Slashdot Mirror
UK ISP Adult Filters Block Sex Education Websites Allows Access To Porn
toshikodo writes "The BBC is reporting that Internet content filters being rolled out by major ISPs in the UK are failing to allow access to acceptable content, such as sex education and sexual abuse advise sites, while also still allowing access to porn. According to the article, 'TalkTalk's filter is endorsed by Mr Cameron but it failed to block 7% of the 68 pornographic websites tested by Newsnight.' The ISPs claim that it is impossible for their filters to be 100% accurate, and that they are working with their users to improve quality. I wonder how long it will be before one of these filters blocks access to the Conservative Party's website, and what will Cameron do then?"
... we all know that the filtering is done, how to put it, to solve an interest conflict.
And people should work, not amuse themselfes in pubs, at home or anywhere else.
Maybe the prices for tabaco and alc. are a little bit more adjustable too!
Can't say I'm surprised by this.
We let kids play ultra violent war simulation for hours and hours, but god forbid they get a glimpse of love and biology. Something is seriously wrong with this picture Mr Cameron, aside from applying technology to shape what is a social matter (mainly fear of educating properly our children).
Tomorrow is another day...
The ISPs claim that it is impossible for their filters to be 100% accurate
Nobody's asking for it to be 100% accurate, but there's a huge difference between 100% and just 93% accurate.
Considering this is automated restriction of speech, you'd better make damn sure you're atleast in the 99.99% range of accuracy.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
It could go down either for porn or "hate speech", which Cameron is wasting no time adding to the filters. The lulz will be heavy then.
no, actually I don't. In fact I love it. I told you so, I told you so, I told you so ...
-- Make America hate again!
ISPs claim that [...] they are working with their users to improve quality.
One question: how can the users know about a blocked sexual education site in order to request unblocking it?
Disappear? Nah, I know that's just wishful thinking.
So I'm on BT, and like most people I've replaced the terrible "home hub" with a simple 4 router solution, 5G backbone to distribute wired around the house, single 2.4G AP for non-wired devices, OSPF to manage it all.
It's connected upstream to the VDSL via a pppoe (username bthomehub@btbroadband.com, no password), and the central DNS proxy uses either 4.2.2.2 or 8.8.8.8 upstream.
I've spent the morning scientifically browsing lots of porn sites, and haven't found a single one blocked. A google search for "porn" reveals the following sites on the first attempt, all work just fine.
http://www.pornhub.com/
http://www.youporn.com/
http://www.redtube.com/
http://www.porn.com/
http://www.xnxx.com/
http://www.perfectgirls.net/
The search also brings up the following site
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
Which is blocked as being morally unwelcome in my house.
What am I doing wrong?
...that there's a country even more batshit crazy than us here in the USA!
It's nothing to do with porn and we all know it.
Did you notice that filter also blocks "extreme political content"?
Who decides what's too extreme?
They're going to ask everyone over the next year to choose filtering or no filtering, how long do you think it'll be until it's presumed consent unless you specifically ask for no filtering? How long after that anyone who wants no filtering is subject to extra GCHQ monitoring as they're considered subversive?
Can someone please stop the country? I want to get off -.-
"but it failed to block 7% of the 68 pornographic websites tested" that's 4.76 websites it failed to block (?)
Love is a beautiful thing. Porn however is not love. The people don't love each other (exception is home made amateur porn) and it's not biological either (no offspring produced when the man blows his "money shot" in the woman's face)
Porn is not natural. It ruins the beauty of love and sex by desensitizing people to it. The less children exposed to this smut the better for society.
The first world is overpopulated, so instead of being educated about sex, kids are encouraged to watch porn and wank themselves to death. This is all part of the plan to punish white people for keeping the brown people down. Soon the guilty white folk will be extinct and brown will inherit the earth.
Ultra violent war simulation is training for military service. Obey the Man, man!
Who determines what political sites are extreme?
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
Parents MUST be the only ones who teach their children about love and sex. Otherwise, the entire foundation of civilization will go under. And for those parents who don't teach their children about these subjects, they obviously know their children well enough to know that they should not engage in further damaging the gene pool.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Something is seriously wrong with this picture ... (mainly fear of educating properly our children).
The more uneducated, the more easily manipulated.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
We let kids play ultra violent war simulation for hours and hours, but god forbid they get a glimpse of love and biology. Something is seriously wrong with this picture
Yes. Something is indeed very wrong with that picture.
Do you have any proof that something is wrong with letting kids play ultra violent war simulation for hours and hours? If you simply decided that it is wrong, intuitively, you're making assumptions exactly as those who say porn is bad.
Without proof, it would be just as logical to say "We let kids drink water over and over again, but god forbid they get a glimpse of love and biology".
