Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
Original poster

recent decision by MNHQ

30 replies

NetworkGuy · 02/02/2011 23:33

Please, MNHQ, do have a read of this thread and consult your Tech people so they can give you the answers as to whether your support for this campaign and the Minister's plans are worth going on with.

I would hope you not only reverse your position but assuming you get sufficient technical reasoning in 'Plain English', that you go public and explain how unworkable the proposal is likely to be. I feel sure journalists at Computer Weekly and Computing will be able to provide confirmation that filtering is a hiding to nothing and can be very costly because of the millions of GB of data flowing through the bigger ISP networks.

For anyone baffled, and wondering if I'm a nut case, this concerns a proposal to get ISPs to "filter out" all porn, unless a customer "opts in". For numerous technical reasons the idea is never likely to achieve filtering without blocking access to legitimate sites or not blocking access to better than say 95% reliable, thus making it a costly exercise in futility, while parental vigilance and filtering software at the home would still be essential for peace of mind.

(Incidentally the wording of the campaign page implies the parents need to ask, at the same time as someone wanting not to have censored content needs to ask - it is one or other, but not both that would need to contact ISP. )

Go to post
MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 03/02/2011 13:46

Just a quick post to let you know that we have seen this and will be back later with our thoughts.

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 03/02/2011 15:33

Thanks very much for your comments, and sorry it?s taken us a little while to respond.

Our over-arching aim is to address the concerns that Mumsnetters have repeatedly expressed about the ease with which children can access pornographic material on the internet, intentionally or otherwise. In trying to do that we will, of course, take on board the comments posted here.

What we can say is that other experts we've consulted on this do seem to think that filtering is a feasible option, and that a combination of continually-improving filtering techniques would provide a much more accurate filter than was previously possible (so no blocking "chicken breast recipes", for example).

It?s worth bearing in mind that while no system is infallible, such technology is already in use for filtering out images of child abuse, and as some posters have pointed out, it?s also the default setting for some mobile providers.

It's true there are still technical challenges to be overcome, and that there will always be scope for a determined child to circumvent a network filter, but we think this would be an effective way to prevent children from inadvertently stumbling across pornographic material, or accessing it via a casual search.

If a default filter option turns out to be unachievable, then of course we'll rethink. We?re having ongoing conversations with campaign groups, policy bods and others on this issue, and we're attending a roundtable with the ISPs next week. We'll have a better idea then what the industry perceive the challenges to be, and whether they are proposing effective alternatives.

We?ll keep you updated, and of course do please continue to let us know what you think.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 03/02/2011 22:03

@MmeLindt

Ok, I do not fully understand the techy bits, and I guess that many other MNetter will not either. But as I understand this, it boils down to this:

  • If my PC is locked down but my neighbour's is not, then their child can show my children porn.
  • My neighbour's child can download and distribute porn on his phone.
  • It does NOTHING at all to stop the production and distribution of porn, as those who want to access it will opt in.

Is this correct?

Child protection would be better served if the money was spent on searching for the bastards who make, distribute and watch child porn.

I don't believe that MN should get involved in this campaign.

No that's not quite right - the idea is that the default for all is that pornography is off - you need to actively turn it on to view it. So the likelihood is that it will be off for your neighbour's child too. The problem now is that you actively have to understand and set controls and even if you do, there is every likelihood that your neighbour will not have.

Switching the default to off is an idea that has been supported on MN boards when it's been discussed in the passed. The objections voiced here are about the feasibility/practicality of achieving the desired aim, rather than the aim itself.

And, of course, if it's impractical, that's a very good reason for not trying to do it. The people in the know who we've spoken to - most notably the folks at Childnet and other child protection agencies who've been monitoring this and talking to the phone companies about it for some time - seem to think it is feasible. We obviously don't know (we're not experts) and obviously there's some scepticism from techy types here.

There is a meeting with the relevant government ministers - Ed Vaizey and Tim Loughton- the ISPs, the NSPCC, the Children's Charities' Coalition on Internet Safety on Monday. We're going along too. We'll get a very good sense there I think of what the ISPs think about this and whether it is or isn't feasible and we'll, of course, report back.

Thanks for all your input.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 03/02/2011 22:25

@Motherfunster

Justen, it boils down to how or who defines pornography.

And that is for now out of the range of even the most advanced computing as in certain areas, this remains subjective.

