And they say feminists are hysterical...

[FloraFox]

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/28/iceland-porn-ban-free-society

So a group of activists from different countries (including Laurie Penny) have penned this gem of a letter to the Icelandic minister in charge of the pornography ban proposal. It includes such gems as:

"The current discussion of blocking pornographic content has offered no definition, no evidence and suggested no technology. This is an affront to the basic principles of the society..."

Eh? What basic principle of society would that be?

"Rather than silencing a voice, the result is depriving the population of material they can see and read. This is censorship, as it skews the way people see the world."

What? Through the filter of a woman's vagina?

"The right to see the world as it is, is critical to the very tenets and functions of a democracy and must be protected at all costs."

Just, fucking, wow.

"The prohibition of pornographic content may create demand for an underground porn industry, unregulated and most certainly affiliated with other illegal activities..."

So we must not regulate pornography on the internet because if we do, an unregulated porn industry might arise. OK, got it.

[FloraFox]

Leithlurker if it's taken you this long to figure out I don't agree with the letter -

[MurderOfGoths]

Ok, so you think it is absolutely ok to block other things alongside porn?

And you think technology is going to be able to keep up with these demands?

Right, so first thing to understand is that computers don't think. They will only do what you tell them, and they do it exactly, and they can't do any more than that.

So if you want to filter porn you need to tell computers what they need to block. And you need to tell them in terms they can understand. Eg. give them a list of keywords.

A computer will not understand the same definition of porn that you and I do. You can't tell a computer to "block anything that shows sexual content in a manner intended to arouse", it wouldn't be able to make sense of that. A computer doesn't get aroused, nor does it understand arousal, so it cannot look at something and think "this is intended to be arousing". A computer has to rely on solid bits of information.

On the internet that information is mostly words. So here's method one.

So you can tell it to "block any website with the word "porn" on it". And that'd work just fine.

Except it would block MN because we've talked about porn on it.
It would block websites set up to fight against porn.
It would block websites set up to help people get away from the porn industry.

That's ok with you?

But of course porn isn't the only word you'd need to block. You'd also need to block words like sex, penis, vagina, even pussy.

Still ok?

And I mean it wouldn't take much for the porn sites to just change the words they use.

On to method two

You could also block websites individually. So estimates from the beginning of 2012 put the number of web addresses at 233 million. It's being added to daily. In the first quarter of 2012 there were 7.5 million added.

So we're going to keep up with those how exactly? (See method one for why computers couldn't do it automatically)

Or method three

Again using web addresses, but instead of a black list you have a white list. So the govt decides which websites we are allowed to look at. That ok with you?

So yes, you could block porn but you'd block a huge chunk of the internet (possibly the majority) and it would involve blocking websites with advice and support relating to sex education and sexual health.

Still sound good to you?

So when they say blocking porn would involve infringing civil rights they are totally right.

As for technology keeping up? The day we invent a computer that can think and feel, sure. I can't see that happening any time soon. In addition there's a huge moral maze related to that.

[Leithlurker]

Flora, I was affording you the courtesy of not presuming that you were advocating a big brother type state that deny's freedom of thought. But apparently you do so take your biscuit and place it where the sun is not likely to ever see it.

Murder I fear as well explained as your last was, it will be wasted as clearly the ideaology of thought control is in play not a rational exploration as to how to acheive a goal.

[MurderOfGoths]

Leith I'll keep explaining until I'm blue in the face, because even if I can't get through to the OP others will be reading. So it's worth it.

[Leithlurker]

You are right Murder, you are much more patient than I, more power to you.

[MurderOfGoths]

Tbh I have a screaming, teething baby on my lap. Arguing about tech is far less frustrating

[FloraFox]

Murder the reason I'm not interested in discussing technology on this thread is because this thread is anonymous. We can discuss the principles of feminism and free speech without presenting our cv. I'm not interested in discussing the ins and outs of the technology with an anonymous person because I'm not willing to identify myself and I don't know what level of knowledge or understanding you have of the topic. You call it "explaining", thanks, but I can ask my milkman for an explanation and it would be as authoritative as yours.

Leithlurker thought control? Now you're just being silly. Have another

[MurderOfGoths]

Right, so you want a thread to talk about a form of technology but no actual technological talk?

Well in that case I would love a centralised porn filter. Even if it is totally impossible.

But what I'd love more is better education about what is out there that enables people to protect themselves and their children.

[PlentyOfPubeGardens]

I'm all for banning page 3. There are no technical problems with that, it would be easy peasy and should be done asap.

You're right, Leith, you can't control people's thoughts, but people's thoughts and attitudes are formed within a culture so if the culture changes, people's thoughts and attitudes will change.

Nothing else in our culture is quite as effective as page 3 in encouraging people to think it's completely normal and A-OK to objectify women.

[FloraFox]

Murder I don't want the thread to talk about a form of technology, the point was to talk about the position that porn is a civil liberty in itself and that regulating porn would lead to an unregulated porn industry. I think it's quite clear from the quotes I included that that's what I'm talking about. You have a different view of the positions put forward by the writers of the letter, that's fine.

