression that there is nothing that they can do.

The other thing that's important to remember is that there are far more pressing and urgent issues WRT children's wellbeing than them maybe seeing a bit of porn. You could start with the systematic decimation of SureStart, and all the issues surrounding child poverty. While persistent viewing of unpleasant porn might be a problem, in a child who has loving parents bringing him/her up with appropriate ethics and good communication it is actually not that big a deal. There isn't, for instance, any reliable evidence that looking at porn does anyone any harm anyway.

'Wearing my ?dim? hat I would like to point out that all you clever computer literate peeps are quick (like lightening!) to point out why filtering porn by ISPs cannot be achieved but do not appear to have any constructive ideas.'

here you go