I thought it boiled down to it being unworkable? Re. defining porn - we define all sorts of things when it comes to children - we classify dvds, we have watersheds etc etc. No one's saying ban porn - we're saying there is some porn that shouldn't be stumble-able across. Maybe the bar should be set at very hardcore porn. Quite frankly that would something. Some of the stuff that is easily accessible to young children quite by chance is horrific.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 03/02/2011 22:27

(Horrific and according to what evidence there is and most of the experts extremely damaging.)

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 03/02/2011 22:52

@NetworkGuy

Maybe the bar should be set at very hardcore porn.

Justine - now you're getting to a secondary aspect - who says that what the organisations agree is the 'level' is acceptable or unacceptable to every parent.

Kaloki has suggested that parental controls be at the house end of the link and the simpler and more widely available, the better (eg open source, make whatever package run on Linux, Mac, XP, Vista, Win 7, and mobile apps for mobile phones if there is some dispute over what the networks will limit).

Make it downloadable too, since not everything has a CD/DVD drive. Distribute it at minimal cost/free (if Google can give away Chrome and Microsoft puts hundreds of MB of files into a security update then a 20 to 50 MB application is not going to hurt).

Just like anti-virus software, the porn-block software could download updated lists of hardcore porn sites but the parents could also add their own block lists.

This type of facility has been done as add-on for Firefox (to block advertising sites) so why not lists of sites blocked because they carry porn ?

ISPs would not need to invest in analysis of the traffic or web links, but could provide the software for download and the database of known-to-hold-porn websites. Parents could then add as many extras as they want, such as Facebook, etc.

Gets away from some 'body' deciding what is acceptable and what isn't. That is guaranteed to satisfy a few % of the parents, with some thinking Nuts is OK and others thinking Ann Summers is off limits.

But NetworkGuy (and Motherfunster) - loads of people just won't do it - because they're technophobes, because they're lazy, because they're apathetic, because they're just too busy and they forgot (that would be me, probably). So we're back to the problem of your kid seeing it at the neighbours'... We - as a society - i.e. some recognised body or other (usually chosen by democratically elected parliament) decide things all the time about what is appropriate for kids and what isn't. I just don't get what's so different here. If there's a whiff of opportunistic censorship the net would go apeshit. (Hell we'd go apeshit Grin).

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 03/02/2011 23:19

@Snorbs

There are loads of things my DCs could get up to at a neighbour's house if that neighbour couldn't be arsed to supervise them properly. Watching porn videos or horror films, smoking, drinking, playing with matches... The list is endless. Why go to all this effort and expense to (poorly) address just one of those issues?

A parent that can't be bothered to supervise his/her children is a social problem, not a technological one.

Or another way of looking at it is - Why should I have hardcore adult material available as standard via a device that I purchase for and is marketed for the family if (can we agree this is a crucial if) it can be standard that it's opt-in, not opt-out?

Motherfunster - we will most certainly ask the techies for a techie pov. (Not Ed Vaizey Smile)

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 03/02/2011 23:52

@Snorbs

Because:

a) if this really is only going to address hardcore porn then there is a huge range of other stuff on the Internet that is most definitely child unfriendly that kids could still access so you'd still need supervision and filtering on your PC to stop them,

b) as a result of (a) it is very likely that the scope of this proposal will expand to cover not just porn but a wider range of child unfriendly sites and that could affect adult access to adult non-porn sites (maybe even mumsnet, what with all the swearing and sex talk) which would encourage users to opt out and leave them in the same position they're in today,

and c) any such filters at the ISP level won't work very well anyway.

I've had a lot of real-world experience with the kind of Internet filtering we're talking about here, albeit in a corporate rather than an ISP context. I'm not just talking out of my hat. It was very expensive, clumsy, unreliable, and needed a lot of care and attention from expensive, skilled staff to keep it usable.

This proposal will cost consumers a lot of money for very little real benefit. You'll still need to run a PC-level filter to properly protect your children and if you're doing that anyway then an ISP-level filter is adding nothing useful. And it still won't solve the problem of parents who can't be arsed to keep an eye on what their children are doing.

Again, you're not arguing against the aim - to stop kids stumbling across wholly inappropriate material - but that the the mechanism for delivering is unfeasible.

Those experts we've spoken to - who've spent a heck of a lot more time on this than we have - say filters have moved on, and that it is possible for ISPs to switch the default to off re porn. If they are wrong and you are right Snorbs, then clearly it shouldn't be done because it would be a waste of both time and money.