[BeanieStats]

I find the ignorance of the OP laughable really. My DP used to work in this exact field and I've had to listen to him going on at length about why these and the various other crackpot schemes put forward by clueless politicians are a bit off.

The reason why the technology community holds the Icelandic proposals in such contempt is that they recognise the futility of them as well as the implications for freedom of speech that they carry.

When the same people who created the internet tell you that such plans are both unworkable and dangerous (whether those plans be for stopping people browsing for porn or copyrighted movies) then its probably a good idea to listen to them.

Governments lack the ability and means to identify and block something as straightforward and easy defined as copyright infringement - how on earth do you think they'll manage with something as woolly as "porn"?

Other than that, I can't really add anything more than MurderOfGoths already has.

[FloraFox]

So an anonymous poster whose information is based on her or his anonymous OP who used to work in this exact field (whatever that is) thinks my ignorance is laughable.

Whether the plans are unworkable is a technical issue that I'm not interested in discussing on an anonymous forum

Whether they are "dangerous" is a political issue and I certainly don't place the views of IT engineers above the views of anyone else.

[BeanieStats]

Well the exact field in this case was capacity management for one of the largest ISPs in the UK.

But its not just little old me and what I've picked up over the years - its the business and technical leaders of the technology industry - Bruce Schneier, Jimmy Wales, David Ulevitch, Steve Crocker and Dan Kaminsky are a couple I know of just from what my DP has said.

For every single reputable technical authority you find who considers what the Icelandic government are planning to be achievable and realistic (and from what I gather you'll struggle to find one) I'll wager I'll find a hundred who say they're barking.

"I certainly don't place the views of IT engineers above the views of anyone else."

And that pretty much sums it up. You're the telling an engineer that his engine must do 100mph when the same engineer is telling you it can only do 70mph.

What the Icelandic government propose, as the US government did with SOPA and as the BPI is finding out to its cost is fundamentally a technical issue by its very definition. One that you plainly not only lack the knowledge to understand but seemingly don't want to either.

[MurderOfGoths]

"the point was to talk about the position that porn is a civil liberty in itself"

Except no one has said it is. None of us, and not the letter you linked to.

[MurderOfGoths]

I think the problem with the discussion about a centralised porn filter is that there is a tendency for people to treat anyone who finds serious technical issues in the plan as if they are pro-porn and happy to stomp all over the emotional wellbeing of children. Which not only misses the point but also seems to be a way of demonising valid arguments.

I suspect that I can speak quite reliably for the majority of people who are against the porn filter when I say we'd be totally in support of it if it fulfilled all of the following criteria;

• it blocked porn and only porn
  
• it could be adapted by different users in the same household (eg. children would see less content than teens)
  
• it could not be abused by those in charge of it (eg. deleting views they disagree with)
  
• there was a way to block individual pages/images on some sites rather than whole sites (eg. community led websites like youtube)
  
• effort was put into educating people on the other dangers faced online (eg. pro-ana sites, grooming)
  

But as technology cannot do this right now we are understandably more interested in the ways that children etc can be protected right now.

And yet somehow saying this we are portrayed as being pro-porn. It's very frustrating. And it's what the unicorn analogy has come from.

We've been trying to point out actually realistic solutions which are available now, and are complained at for not supporting an unrealistic solution.

[BeanieStats]

"We've been trying to point out actually realistic solutions which are available now, and are complained at for not supporting an unrealistic solution."

Indeed. And for what its worth, the "filter" in my house is me (and my DP of course). I don't expect, nor want the government, my ISP or god forbid some Mumsnet keyboard warrior dictating what content I can and cannot view. There are far more nasty things on line that I want to keep away from my kids than porn (again, define "porn") - most of which wouldn't be impacted by a filter anyway.

[FloraFox]

Murder as I said, I disagree with your interpretation of the letter. Laurie Penny, who was one of the authors, has expressed many times that she is pro-porn. Leithlurker seemed to be going there with his "thought control" nonsense. Lots of people actually do believe that and by repeatedly making any discussion all about technology, which it isn't, you are ignoring the political aspects of this issue.

Beanie no I'm not. Read again. I'm talking about politics.

[FloraFox]

PMQ yes quite.

I don't think a lot of posters do necessarily have technical expertise. There's a lot of repetition of other published views.

Beanie you're happy to live in a country where children can easily access hard core violent porn via simple (and sometimes inadvertant) google searches because you think you can protect your own children from it. And it's more important to you that you can continue to access whatever you want to see regardless of the impact on other people.

It might surprise you to know that there are already laws that dictate what you can and cannot view.

[BeanieStats]

"I'm talking about politics."

But as has been pointed out to repeatedly - talk of blocking specific content on the internet is is fundamentally a technical issue. One that you obviously lack the knowledge to discuss.

[FloraFox]

No, the ability to block specific content is a technical one. Whether technology should be pursued that currently does this or may be capable of being developed to do so is a political issue.

I'm not interested in discussing technical issues with DPs of people who work in capacity management or anyone else who is anonymous. I could tell you I'm Larry Page, would that make any difference?

[FloraFox]

Sorry, my "no" was at Beanie not PQW

yy PQW