News Cameron to announce block-by-default web filters

But it isn't an either/or scenario: you can have responsible parenting and an opt-in safeguard.

I don't buy this theory that responsible parents (who are likely to monitor their kid's internet habits) will become any less vigilant because of an opt-in, as that would make them somewhat irresponsible by definition On the other hand, those that don't monitor their kids online will at least have an opt-in to make it more difficult for said kids to access dodgy stuff.

 

Gareth, you seem like quite a normal bloke, but the tone of your post above is full-on bonkers tin-foil hat stuff

 

If anyone is interested there is already an e-petition setup on the direct.gov.uk web site
https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51746
Number of signatures: 1,072 and counting

 

I said exclude the "slippery slope" argument, as you should well know, because it's far too easy to use in any instance without proving beyond all doubt, and usually the next argument along from "freedom ..."

Did I miss something? These filters can be removed if you want can't they? So filtering doesn't mean block in the sense of "prevent all access under all circumstances". Cue the slippery slope ... there, I saved you the trouble of replying to that one

Recategorising things, such as simulated rape porn, is an entirely separate matter, as you know, and could happen regardless of default content filtering.

 

@bawjaws, but the thing is its not a opt-in for parents, its a opt-out for the rest of the country.

 

What's to stop a big Oil company from paying a bribe and you never hear of oil spills ever again? No I agree with Gareth here, you might think it's tin-foil-hat but as he says, it's already begun. What about legitimate files on the pirate bay? No, the only reason they did it is to get brownie points from newspapers and music/film/software industries etc. Kat.ph has also gone the way of TPB. But if I want to access TPB, it takes me the grand total of 1 minute to google 'TPB Proxy'. What's the point? Hell, I don't even have to add the word 'proxy'.

 

I agree entirely that this is a matter that's highly likely to suffer slippery-slope problems, but I also agree that it's a troublesome argument to apply, regardless of the subject matter. There's also the unpopular but valid point that the government already, and inevitably, restricts freedoms and makes taste decisions on all kinds of matters in law. That's not really an argument either. They can certainly do that, they can certainly make taste decisions for us, if they can get enough of a parliamentary mandate. And, using weaselly tactics like these, they can.

What alarms me more than that is the cavalier way Cameron expects the enormous technical problems to simply be surmounted. I'm generally suspicious of the Pirate Party and some of their policies, as I am of any single-issue tinfoil hat outfit, but they're absolutely right when they say it'll either be too little or too much.

In fact, I suspect that the government may be setting themselves up for a fall, every single time this system lets something nasty through, as it inevitably will.

What particularly worries me, as an occasional producer of online video content, is the proposal that material posted online will need to follow the same rules as stuff shown in shops. What, every Vimeo upload?

 

Let's be honest, it isn't the inconvenience any of us really care about. That's a couple of minutes on the phone, no big deal. The big deal is definitely the point about "where does it lead from here?". It's just too easy to twist this sort of system into something much much worse than is suggested.

It's a bit like introducing a new tax really. First they say it'll only affect the top x%, people get behind that naturally because it's somebody else paying the bills. Next thing you know the brackets increase, more people are paying, and then another increase until eventually it's everybody. By this point another tax is introduced that once more targets the top x%, yet somehow people have forgotten that the last one trickled down to them too. Where does it end?

 

Gareth has it nailed IMO. On a smaller scale our filtered connection at work (school) is less than perfect, we get 10+ requests a day to unblock perfectly respectable websites that have been labeled as pornographic or gambling orientated.

Pages can drift in and out of favour with the filter system, for example if this article (that appears on the front page) where to be called 'Cameron blocks porn' the page would be filtered until said article got bumped off the front page.

I should imagine it would be very tempting to add to the blacklist if there was enough incentive.

 

The following site were regarded [and therefore blocked] as 'porn' by the proxy at various points when I was at uni

deviantART [kinda understandable given some of the stuff on there]
Gamastura
bit-tech
Hexus
eBay
Cracked.com
NASA [dafuq]

and no amount of argument would get any site unblocked as 'the filter is/was never wrong'

 

So if they're blocking pornographic content, shouldn't they be blocking Tumblr etc? We all know teens like to post their tits on there.

And while we're at it, shouldn't some of the content on Facebook and Twitter et al get blocked too?

 

and don't forget the Daily Fail's sidebar of shame/hypocrisy

 

Cameron's speech is full of hypocrisy and arrogance. He says it as if it is as easy to flick a switch. Instead of focusing on pornography on the internet, why don't you pay attention to mental health a little more? The suicide rate in boys/men has quadrupled over the last 6 years or so. Also, if the internet is to blame then why are more kids taking drugs? Subliminal ganja marketing?

 

Yes, considering that the amount of people in my school alone love to post on Facebook about their drugs etc with all of their younger siblings using the site also.

And dear God, the irony of that sidebar. At least it isn't the Sun...

 

Either way, it's a way more important issue then pornography yet Cameron doesn't seem to care... if you're going to be a 'child-loving good parent' kind of person then be consistent...

 

I know what your saying and I agree with the above, but I can't agree with the view that some people have that the internet should be totally uncensored and child abuse should be regarded as "self expression" just because some like it and it's online.

 

I was going to write something similar, but Gareth really said it all.

Who's checking the list checkers, that's what it comses down to.

 

To be honest, when I've seen parents buying their 5 and 6 year old Ipads and the latest smartphones, none of this really surprises me.