Think we'll have a better sense next week because obviously the ISPs will have no wish to spend lots of money...

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 04/02/2011 00:02

@differentnameforthis

OR

Problem is, what happens when you may seek information on (say) "breastfeeding" and the site is blocked, either because the word "breast" caused it, or some photos

First, you don't have to set the bar that low - breasts are all over the place (page 3?) I very much doubt anyone is suggesting breasts 2) Filters are more sophisticated than you're suggesting (so I'm told!)
MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 04/02/2011 00:05

@Motherfunster

Iv just had a look at Ed Vasey, he looks like a moomin.

Absolutely Snorbs.

I don't think anybody's going to afford human judgment.It will end up shonky filters on the cheep.

Again, humans make decisions on appropriate material for kids all the time - Film classification, watersheds, video game ratings. Why not porn?

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 04/02/2011 00:15

@Motherfunster

How many people would it take to classifie the www?

Think you could quite quickly find a lot of the nasty stuff with a few key search terms don't you?

Or maybe we should just not bother to try because it's potentially imperfect?

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 04/02/2011 00:30

@Motherfunster

I think that earlier entry's on this thread with basic technical advice is part of the solution.

A section on websafety tec advice section on NM would be a good place to start.

Ok well it might be the only option, I spose. We have a websafety section on MN here but as said am sceptical as to effectiveness of parental controls.

All comes down to feasibility of filtering really. Will feedback on ISP position on that next week. Night and thanks for your input. Sleep well.

MNHQ

KatieMumsnet · 07/02/2011 22:42

Hi There

Justine wasn't able to make it today, bug related (of the poorly, not IT type), so I went in her place. Here's a brief(ish) summary:

To be honest, it was a bit ho hum. Lots of agreement that something should be done, but little concrete agreement on what, how and when.

Ed Richards from Ofcom put the question best, building on Claire Perry MP?s stat that in the States 25% of TVs sold last year were internet ready. He asked whether self regulation was moving fast enough to keep up with technological advances, and that as a society if we care about what sort of content we bring into our homes, do we need to find a way to catch up?

Most people agreed that parental controls were important, alongside ISP and network action and that there was no one single ?silver bullet? but Ed Vaizey felt parents needed a 1-click solution, and that, as a comparison, seat belts were only used, when there was a law change.

This was an obvious way of getting the ISPs attention, and he was quite clear that government doesn?t want to regulate, but that the public will expect action. He later talked about ISPs calculating the cost of making internet controls effective (including parental education) versus the cost of ?fending off government.?

All the ISPs were there and promoted the action they?re all taking to increase internet safety.

The topic of what was being regulated didn?t really get much time, some felt it was ?hardcore porn? others clearly had a wider definition. Claire Perry MP had what, to an amateur, sounded like a good solution, basing it on the standard filters used now, if you do take the time to install the McAfee or similar controls.

The next steps weren?t clear, general talk of another meeting, to hear more from ISPs, and but not a timetable.

As John Carr from UK Children's Charities' Coalition on Internet said (and building on the discussion in this thread), ?we can be agnostic about how, but what matters is that a solution to this issue is developed.?

Please do add your thoughts about the above and what you think could be done to help parents protect their children. We promise to feed them back.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 07/02/2011 22:49

Article from yesterday's Sunday Times by Eleanor Mills whcih might be of interest - copied as can't link (paywall):

The other day my friend Jenny was helping her daughter with her homework. The eight-year-old was doing a school project about the moon, so they were clicking around the internet trying to find some images to download. Striking lunar gold, they tried to enlarge some pictures on the screen but, with one wrong click, suddenly a series of incredibly graphic group sex scenes filled the screen. My friend, who is 41 and has knocked around a bit, was shocked; she?d never seen anything like it. Frantically, she grabbed the mouse and tried to get rid of them.

But her daughter had already got a serious eyeful of the kind of adult content that would make even the most worldly of us blush. Jenny tried to explain it away. Rather resourcefully, I thought, she said it was just ?grown-up naked wrestling? and told her daughter to just forget it. Unfortunately that hasn?t happened. The little girl is obsessed. Every day since then she has asked her mother what was happening, why people do that to each other. Despite Jenny?s ingenuity, there is no way she can turn back the clock. My friend is distraught at this sudden loss of innocence and knows nothing can erase those images from her daughter?s brain.

