Jump to content

UK Censorship Will Filter Porn and Other "Inappropriate Websites"

Βyakuya

By Βyakuya
in General

Recommended Posts

Βyakuya Newbie

Βyakuya

Posted
Posted

http://torrentfreak.com/uk-porn-filter-will-censor-other-content-too-isps-reveal-130726/

 

Looks like humans took another step into the censorship controversy. Originally this filter would preent pornography involving rape worship, but it was inevitable t\it would come to this too. Seeing that a number of people here are Britons, what's your reaction to these "For the Children" politicians?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aerion Brightflame Newbie

Aerion Brightflame

Posted
Posted

This is annoying.

 

I don't so much care for the intention of blocking porn, but the rest of it is annoying... It's a step to far. I mean, really this won't stop young people from being exposed to it, I mean TV isn't exactly awash with decency, but...

 

It's a step forward partially in both the right and wrong direction at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hexcalibrate Newbie

hexcalibrate

Posted
Posted

I think this sums up all British politicians and their thought process

[Spoiler=]

xmts.jpg

for anyone who is unsure, that is British prime minister David Cameron stood in front of a clothing chain store Peacock's

[/spoiler]

 

this won't work this will in no stop paedophiles which was is its original purpose, if anything Britain has slight appreciation for snowmen, we have a animated tv special that we play every Christmas about a adult snowman abducting a small child. the filter will anything back-fire, in order to calm down the perverts at the moment they picture to satisfy their depravity, but they that what then? instead they will have no choice but "act upon" their urges and child kidnapping will just go up.

 

I reckon

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hunter. Newbie

Hunter.

Posted
Posted

The entirety of the British government seems to ride on popularity it gains from censoring the populace of its country under the guise of protecting the children, because if they don't see these sites then they won't go on to commit offences, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cin Newbie

Cin

Posted
Posted

I don't get how they would enforce the 'if it depicts Rape' part.

I like that a chinese company will control (or potential)/filter our internet traffic.

People who will want access will get access, along with any children. They forget about how knowledgeable children are nowadays. People all the time get round the blocks for Piratebay and similar sites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dark Newbie

Dark

Posted
Posted

Perhaps I don't know enough about this case to make an informed remark, but I'm a bit confused as to how exactly one opts out of the filters - does one have to contact his/her ISP - or, like in this article, is it just unticking a box when someone sets up a new internet connection? In the former case, there are concerns about lists, public or private, being kept of who contacts the ISP to opt out of pornography, terrorist-related material, et cetera, and I can understand people being up in arms about the fact that with all of our conversations being more or less monitored these days, people would feel very uncomfortable trying to opt out of these filters. The latter case seems much more agreeable since, while it's still possible to collect data on who unticks the boxes, I highly doubt this would come to hurt anyone in the future.

In either case, I think most people disagree with the fact that the default position for these filters is "on," and it makes much more sense for people to opt in to these filters. I agree a million percent with filters - I think we do need to protect our children from certain content, and I think it's the child's parents who ultimately decide whether or not pornography, violence, and other things are concepts that they want their child to be introduced to at a young age. But to assume that everyone wants to "protect" the children is a bold move on the part of Britain's government. It's also bold of them to have the filter ban things which might actually help children. The last thing an anorexic teenager needs is not being able to search "anorexia" on Google and read about it.

What makes me really laugh, however, is "esoteric material." It's clever for them to use these broad, umbrella terms for things they are allowed to ban so in the future, if they want to ban an anti-government organization that is planning a peaceful rally against the British government, they can ban it because it's too "esoteric" for their tastes. Hilarious.

But in terms of people being affected, no one will actually be affected. People are smart enough to get around this filter (although I'm sure some proxies will be blocked with "web blocking circumvention tools," but we can get around that), and if it's as simple as unticking a box, if you really want your pornography that badly, you can click a button. The issue isn't the amount of effort it takes to circumvent the filter, but rather the ethics of it. I just think, as a policy decision, this was pretty poorly-done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...