Slashdot Mirror
Peer Pressure Porn Filter
Highwayman writes "Wired magazine presents one man's approach to stopping online pr0n 'Instead of relying on filters, the approach, which NetAccountability has been pitching primarily to religious groups, calls for Web users to share records of their online activity. Users pick a friend, spouse or other confidant who receives a regular report showing which sites they visit, highlighting potentially objectionable material.'"
why would someone willingly subject themselves to this? I mean, we're all human, we all have urges, and if any of us have gone out and looked at pr0n somewhere, how does that make us a bad person?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I was just about to post this same thought, and I noticed you beat me to it. There is a huge difference between people who are trying to monitor and clean up their own online surfing habits (for whatever reasons) and what the headline and story description said.
This is just a way for people to keep them accountable in a way described in the Bible. Of course, knowing Slashdot, this will be made fun of to no end. People attempting to live their lives according to an external and somewhat objective standard is just so medieval.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
some people view porn as an addiction like alcohol or smoking. They WANT to stop, but they don't have the self control. Think of it as an AA for porn. No one's asking you to participate, so let them do their thing.
And about the decision personal or religious not to look at porn... a lot of people's wives arent' too fond of their husbands looking at the stuff.
Inconceivable!
Well, think about addictions. There are plenty of people who want to kick addictions to drugs, alcohol, food, hell most anything really. They want to quit, but their willpower is weak. So they turn themselves into rehab, sign up for Weight Watchers (where you weigh in as a group once a week), that sort of thing. I mean there are honestly people out there, and I'm one of them, who really try to get away from online pr0n but find the addiction too seductive sometimes to resist. It's the nature of addiction and temptation; it wouldn't be addictive and tempting if you didn't enjoy it. It's easy to enjoy things that you know are wrong.. the hard bit is stopping. This is legitimate help for some people.
This guy comes up with a system that imposes nothing on others. It is a tool for people who decide that they would like to use. But it gets slammed by so many here because so many slashdotters are not about freedom. They are about freedom that they agree with.
It is not invasion of privacy if you install it on purpose.
It is not religious judgement of others if people use tools that monitor their own activity.
This is an example of someone having an idea that ought to be welcome here. Rather than removing choices or limiting activity- people are given new choices to use if they so wish.
Those of you who think pornography cannot be destructive are unaware of the fact that it can ruin some peoples lives. If they want help with that- what is the harm?
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
I'd have to disagree. I see this 'accountability' in the same viewpoint as a support group for any addictive or undesirable behaviour that one wants to stay clear of but has a problem doing so due to addictive behaviour patterns. It could be gambling, alcohol, smoking, or even someone who has an history of RPG addiction.
I don't see belonging to peer-accountibility group as the article mentions as calling for a defacto label of 'unhealthy'. In fact I'd call it the opposite. Someone who sees a behaviour they deem as self-negative and takes steps to correct/modify that behaviour without imposing their own standard on the rest of society is probably more healthy (IMHO) than many of the rest of us.
This is a sad day for me, as a fan of slashdot. The comments here belittle one man's attempt to improve himself. His actions are to be commended, if anything.
I myself meet on a regular basis with other men who share a similar code-of-ethics - we hold each other accountable, voluntarily, as a check on our own behavior. In case no one's noticed, we human's don't do so well with the self control thing. The internet can consume much of our time, and I'm somewhat relieved to see others making an effort to cognatively assess and control the impact it has on their lives.
Feel free to lament the things which bind you (hey, I don't like MS either...), but some of you really need to figure out what - if anything - you stand for. I would expect this crowd to at least be capable of supporting an individual's right to overcome adversity they face.
By the way...accountability works. Yes, it's hard to admit to shameful things. And it's harder still to recognize (and admit to) repeating patterns of destructive behavior in one's life. There are a lot of worthwhile things that are hard.
Your monitor is staring at you.
This could be a great opportunity for understanding and discussion. Istead, the slashdot community has latched on to the combined theme of religion and pornography and has used the opportunity to heap derision and ridicule on a group of people simply because they think differently.
It seems rather hypocritical to demand tolerance for your own personal views and then in turn refuse to tolerate views other than your own.