Jenny?s experience is far from an isolated incident. It is ridiculously easy to access porn on the internet; these days you don?t even have to get out a credit card ? the sex equivalent of YouTube, RedTube, offers any possible flavour of sexual congress in moving Technicolor, free of charge and just a click away.

Now don?t get me wrong. I?m not approaching this as a latter-day Mary Whitehouse ? what adults want to watch in the privacy of their bedrooms is entirely up to them. No, my particular beef with internet porn is the ubiquity and the way that material that until recently required a trip to a sex shop is now piped into all of our homes.

I don?t think it?s right that a child should stumble upon XXX-rated images while researching the moon. I?m sick of worrying every time my daughter logs on to look up the Romans for her history homework that she?s going to get an eyeful of a pornified toga party. And the convergence of internet and television means such worries won?t be confined to the home computer: we will soon all run the risk of XXX pop-ups on our sitting-room tellys. This is a growing concern. A poll by YouGov last week found that 83% of British adults thought it was damaging to children to see pornographic content on the internet.

So what?s to be done? We can?t just ban our kids from going online; the internet is a fantastic resource and is now completely interwoven into all our lives. Sonia Livingstone, professor of media and communications at the London School of Economics and author of Kids Online, found that 93% of children aged 9-16 in Britain are online at least once a week, 60% go online every day and 49% do so on an unsupervised computer in their rooms. Parents are amazingly ignorant of what their kids are up to; a third of 10-year-olds have viewed pornography on the internet but only 8% of their parents knew that.

Until now, the only way to try and stop children accessing porn was to install a filter. But all that is set to change Adolescent culture is awash with porn ? teenagers are increasingly adopting porn-bald privates, as the journalist Rachel Johnson described in an article for Vogue last week; pubescent girls pose provocatively on Facebook; and, perhaps more worryingly, the brutality of much of the material on the web is giving many boys a ?rape-like? view of what sex is, according to a study by the respected Witherspoon Institute think tank.

Until now, the only way to try to stop children accessing such content ? either intentionally or innocently ? was to install a filter on your home computer?s search engine, such as Google SafeSearch (which bans access to certain sites) or to download software such as Net Nanny, which does something similar.

But these solutions are fiddly, and I don?t know about you, but my kids are a damn sight more adept with the inner workings of our family computer than I am. Most teenagers would have the skills to disable or go around such blocks.

So is there a way to turn off the porn tap at source? Claire Perry, an MP who is the mother of two young girls, has been campaigning to make internet service providers (ISPs) do just that. For a long time the ISPs have said this was impossible, pleading technical problems and an unwillingness to start censoring customer content. But that won?t wash. I can?t help feeling that the real reason for their reluctance to take action is that they are worried it will be bad for business; after all, 87% of men admit to looking at porn on the net and one in four clicks is thought to be sex-related.

But all that is set to change. Tomorrow the ISPs will hold a round-table meeting with ministers, Perry, the NSPCC, Mumsnet and sundry others to discuss how they might stop porn being beamed into our homes. The good news is that one ISP (interestingly the only one run by a woman) has broken ranks. TalkTalk, headed by Dido Harding and a board of directors that is 50% female, is to launch a service that would allow households to opt out of any porn being delivered to their home computer network.

The service would be free. Customers will be able to have all adult content removed from the broadband feed that comes to the house. The beauty of this is that it means all devices that work on the home broadband ? televisions, games consoles, laptops ? would be covered.

It sounds amazing, but technically it is possible. TalkTalk is working with companies that already trawl through the internet and block or remove any sites that show child abuse; a similar technique would work to block other adult-only content. This is not censorship; if you want porn, you can have it. It would mean peace of mind for parents: no more XXX surprises or boys trawling through every conceivable sexual fetish before they?ve even had their first kiss.

So will people choose the service? YouGov found that 58% would sign up for such a porn opt-out, while 26% said they wouldn?t. That is quite telling. Let?s not forget how popular porn is. But even men who do indulge in a little virtual titillation still don?t want to expose their children to it. This might be excellent business for the ISPs. They could even get double subscriptions: clean family broadband for the household and a secret little adult connection for the adults who want it. Everyone wins.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/02/2011 09:15

@Eleison

Justine, are you prepared to think about being more careful about distinguishing between your own views/actions as MN's owners and the views/actions of your talkboard? When you say "We're backing his call" in your copy re the default filter, "we" will clearly be taken to mean Mumsnet, and in the public mind that means the talkboard. You need a term (like the use of the term 'MNHQ' within MN threads) to distinguish between what your company does and what the talkboard has 'concluded'.

