The_Squid Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 Eliminating free porn on the Internet would be about as difficult as removing streaming sites that broadcast licensed sports or premium cable. They are not eliminating anything. Why is that so hard to understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 The_Squid, on 25 Jul 2013 - 1:37 PM, said: No, this would live with the ISP. This wouldn't be a government database. Does the gov't have a TV porn database? This is paranoid craziness. You won't need to ask for every website. It can be done once when you sign up. Do you know what 'metadata' is ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 Do you know what 'metadata' is ?? OK... so they have this now... If they are collecting your metadata, then they already know which websites you are surfing without you ever having to sign up for anything. What would be different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 The MP was on the news at noon and what she wants is the filter on the ISP so when a child clicks on the mouse, a porn pop-up won't pop-up. I see many of the websites like MSN, Yahoo, etc. have advertising of Chinese girls with enlarge breast on game websites, were kids can go and play games, it shouldn't be allowed on websites as these. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 Comparing this to China is idiotic. No one is censoring anything... you will still be able to find your man on goat porn just like always... In Canada, possessing or distributing beastiality pornography is illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 They are not eliminating anything. Why is that so hard to understand? Effectively they are until you opt in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 In Canada, possessing or distributing beastiality pornography is illegal. Only possession of child porn is illegal in Canada. A variety of things are obscene for distribution, including, I believe, BDSM, whether consensual or not. Which makes me wonder how all those bookstores can sell 50 Shades of Gray and similar crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 In Canada, possessing or distributing beastiality pornography is illegal. Then my tongue-in-cheek example was a poor one. Effectively they are until you opt in. No. They have not eliminated anything. No one has erased pornography from the internet... it is still all there. You just have to let your ISP (not the gov't) know that you would like this content open to viewing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 This is a really bad idea, and based on a really scary way of thinking. The government shouldnt even be involved with regulating legal content on the internet. They shouldnt even be talking about it. There IS some demand for services that filter out this type of content, and theres a whole host of solutions available for people that want it. The government should keep their hands of the internet completely, that goes for censorship AND surveillance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 Like any prohibition...it'll just go underground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 Like any prohibition...it'll just go underground. What prohibition and how will "it" go underground? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 Unless the British government is going to Nanny State about a billion blogs, there's going to be little way to block pornography. Sure, you can block Playboy.com...but that's not going to stop folks from reposting files all over the place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 26, 2013 Report Share Posted July 26, 2013 Then my tongue-in-cheek example was a poor one. No. They have not eliminated anything. No one has erased pornography from the internet... it is still all there. You just have to let your ISP (not the gov't) know that you would like this content open to viewing. Its still a bad idea, and if people want to keep their kids off of porn sites they already can. You can buy a pretty comprehensive porn blocker for about 50 bucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted July 26, 2013 Report Share Posted July 26, 2013 (edited) What prohibition and how will "it" go underground?Let's say you don't feel like telling your IP you like porn. You can get a proxy IP or, and I'm sure this will happen, you'll get sites that doesn't label itself as a porn site so it can't be blocked. Filters only really block big sites anyway. Edited July 26, 2013 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted July 26, 2013 Report Share Posted July 26, 2013 Also there wouldn't be a way to block bit torrents from distribution of porn. They already distribute pirated content. Clearly it's difficult enough to stop piracy how hard would it be to censor porn? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiddleClassCentrist Posted July 26, 2013 Report Share Posted July 26, 2013 (edited) MiddleClassCentrist If only I can opt out of all forms of advertising on the Internet, then I would support this blocking of porn. Cable TV it is easier to block, but when it comes to the net, very difficult as there are many ways around the blocks with very little work. Using a proxy, spoofing an IP out of country ect. I agree with the Disney bit .... You can block most of them using AdBlock but, some still get through. I stopped subscribing to cable TV because I didn't want my children's minds being formed by commercial ads telling them what they need to want and what they need to be like. We subscribe to Netflix and it's great for this reason. There are no commercials and choosing a higher learning value show is instant, rather than just watching what is on. Edited July 26, 2013 by MiddleClassCentrist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiddleClassCentrist Posted July 26, 2013 Report Share Posted July 26, 2013 The cable comparison isn't Apples to Apples. In subscribing to get TMN/HBO so I can watch Game of Thrones or Dexter I get hardcore port past midnight thrown in. There are plenty of subscription services for Internet porn but like with anything Internet related people want it for free. Eliminating free porn on the Internet would be about as difficult as removing streaming sites that broadcast licensed sports or premium cable. Well, HBO shows adult oriented/mature content shows. You can still request that the porn channels be blocked. What if they reversed it to a voluntary "opt-in" to the porn block? Cable is heavily regulated and not just anyone can broadcast a signal. It's mostly full of corporate messaging. I truly feel that our corporate "overlords" are scared that the internet is so open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted July 26, 2013 Report Share Posted July 26, 2013 Well, HBO shows adult oriented/mature content shows. You can still request that the porn channels be blocked. What if they reversed it to a voluntary "opt-in" to the porn block? Cable is heavily regulated and not just anyone can broadcast a signal. It's mostly full of corporate messaging. I truly feel that our corporate "overlords" are scared that the internet is so open. Yeah because people steal all their stuff. And. Not everything on TMN/HBO is mature. The channel that shows the porn shows normal stuff during the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiddleClassCentrist Posted July 26, 2013 Report Share Posted July 26, 2013 (edited) What prohibition and how will "it" go underground? Tor browser to access the "Deep Web" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Web It's where all the paedophiles and illicit substance buyers went when their IRC, and other methods of contact became too mainstream and easily compromised. As a techy, I was curious about and read up on this stuff. Found out that there isn't much on Tor and .Onion deep web for people without souls. Decided to stay away. Maybe it has changed since a few years ago. If governments started cracking down on internet use, Tor/DeepWeb would get more content for human use. Edited July 26, 2013 by MiddleClassCentrist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 26, 2013 Report Share Posted July 26, 2013 Yes, not every porn site will be able to be blocked and people can get around the blocks probably (why not just opt in?)