Now for an actual comment on the story: I would say this idea boils down to obtaining self-control by making all of your private actions public. I think such an approach can be viewed as only a means to an end, because as a final solution it is fundamentally flawed. This is because true self-control is the thing that is manifested when nobody else is looking. True self-control must ultimately come from within.
I agree! Just ask the Catholic Church, the multitudes of Protestant denominations, Branch Dividians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Rastafarians, KKK, gay Christians, Charismatics, etc.
:)
What a standard
in nearly all areas, the Bible is quite clear. Like it or not, the Bible provides an excellent moral standard.
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When people try to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them:
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9).The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev.15:19-24).The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev.25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev.11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev.11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread cotton/polyester blend. He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev.24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
To be fair, the original poster quoted a verse from Matthew, which is in the "new testament". Your copy of "Dear Dr. Laura" refers only to "old testament" verses. Even I know that the rules in the OT don't apply in the NT age, in fact, that's part of why "Dear Dr. Laura" was written.
Now, to present my side of this argument: Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, was using a number of rhetorical devices which when taken in the context of the whole speech clearly indicate, not a rigid hierarchy of right and wrong, but that what is important for humans is that they simply trust in God. Sadly, some of those statements, when deprived of both context and the nuance of delivery, appear to be some new set of even stricter rules-- the very thing Jesus was arguing against!!
I do not have a signature
There are actually people who want to STOP looking at pr0n, but the temptation and availability and ease of covering your tracks is too much for them to handle. So this is an ideal solution for those people.
It happens quite often really. I would pay for it. Now granted, most people that I know that would use such a service volentarily are christians who struggle with pr0n (such as myself).
Never argue with an idiot. They will just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
the problem with this is that other people i.e your wife will ask you to install this software.. or parents will force their kids to use this software
If you are a legal adult then you don't have to comply.
If your wife wants you to install it, then the real question is why? Is there some agreement that you will never look at pr0n? If you agree, then you should respect your agreement. Or be clear that you no longer intend to keep this agreement to be pr0n free.
If your parents want you to install it, and you are a legal adult, then frankly, it is none of their business.
If you are not a legal adult, then what are the parent's motivations? To keep you pr0n free? Good luck. This may come as a shock to the parents, but once a guy is in his mid teens, he is naturally interested in sex. Are the parents trying to suppress this? Or out of touch with the fact of it? The realistic parents would probably feel about pr0n much like they would about masturbation. Do it in your own room please. Don't have your very own computer? Then do it when nobody else is home.
If the parents really think they are entitled to control how you think then there are deeper problems, and this request for monitored surfing is just a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. (Assuming a near-adult, not a child.) In this case, you may just be stuck with unreasonable behavior motivated by good intentions until you are an adult.
As for females, I simply don't know. I'm not one. And I make a point to stay away from them. Still, some of the above thinking might still apply. It is possible that some females, for some reason might take an interest in sex. Should they be able to masturbate privately? (If they do so at all? I'm not female and can't speak with any experience.) If masturbation is okay, then should they be able to view pr0n privately? Once they are in the real world, they can do what they wish. They should not be so sheltered from real life that they can't cope.
On a slightly different subject, yes you can find things on the internet that are shocking, disturbing, etc. Of course, to a limited extend, this is true of TV as well. (Violence, etc. until you get de-sensitized to it) So should people be "protected" from seeing the web's content? Surely with the click of the mouse, even a teenager has the necessary power to dismiss and not see sick #$*@ that they don't want to see.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Religion is a much bigger threat to women than porn ever could be, on many, many levels.
Are you suggesting that those rapists must have been punished for religious reasons, since all atheists condone pornography?
Or are you suggesting that people who believe in certain moral guidelines are more likely to violate those guidelines than people who don't believe in them? Can someone explain how that makes sense?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I think he is saying that to teach someone that a natural expression of their desires is wrong might cause behavioral/psychological problems later.
On a side note, the first time I remember masturbation being mentioned was at a bible study, where we were taught that God disapproved of the practice. The idea had never entered my head before then (I was probably aged about 9 or 10).