Otherwise you are at risk of advanced Thatcher Syndrome -- "We are now a grandmother"

We refer you to one's earlier point "Switching the default to off is an idea that has been supported on MN boards when it's been discussed in the passed. The objections voiced here are about the feasibility/practicality of achieving the desired aim, rather than the aim itself. "

This is not about my views - tis about the views that have been expressed here (though not so much on this thread admittedly). As you know, my personal views are irrelevant - I am merely a plaything...

The point here I think it that there seems to be broad agreement that very easily accessible hardcore porn, that kids can stumble across unwittingly, is undesirable. So it comes down to what's the best way to stop it, which is clearly not a decision that should be made by Mumsnet.

I see our role as one of keeping the pressure on the relevant authorities to make sure the issue is addressed in the best way possible and not swept under the carpet - accurately reflecting (I hope) the broad consensus expressed by users of this site that widely available hardcore porn is a worry.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/02/2011 09:49

@Eleison

Of course there is a "broad consensus expressed by users of this site that widely available hardcore porn is a worry"

But there isn't a broad consensus about a mandated "default to off" which is the policy you say that MN is backing.

You might as well say that Cameron is simply enacting "a broad consensus that the economy should be on a sound footing"

Don't you worry about having what seems like a significant amount of influence without any real means of accurately reflecting the opinions on the board that is the pretext for your influence? There is no consensus except of the very very broadest sort.

Well, we're only backing it if it's feasible obviously, as said. At least one ISP seems to think it might be but folks have raised valid arguments against here which we reflected yesterday - as Katie said the ISPs have gone away to think on. We are absolutely prepared to modify "the ask" based on their response. But the fact is Mumsnet is in a good position to ask the question - why not block it at source? It's very easy to start from the premise that "There's nothing to be done". What matters here is the outcome and raising the question helps focus everyone's mind on how best to achieve it, we believe.

Our general view with campaigns is that we can do a good job of raising issues and starting a discussion that are good outcomes in themselves - as with Let girls be girls. I disagree that a broad consensus isn't worth reflecting. The issue of widely available hardcore porn is really worth reflecting if it means it's more likely that something gets done, isn't it?

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/02/2011 09:53

@Eleison

And lol at being 'merely a plaything'. I think it is the talkboard that is becoming a plaything.

If so, I've had better ones.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/02/2011 10:54

@PlentyOfParsnips

'The point here I think it that there seems to be broad agreement that very easily accessible hardcore porn, that kids can stumble across unwittingly, is undesirable. So it comes down to what's the best way to stop it, which is clearly not a decision that should be made by Mumsnet.'

Then why are you backing Ed Vaizey's call? ...

'We're backing his call for internet service providers to filter adult content by default'

Because we think it is an effective way to focus the mind and get the outcome we all want. But as said, we are more than happy to modify the ask based on feasibility. This is the advantage of being a discussion site - we can modify our ask based on discussion. I don't care if we end up saying, OK based on the submissions of all the ISPs it seems there's a better way of achieving this - as we've always said we are not the experts here. The point is to try to achieve the outcome.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/02/2011 11:59

@Niceguy2

"get the outcome we all want."

What is the outcome you want though?

Campaign against pornography? Or child protection?

Or as I am suspecting....campaign against pornography using child protection as the excuse?

We want to stop hardcore porn, that kids can stumble across unwittingly, from being readily available on the internet. Don't you?

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/02/2011 12:07

@Eleison

Yes of course he does, Justine. It isn't fair to suggest that disagreement with what you are doing here is a lack of commitment to that aim -- though equally it was unfair of NG so suggest you were 'campaigning against porn.

Ok so what I find bizarre here from the is that folks here are so willing to discount the fact that one of the major ISPs has said that this solution - blocking hardcore porn at source - is indeed completely feasible. I mean I don't pretend to be an expert but I'd suggest that if it's possible for one ISP, it's possible for them all. Maybe we should get Talk Talk on to talk it through...

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/02/2011 12:08

@Eleison

The issues are complex and fluid. Just as we can't easily define porn for the software, we have difficulty defining it culturally: there is for example way more tolerance of porn amongst women on MN than I can tolerate it myself. For that reason alone it is just wrong to think that MNHQ can embody some sort of actionable consensus, just by prolonged immersion in MN discussion, rather than by fairly extensive online polling.

