1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Cameron to announce block-by-default web filters

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 22 Jul 2013.

  1. bawjaws

    bawjaws Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    3,782
    Likes Received:
    545
    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.
     
  2. bawjaws

    bawjaws Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    3,782
    Likes Received:
    545
    Gareth, you seem like quite a normal bloke, but the tone of your post above is full-on bonkers tin-foil hat stuff :D
     
  3. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
  4. Carrie

    Carrie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    3,183
    Likes Received:
    992
    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.
     
  5. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    @bawjaws, but the thing is its not a opt-in for parents, its a opt-out for the rest of the country.
     
  6. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    13,444
    Likes Received:
    2,492
    If only it were. No conspiracy theories here: just a knowledge of history. It's happened before, it'll happen again - unless something is done to stop it. Go ahead, try to visit The Pirate Bay. Remember when the government told us that mandatory - and not-opt-outable - filter was going to be used purely to block access to child pornography? Didn't last long, did it?
    Ah, but it isn't an entirely separate matter - Cameron has made sure that all the various issues are being conflated into a single, giant, confused issue, with content filtering provided by Tory party donors and former schoolmates at the heart as the final solution. Not a great start, really.
     
  7. djzic

    djzic Bokehlicious!

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    896
    Likes Received:
    13
    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'.
     
  8. Phil Rhodes

    Phil Rhodes Hypernobber

    Joined:
    27 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,415
    Likes Received:
    10
    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?
     
  9. Maki role

    Maki role Dale you're on a roll... Staff

    Joined:
    9 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    1,709
    Likes Received:
    124
    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?
     
  10. MrJay

    MrJay You are always where you want to be

    Joined:
    20 Sep 2008
    Posts:
    1,290
    Likes Received:
    36
    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.
     
  11. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    13,444
    Likes Received:
    2,492
  12. RedFlames

    RedFlames ...is not a Belgian football team

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    12,688
    Likes Received:
    1,855
    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'
     
    Last edited: 22 Jul 2013
  13. KidMod-Southpaw

    KidMod-Southpaw Super Spamming Saiyan

    Joined:
    28 Sep 2010
    Posts:
    12,592
    Likes Received:
    558
    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? :p
     
  14. RedFlames

    RedFlames ...is not a Belgian football team

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    12,688
    Likes Received:
    1,855
    and don't forget the Daily Fail's sidebar of shame/hypocrisy

    [​IMG]
     
  15. djzic

    djzic Bokehlicious!

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    896
    Likes Received:
    13
    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?:hehe:
     
    Last edited: 22 Jul 2013
  16. KidMod-Southpaw

    KidMod-Southpaw Super Spamming Saiyan

    Joined:
    28 Sep 2010
    Posts:
    12,592
    Likes Received:
    558
    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...
     
  17. djzic

    djzic Bokehlicious!

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    896
    Likes Received:
    13
    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...
     
  18. miller

    miller New Member

    Joined:
    10 Jun 2013
    Posts:
    175
    Likes Received:
    20
    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.
     
  19. Xir

    Xir Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    26 Apr 2006
    Posts:
    5,301
    Likes Received:
    91
    I was going to write something similar, but Gareth really said it all. :thumb:

    Who's checking the list checkers, that's what it comses down to.
     
  20. KidMod-Southpaw

    KidMod-Southpaw Super Spamming Saiyan

    Joined:
    28 Sep 2010
    Posts:
    12,592
    Likes Received:
    558
    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.
     

Share This Page