... But those are not good reasons against this opt in option. So nothing is prohibited and nothing is censored.... And the reason to oppose this plan is because it is not perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 26, 2013 Report Share Posted July 26, 2013 Its still a bad idea, and if people want to keep their kids off of porn sites they already can. You can buy a pretty comprehensive porn blocker for about 50 bucks. The easier way to do it would be to set your browser up so that only approved sites can be accessed. Instead of blocking the stuff you don't want the kid to see, set it up so that they only can get to a few selected sites. But as always, parents need to be parents here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 26, 2013 Report Share Posted July 26, 2013 Yes, not every porn site will be able to be blocked and people can get around the blocks probably (why not just opt in?)... But those are not good reasons against this opt in option. So nothing is prohibited and nothing is censored.... And the reason to oppose this plan is because it is not perfect. No the reason is because it is not necessary, and the government should not be involved in blocking legal content at all. IF theres demand for this that ISP's can voluntarily offer it as a service, but as I said theres already a host of options out there for consumers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted July 26, 2013 Report Share Posted July 26, 2013 This is a really bad idea, and based on a really scary way of thinking. The government shouldnt even be involved with regulating legal content on the internet. They shouldnt even be talking about it. There IS some demand for services that filter out this type of content, and theres a whole host of solutions available for people that want it. The government should keep their hands of the internet completely, that goes for censorship AND surveillance. Its still a bad idea, and if people want to keep their kids off of porn sites they already can. You can buy a pretty comprehensive porn blocker for about 50 bucks. The easier way to do it would be to set your browser up so that only approved sites can be accessed. Instead of blocking the stuff you don't want the kid to see, set it up so that they only can get to a few selected sites. But as always, parents need to be parents here. Yes, there is a slippery slope to government regulation/censorship limiting free speech, etc... and as a guideline it should be avoided, but this does not mean we should not do it at all. For example, are you in favour of: - the ban on cigarette advertizing, or even having the product visible in stores? - rules against false claims on packaging or false advertizing? - the ban on easily accessible pornography on TV, libraries, newsstands? Regarding children, the state does not need to become parents - but it should help parents! Children should not have access to: - tobacco - alcohol - hard-core pornography - gambling - extreme graphic violence and should have limited/restricted access to: - weapons like knives, sling shots, bb guns - spray paint - mild violence and pornography - too much advertizing In principle, I am in favour of this move. Will it be perfect? No, similar to the current restrictions. But it will be an improvement. Parents cannot be expected to monitor kids 24/7 and need help from the state – for example, without this measure, how would you restrict access to pornography over public Wi-fi? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 26, 2013 Report Share Posted July 26, 2013 (edited) For example, are you in favour of: - the ban on cigarette advertizing, or even having the product visible in stores? - rules against false claims on packaging or false advertizing? - the ban on easily accessible pornography on TV, libraries, newsstands? What makes the internet great IMO is that is a more free and unregulated medium that TV, or stores. And once again parents can already opt out of this content. Theres common sense private sector solutions to this problem. How about government actualliy fix some of the real problems we face instead of fixing stuff that isnt broken? Parents cannot be expected to monitor kids 24/7 Parents that want to can already opt out of this content. And if ISPs want to market this as a service that parents can voluntarily subscribe to then they are free to do so. Furthermore this hangup about sex is silly. Children will see thousands of depictions of crimes like murder and assault by the time they are 10 years old... and you want the government to worry about them seeing boobies? If you want to block this content... then go and do it. Like I said theres hundreds of products available for this already. Parents dont have to "watch kids 24/7". They need to spend about 40 bucks. Regarding children, the state does not need to become parents - but it should help parents! If you want to help parents, then you would be talking about having them call and "opt in". Not changing the service level for millions of households that dont even have kids in them, and have existing legal contracts with their ISP's. But never mind the "watching their kids 24/7" fallacy... Now they cant even make a simple phonecall to subscribe to a blocker service? Great parents. Just forget about it. Edited July 26, 2013 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted July 26, 2013 Report Share Posted July 26, 2013 What makes the internet great IMO is that is a more free and unregulated medium that TV, or stores. And it always will be. These proposals do nothing to change that. If it is correct to restrict pornography on TV and in stores then it is a good idea in principle to restrict it on the internet. How about government actualliy fix some of the real problems we face instead of fixing stuff that isnt broken? This statement can go both ways, how about implement the changes and move on to other problems? So you have to call your ISP to "opt-in", what's the problem? And once again parents can already opt out of this content. Theres common sense private sector solutions to this problem. Parents that want to can already opt out of this content. And if ISPs want to market this as a service that parents can voluntarily subscribe to then they are free to do so. Furthermore this hangup about sex is silly. Children will see thousands of depictions of crimes like murder and assault by the time they are 10 years old... and you want the government to worry about them seeing boobies? If you want to block this content... then go and do it. Like I said theres hundreds of products available for this already. Parents dont have to "watch kids 24/7". They need to spend about 40 bucks. Yes, you can block at home. OK, how about public Wi-fi, perhaps I am wrong but there is no way to stop someone from using a tablet to view porn? How about on kid in a group that has easy access and sharing downloaded porn with peers? How about downloading "cracks" and bypasses for the content filters? I am not hung-up on boobies. If anything, perhaps we should give easier access of erotica/boobies to teenagers. It is 9-17 year olds viewing people getting ganged up on, humiliated, tortured and abused. Don't you see this as a problem? I also think that excessive violence and advertizing to kids is a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.