And the same is true on other issues that you campaign on

As you've said yourself - no one disagrees with the aim of this campaign - isn't that a consensus?

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/02/2011 12:28

@MmeLindt

Justine
With all respect, the techie posters on this board are neither trying to sell us something nor have they anything to gain out of this.

If Talk Talk are the only ones who are saying this is feasible then there has to be a reason for this.

I don't know the ins and outs of the technical side of things, but I do see that there are massive issue that have been raised.

I don't understand the argument that we have to protect our children from accidental exposure to hardcore porn.

Surely the exposure to porn is much more likely to be one child downloading something and showing it to his pals on his mobile phone rather than googling "kittens" and seeing videos of sex kittens bouncing on a bed.

Well you could argue that the other way, MdmeLindt - the other ISPs are trying to sell something too...

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/02/2011 12:42

@Eleison

I don't understand why you don't respond to the criticism that you have written "we are backing Ed V.'s call" in the face of very extensive multi-thread opposition to the call and little supprt for it.

We have responded a number of times on this thread now saying if that if the call to block at source turns out to be unfeasible we will certainly not continue to call for it.

@Eleison

The thing that concerns me is this: When politicians invite MN to particate in a procedure, they do it to confer legitimacy and a sense of widespread consultative endorsement on what they are doing. Just by showing up, let alone by your copy on the site supporting the default filter, you are endorsing them. That is the greater part of their reason for inviting you: not to hear what you say but to give an impression of a broad consultative base.

We turn up to be part of the process/ part of the debate. That process will go on whether we are there or not. Govn is after all elected to govern - I somewhat doubt whether our endorsement makes a difference.

But you know it takes considerable time and effort to get involved. And we take considerable pains to try to give an accurate reflection of the boards. We could just say well we're not going to take part in of any of this stuff because it's all too hard. Personally I think that would be a shame because we are in a position, I think, where politicians and business find it hard to totally ignore MN and it would be a wasted opportunity to leave them to it. But would certainly make life simpler Smile.

Yesterday we were not batting for one side or another. We were batting for the best possible solution to reach our desired outcome, on which there is a broad consensus. After the recent discussion of the issue here it seemed appropriate to raise the question of whether a block of material at source is actually feasible - as Katie said the ISPs are going away to think about that and report back. And we will modify our campaign page/ ask to reflect the current situation in the next little while.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/02/2011 12:44

@MmeLindt

Justine
If I understood this correctly, TalkTalk are the ones saying it is possible? Are the others dragging their feet?

Yes, sorry that wasn't very clear - what I mean is that the logical extension of what you're saying is that businesses act in a way designed to make max profit - and that goes for the others too...

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/02/2011 14:12

@MarsLady

Also marking my spot as I have just read the entire thread (that has probably been added and added to whilst doing so).

The duplication of something that already exists is a nonsense. And don't you dare suggest that I am not concerned with pornography and my children's ability to access it. Of course I am concerned and as such have one family computer that is in the most public room. I use the internet parental controls that my ISP provides. I look at the history from time to time. I talk to my children etc etc.

I do not wish to have this imposed on me from the top down. My own website contains pictures of breasts. My clients give birth and breastfeed. Some of their testimonial stories include pictures of them breastfeeding their children. I have a small resource of breastfeeding pictures.

It is completely disingenuous to say that some people don't take parental responsibility and therefore it has to be done for them and how bloody patronising. There are so many things that we have laws for that are put in place because some people don't do what "all people should". These laws are still broken.

Parental responsibility is the key issue. It is there that the campaigns need to focus. Free parental controls with each device with simple instructions. Yes via download so that it is accessible for all.

I do not lend my support as a Mumsnetter to this campaign and I resent the implication that I do.

I do not wish to leave MN but I do not want my name associated with this ill-thought through campaign. As MarsLady is my internet name for everything (too lazy to think up other names) I shall change my user name here.

(now to go and have the lunch I didn't eat because I was busy reading. Thank you knowledgeable posters btw. How wonderful to see such arguments.)

Wah! we are not for a minute suggesting that we would back something that censored breasts - for gawd sake MN would never get through that filter. But clearly we have not framed our argument particularly well [understatement]. So we shall take down the page and start again... it was due for an update yesterday anyway.

As ever thanks for all your input!

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates