Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Anyone is welcome to join. Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

'Active Choice' or 'default on' for viewing adult content online

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
I'm sure you've heard about this already: David Cameron is suggesting that we are losing a generation of children to pornography and something must be done. His solution: 'Default-on', similar to a mobile network, your internet provider would block porn unless you rang them up and said you want the goodies.

The proposed compromise: 'active choice' whereby on first set up of your new internet connection, your browser will ask if you want to enable content filters, and if so, what for? (Ignore the editorialness, but here's an overview: [1])

So, what are people's thoughts? Could TheSite.org fall foul of an 'umbrella' filter blocking out ANY sexual content?

My view: I'm against censoriousness, but children viewing hardcore pornography has proven harm [2] [3] [4] (unlike children seeing page three of the sun which has no such proven harm). I do think it's a conversation we need to have. I don't agree these methods are the right methods.

Sources:

[1] https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2013/sleepwalking-into-censorship
[2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/car.1092/abstract
[3] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-012-0103-4
[4] https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/10692/
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If people don't want their child to watch porn they should do some fucking parenting and set up their own blocks. Other users shouldn't have to opt in at all. It's like the hypocritical twats who decry violent media while buying their 12 year old the 18 rated Call of Duty.

    The solution shows a chronic misunderstanding of technology. This won't stop underage kids seeing porn - it might introduce an extra click. It won't stop child porn because Tor and the sites they use won't show up on filters.

    It's a policy that will appeal to people too thick to take responsibility for their children and people who wring their hands at the thought of someone looking at naked adults and having a good old wank.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've read today that the belief in some camps is David Cameron has essentially made noise about this to appear 'hard on pornography' to appear to his traditional conservative and mumsnet voters, but knowing that in the end the practicalities mean there will almost be no actual implications for the average person when all is said and done.

    We are also banning BDSM porn at the same time, and with the recent campaign against page three, we really are headed down a road where the country feels it can moralise on other people's choices.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Infinite. wrote: »
    It's a policy that will appeal to people too thick to take responsibility for their children


    :thumb: Right on Sister

    Oh noes. My kid's watching porn the government need to do something.

    Oh noes, my kid's obese the government need to do something.

    Oh noes, my kid's an arsey cunt bully at school the government need to do something.

    You know, maybe you should of done something, shut ya legs or had a wank.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    We are also banning BDSM porn at the same time.

    Oh man. Don't get me started on that. Let's label all of us BDSM lovers as weirdo perverts because we get off on consensual domination. Eugh.

    Otherwise I'm with Infinite. He's usually right.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I can't think of a better arbiter for my wanking habits than David Cameron . I like wanking and he's a professional wanker. Match made in heaven.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What everyone else said. We've had child blocks/filters since the dawn of the world wide web. It's down to parents to stop their kids from seeing porn, not the government. If you're able to set up and use the internet in your house then you're smart enough to put on child filters/blocks.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm actually worried that people will think "ooh lets vote for them" on the premise that they think the govt is doing something good for them, except all that is being done is something the parents should do in the first place.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Boss at YouthNet (the charity behind thesite) is also concerned at some of the filter methods that may be used, and how this filtering may harm young people being able to access thesite.

    http://www.youthnet.org/2013/07/vital-support-to-young-people-at-risk/
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think it's bad.

    - since when has it been possible to filter out porn? Sites will get around the filters
    - parents could rely on it when they should do stuff like supervise internet use
    - it could block people getting advice on sex, drugs, alcohol, self-harm and suicide.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    People know how to get around these filters. I agree with those saying that it's the parents responsibility. And if parents are that worried, they should set up their own filters. Am I correct in thinking that some ISPs have these child filter / lock things?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Melian wrote: »
    People know how to get around these filters. I agree with those saying that it's the parents responsibility. And if parents are that worried, they should set up their own filters. Am I correct in thinking that some ISPs have these child filter / lock things?

    They do indeed Melian, and its those filters that the govt are trying to have as a default on. Thereby to me, removing the responsibility of parents to make the informed choice to protect their children.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Agree with everyone else!

    Also, isn't the proposal to only apply this to new broadband connections? So even if it would be effective (which it wouldn't) it wouldn't apply to the millions of children who already have access to adult content....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The top sites on google will be instructions on how to get past the block.

    But seriously, parents need to change the wifi passwords, put parental locks on phones (my phone prohibited me from seeing thesite as it was classed as adult content until i sorted it with o2 ffs so it is possible) and move the computer to a communal area.

    There was porn around when I started using the net, i couldn't look at any of it because the pc was in the open. Best way to stop it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They tried it in Australia and apparently they had to back down because it wasn't technically possible.

    It's all bullshit anyway. Any genuinely concerned parent is fully capable of enacting their own controls on their own computer (one of the main controls being actually having the computer somewhere you can see it). It's just a false argument to hide the true motives of people behind this sort of thing. The fact is that there are members of the conservative religious community and members of the feminist community (and no doubt other individuals) that object to pornography on principle, and would happily see it banned purely because they don't like it. But obviously they know that "we disapprove of it" isn't something that's going to get any public support, so they have to invent things like the risk to children, claims that people who watch it are more likely to become rapists, feign interest in the welfare of the actors, etc. And like the anti-abortion movements, if they can't legally get something banned, they'll settle with making it as difficult as possible to access.

    Also, someone pointed out that this might backfire on David Cameron, because with the filter up, he'd be the top search result for "cunt."
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    claims that people who watch it are more likely to become rapists

    Which, interestingly, can't be proven. There was an article on BBCi recently about studies into porn and the 'porn makes people rape' theory. Very interesting artcile. A proffesor said that all current and past studies into this are opinion based, which isn't proof. She said the only way you could do a study and get proof would be to show porn to some men and then see if they rape someone which, as she pointed out, we couldn't do.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tech/2013/07/would-daily-mail-website-fall-foul-online-porn-filters-it-has-championed is a good summary of some of the problems with this type of filtering.

    One of my issues is that partially covered by your openrighstgroup link, though I don't think that ORG, in this case, goes quite far enough into the depth of that issue. For example, scope creep on the filtering is entirely possible once the filters are in place under this "child safety" banner.

    I also await with interest the first court case that uses "this person chose not to enable porn filters" as evidence of guilt for some crime.

    Also, there is an e-petition to discuss this in Parliament. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51746 However, I suspect the usefulness of that is limited, because, due to the way that this proposal has been presented, it has cross-party support. Which party would object to something that protects our children, after all? ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Interestingly, today we had http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/microsoft/10206270/Microsoft-introduces-child-abuse-pop-up-warnings.html introduced on bing. Apparently the pop-ups appear when people search for "terms that can only indicate they are wanting to find child porn".

    It doesn't show a popup if you search for "help with child porn" "reporting child porn", so that's good. Unfortunately, it also doesn't show a popup for "images with child porn", the top result for which is currently a photo bucket thing with a summary of "view the 100 best child porn photos". So I guess that's failed a bit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's bollocks too. I've search child porn acronym's before, because I wanted to know what they meant (I didn't know they were child porn acronyms before I searched, obviously). Then Urban Dictionary tells me they're codes paedophiles use to search for child porn. Can I expect a visit from David Cameron's new internet police?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's bollocks too. I've search child porn acronym's before, because I wanted to know what they meant (I didn't know they were child porn acronyms before I searched, obviously). Then Urban Dictionary tells me they're codes paedophiles use to search for child porn. Can I expect a visit from David Cameron's new internet police?

    They're not talking about changing the law on child porn though, so you'll only get a visit from the police (the old style kind) if you actually look at child porn, not just one of the tags - all that will happen if you use them is a warning about what will happen if you do decide to go and sample some child porn. It might make it harder for defendants to claim they clicked on something without realising what it was, but that's about the only change to the child porn laws .

    Also not to you, but to others its not BDSM that's they're planning to make illegal, but rape porn, which is different. It's currently illegal to publish rape pornography, so its not that major a change (not that I support it, just as The Sun should be free to publish naked titties and people to buy it, companies should be free to make and publish simulated rape if people want to buy it). [eta - actually looking at his exact words, its a bit more ambiguous on whether other things that rape are covered, so it could theoretically include BDSM that so extreme you can't publish it in the UK, though I don't know how extreme that is)

    The opt in and filters may or may not work (I'm not a techie, but the consensus of people who I know who know about these things is that it won't work as well as its supporters claim, but better than its detractors), but its only on new sign-ups* so the majority of people will be unaffected and to be honest being made to tick a box which says 'I don't want adult filters in place' is hardly up their with the shutting of news papers and the Stasi in terms of human right violations.

    Generally I think its lots of noise (on both sides) but little impact


    * though its another regulatory hurdle for companies and a free market liberal I oppose it as brake on people swapping providers and going for a new company, so benefits existing companies.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Also not to you, but to others its not BDSM that's they're planning to make illegal, but rape porn, which is different. It's currently illegal to publish rape pornography, so its not that major a change (not that I support it, just as The Sun should be free to publish naked titties and people to buy it, companies should be free to make and publish simulated rape if people want to buy it). [eta - actually looking at his exact words, its a bit more ambiguous on whether other things that rape are covered, so it could theoretically include BDSM that so extreme you can't publish it in the UK, though I don't know how extreme that is)

    The wording of the law is ambiguous. Specifically it criminalises any pornography which depicts violence towards women. Does spanking count as violence? Does a whip count as violent?

    It might be the case that it's just one of those ambiguous laws, the same way as a 17 year old snogging a 15 year old is a criminal offense technically (but with police guidance not to arrest).

    It might also be the case that it comes in like all these 'anti-terrorism' laws which are then used to kettle and/or intern political protesters.

    The question is, do you trust the Government or the Police to not abuse their power?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They tried it in Australia and apparently they had to back down because it wasn't technically possible.

    It wasn't that it wasn't technically possible- it is- it was that Wikileaks kept publishing the blacklist as soon as the Australian government could update it. And the blacklist was very embarrassing for the government. It didn't just block websites which contained images of child sex abuse, it also included most of the major online gambling websites, a pornography website operating legitimately out of Melbourne, a huge swathe of gay porn websites, much of the wikipedia website thanks to the Scorpions album "virgin killer", all of wikileaks, a Danish newspaper website after they printed excerpts of the blacklist and- most embarrassingly for a Government in conservative Australia- various pro-life/anti-abortion websites. Because wikileaks- rightly- published the links it became, very quickly, as basically a checklist for anyone who DID want to find images of child abuse (or, indeed, really good gay porn and a bookmaker's).

    There is evidence that a blacklist in the UK would be similarly retarded. Indeed thesite.org was blocked for a substantial time by the Sky wifi company TheCloud as "pornography". Given that many of the blacklists are operated by Huawei, who built the Great Firewall of China, it's not a massive leap of faith to question what else the Government are wanting to blacklist.

    The most irritating thing about it is that it won't work. Most people who want to look at images of child sex abuse are intelligent enough to know that Google is not secure and that if they're caught downloading it they'll get a nice long spell in prison. Most images of child sex abuse are now swapped on Tor (or similar) because of the fact that most child abusers don't really want their home videos to be found through Google.

    BDSM pornography is already of dubious legality thanks to Harriet Harperson- "violent images which may injure" are unlawful, even if all the participants fully consented to the acts taking place. It's lawful to be fisted, as an example, but not lawful to have photos of it on your computer. And this was all because some woman was strangled to death by an abusive ex, as though no woman was ever strangled to death before the internet. Now it's being extended to rape because- as well all know- no woman was ever raped before 1991 (and not just because that's when the UK deemed it necessary to confirm that raping your wife is still rape).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To play devils advocate they have done studied which showed a link between certain men (lets call them type A for 'could be violent' and type B for 'not violent') - so type A men if they view violent pornography are more likely to feel like being violent themselves. They get 'fired up' if you will. Type B men who could enjoy BDSM and all that, but would not be sexually violent because of watching it, well that's just tough luck.

    It makes it a bit of a murky picture though because there is a problem there but it's not black and white 'this will automatically make people rape people'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The thing that gets me about this, is that it isn't just pornography they want to block, the current list is which is based on indications from ISP's are.

    pornography
    violent material
    extremist and terrorist related content
    anorexia and eating disorder websites
    suicide related websites
    alcohol
    smoking
    web forums
    esoteric material
    web blocking circumvention tools

    I mean even if thesite.org didn't get hit by the pornography block the web forums block would nail it and then probably suicide related websites, I mean this is out of control, I mean sure, implement this policy but make it opt in rather than "default on"

    I've always been understanding of our levels of freedom in this country, I accept that whilst we believe we're a free people we do give up limits of our freedom to protect ourselves and society and I am all for this. if we were truly free it would be total anarchy, however the government are stepping to far. Whilst we need to give up certain levels of freedom in our laws, ie policing and military we should not be giving up on freedom to learn, freedom to read what content we want. Sure I agree with blocking illegal material but nothing on that list is illegal. If I wanted to read about extremist content I should be able to, It doesn't make me an extremist it makes me someone who reads. web forums, we all use them, hell I met my wife on one of them.

    I've never been one to get involved with the government and what they do but I can only see it going down a long spiral and heading towards a totalitarian invasive super state

    Why should government be able to choose what material we can or can not read. whether or not we can "opt out" of it, why should we have to, the government should force up to opt in to it.

    This is no longer an issue on just pornography, this is a issue on freedom, freedom to view what we please, read what we like and to access the full range of information available. the internet was not designed to be under the control of the government or any one power.

    It's a long rant I know but it seems today but we're heading towards a breakdown, soon the positives of the security the government offer will not be out weighted by our loss of personal freedom. I am not saying down with the government but clearly this is a hair brained idea and if they think it is suitable and can work, what's next.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    It makes it a bit of a murky picture though because there is a problem there but it's not black and white 'this will automatically make people rape people'.

    There's an argument that repeated access to violent images, or images of child sex abuse, normalises things which are extreme. I can empathise with that argument but with much of the so-called "rape porn" it's a matter of taste. What to one person is violent rape porn is a good old BDSM romp to another person. Much of the content of a certain Californian website will probably be blocked under any new law, even though it focuses more on consent than many "vanilla" sites.

    But, generally speaking, if you're watching a video of a child being raped it is because you wanted to be watching a video of a child being raped. Images of child sex abuse have been around as long as images have and the basic principle hasn't really changed much. Child sex abuse images are as "under the counter" online now as much as they ever were in the 60s and 70s when the Danish were selling videos and magazines of them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    To play devils advocate they have done studied which showed a link between certain men (lets call them type A for 'could be violent' and type B for 'not violent') - so type A men if they view violent pornography are more likely to feel like being violent themselves. They get 'fired up' if you will. Type B men who could enjoy BDSM and all that, but would not be sexually violent because of watching it, well that's just tough luck.
    Have you got a link to that study? Because that claim sounds dubious. It's one thing to link people who are violent to violent pornography (Who would've thunk it? Next you'll be telling me people who watch gay porn are more likely to fuck members of the same sex). It's quite another to claim a causative link and demonstrate that it actually results in an increase in likelihood of violent behaviour.

    It's worth pointing out, incidentally, that it's not only men who have rape fantasies.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I have made my views about this very clear, here:
    Why support for young people is at risk.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There are some fairly reputed studies on the effect but I'm at work at the moment. Though I had a really quick look and it seems the current consensus is that they've been discredited :-D

    E.g. The effect may occur in lab settings but there is limited to no evidence it occurs outside of a lab.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What I suspect is that they're in the same vein as studies that link videogames to violence. What typically happens is that they measure the released of certain chemicals during and a short time after gameplay and these chemicals also happen to be present during violent behaviour. And the conclusion (usually of untrained newspaper journalists, not the scientists themselves, it has to be said) is that videogames cause people to be violent. The effects are short-term though and AFAIK, there's no evidence of a long-term increase in violent behaviour or even production of the chemicals linked to violent behaviour.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The first thing to say is that I agree with Glenn Quagmire that if objectification is a problem, it's a problem across genders, and should be considered accordingly.

    I think that to categorise Nuts as "soft porn" is reasonable. If the same case can be made for other magazines, retails should respond accordingly.

    The key thing is though that (like P3) I think the retailers and publishers should take responsibility without the need for legislation.

    There may be no link directly to sexual violence but the culture that objectifies women (and men, but it seems to be more pronounced against women) is deeply entrenched and the idea that it's ok to comment on Mary Beard's vagina publicly or tell Stella Creasy you're going to rape her is enmeshed within it. This wouldn't stop overnight if the magazines were regulated, but over time I think it would help.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b037j88g/News_Quiz_Extra_Series_8_Episode_5/

    from 14:45 for shits and giggles :) Sandi's final comment :D :thumb:
Sign In or Register to comment.