I don't know if you've seen any porn lately, but it has nothing to do with love (I'll grant you biology). Though I disagree with the UK and with censorship at large, I'm beginning to really hate this "boohoo violence is okay but love is taboo" whining. Besides, when videogames come up again after some high-school shooting, we're all up-ins too.
Sex for the purpose of pleasure is part of our biology. However, I believe the concern is that sex education is biology.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
We let kids play ultra violent war simulation for hours and hours, but god forbid they get a glimpse of love and biology.
It isn't so obviously wrong. Most kids will never commit any significant act of violence, but most will have sex. If they get a warped view of violence, it won't really affect their lives. If they get a warped view of sex (and nearly all porn is a production, not real sex) then that could screw up their ability to have sexual intimacy for the rest of their lives.
I doubt that's how the censors see it, but a broken clock is still right twice a day.
I was staying at a resort in Utah a couple months back and they had a filter on the internet connection. My favorite web comic was considered profane. Another one had one panel blocked because it had "gay" in the image file name. (They were introducing a new, gay character.) Foobies was obviously blocked. But I could GIS page after page of triple X action. Of course, the filter blocked all kinds of non-pornographic material. Got around it by using a VPN to a system that didn't filter my requests.
Cameron will organize The Nude Conservative Calendar for Awareness of Blocked Conservative Websites. It will smash pumpkins and spill some perfectly good warm stout.
"When in doubt, bring 'it's for the children!!' out."
You Brits are not free.
I'm not surprised they can't get filters right, they can't get anything right. I joined TalkTalk in December last year as the price is attractive. They are the worst ISP I have ever had the misfortune to sign up with. Go-Live dates that came and went, with no connection. Engineer visits. Incorrect billing. Horrible network congestion rendering internet use nigh on impossible during peak times. The list is endless with my woes. My 12 month contract is up in a few days and I will never re-sign with this company.
There is a reason this company has been listed as the worst ISP in the UK as defined by complaints to Ofcom (UK ombudsman) http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2013/09/27/latest-telecoms-and-pay-tv-complaints-figures-3/
Well, as the summary said, they're still getting access to Porn. They're still getting an education, it just may not be.... healthy? For them, or their (potential) partner(s).
As we are getting more like Iran & China in our internet censorship more and more we will turn to VPN, and the harder and harder it will take the likes of GCHQ to read our internet words.
Most kids will never commit any significant act of violence, but most will have sex.
Regardless of whether or not they watch porn. Furthermore, I highly, highly doubt that most people (even kids) aren't capable of distinguishing between reality and porn. But even if someone isn't capable of doing that, a five second talk would likely suffice; censorship will never be an acceptable solution to me.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
This is, supposedly, what this is all about. So why not ban the ones that really cause damage: violent sites (people shooting people, stories about murder), religious sites (think of the guilt complex that many catholics have, islamic fundamentalist sites, ...), facebook (nuff said), ... ?
We will never agree on what causes damage, the current list has more to do with the daily mail tory electorate than any rational sense.
Indeed he won't care, because he hasn't done this to 'protect children' or any similar thing. It's about political positioning: it's purpose is to present a certain image of the Conservative party - we're this sort of people - to a particular segment of voters who they hope will vote for them. (It wouldn't surprise me if this includes wives wondering what their husbands are doing as much as parents). It also helps distinguish themselves from their coalition partners who are the most pro-civil liberties of the mainstream parties, and who may be seen by some as saying 'we oppose protecting children'.
A huge amount of government policy and law is symbolic. Like the rest, you will notice that it doesn't have to actually work in order to achieve these goals.
"I wonder how long it will be before one of these filters blocks access to the Conservative Party's website, and what will Cameron do then?"
Duh. The long term goal is to white list the ruler's web site and black list everything else. Read up on the principles of newspeak.
It's blocking sex ed., yet failing to block some porn sites. The abuse part is probably referencing " Doncaster Domestic Abuse Helpline" and "Edinburgh Women's Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre", I would assume.
Without proof, it would be just as logical to say "We let kids drink water over and over again, but god forbid they get a glimpse of love and biology".
MO-MO-MO-MONSTER-SIP!!
"we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
Those blocks are just being true to conservative roots. Can't have people have access to those sites helping with abuse, it might ruin the image of idyllic happy families!
The more uneducated, the more easily manipulated.
yeah, some subversive website for the higher educated might be next on the filtering block.. and Slashdot might be it.
If you had only read TFS you'd realise the filter doesn't filter porn well. It does however filter out the biology part of it (sex ed websites).
It *already is* presumed consent. When you opt out I hope you enjoy being on Camerons naughty-filthy-dog-buggering-and-political-extremism-terrorist list.
Encryption. Lots of it. It's almost the only way to be sure :-/
for those parents who don't teach their children about these subjects, they obviously know their children well enough to know that they should not engage in further damaging the gene pool.
Unfortunately, the less kids know about sex, the more likely they are to spread their genes in an undesired and uncontrolled way. That's why sex education is so important and shouldn't be left to parents.
Let them wank off until they elect their health and reproductive capacity enough ..
What the fuck are you saying? Your comment doesn't relate to what the person your replying to said at all.
Someone should sneak a clause banning sex outright into one of these stupid laws.
When a kid can access porn but not say the site of a breast cancer charity that's a problem, yes. But if you work on that angle you're critisicing how internet filtering is implemented when the true problem is the fact THAT it is done at all.
Also, the parents are often parents due to their own lack of sex education.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
I am tired of illiterate morons running society, I sometimes wonder if we would be better off with an actual dictator instead of the establishment that runs it now. At least that would be a more honest arrangement instead of this bottom feeding so called democracy.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
I suspect they are trying to stop the country already, I'm trying to figure out how to catch back up to reality ;p
Well one of the first things a sex ed site will teach you is you need to love someone before you have sex with them... wait, did I regress to the 50s?
I suppose Essex and Wessex are equally blocked...
There are more C**nts on show on the Conservative website than any other porn site. How is this not blocked?
That is the most horrifying thing I've heard anybody say on this subject.
Nobody's free.
eh?
Saying that home made amateur porn is love and the rest ain't is being a tad bit over simplistic. Sex is there for the enjoyment, believe it or not. Seriously think about it from a biological perspective. If sex were a pain in the arse (heh heh heh) then we would not be doing it because it would be too much effort. For example imagine our society relied on the fact we needed to lose weight. We would have mucho less people right now because even obese folks want to have sex. Thus because sex is very enjoyable we try to do it however, or wherever we can. Some more, some less. Don't believe, read over the Bonobo monkey, google "bonobo monkey sex". Its a hoot, and if that ain't an example of nymphomania I don't know what is.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Sex education will happen. No matter whether you want it to or not. You can only decide whether your kids learn about it in the classroom or the school yard.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Has everyone forgot the last time these retards were in power? Like 50% of them died of auto erotic asphyxiation dressed in French lingerie, It was almost weekly that another torry would off himself to extreme masturbation. So perhaps a lack of porn in the uk (for retards who can't work interwebs) might have a silver lining?
What type of logic is this?
UK ISP Adult Filters Block Sex Education Websites Allows Access To Porn
^^^ you just won "the worst title" prize of the month
So right - but so bad for your karma.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
It's every filter ever, all over again!
I don't know if you have seen any porn lately, but more female oriented stuff is quite popular now. It tends to focus on the bond between the performers and barely shows the actual penetration. It's much better than the usual macho bullshit.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Yep. Make harmless things all want and do a taboo. Then profit from it in one way or another (guilt, money, whatever).
I am a traffic shaping expert for an ISP. The vendors all lie. They all claim they can classify anything with magical accuracy. In reality, they classify maybe 80-90% of traffic correctly and it's always a moving target. Anything special that needs to be classified has to be home brewed in house for the traffic shapers to classify the traffic correctly. It will never work. Maybe the UK can pass a law that all computers must be monitored by cameras, then they can 'create jobs' by paying people to watch people use the internet. The funding can come from more taxes, maybe a 1 pound per megahertz per year tax on all electronic devices, which is also never a problem because most people roll over and give away their money, since they don't need so much anyway.
First they came for the pron, to protect the children.
Then they came for the VPN sites, to protect us from the pron.
Then they came for the hacker sites, to protect us from finding out how to access the VPN's.
Then they assumed state control of the internet, which they turned into a local intranet to protect us from the hackers.
And then they began censoring all the sites that criticized the government, because they could.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
We might be if the dictator was a good guy. You're taking a huge risk if he sucks though. At least with the current type of system there is some limit on the risk.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Ignorance doesn't protect anyone, good knowledge does. It is a shame that people can't talk to their kids about stuff they might encounter, and instead turn to government coercion to try to keep the blinders on. This leaves the kids completely unprepared when they inevitably encounter that horrible thing they don't know anything about.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
I sometimes wonder if we would be better off with an actual dictator instead of the establishment that runs it now.
No, we wouldn't be, for four basic reasons:
1. If you get a bad dictator, life really really sucks until the dictator dies. Life sucks a lot less under democracies historically.
2. If you get a good dictator, being dictator for a while will not infrequently turn him into a bad dictator. Once you have absolute power, the temptation to abuse that power is simply too great.
3. Even good dictators can't keep track of *everything*, so any dictator has to rely on subordinates. If any of those subordinates is bad, but good at fooling the dictator (or has dirt on him sufficient to protect the subordinate from the dictator), the regime is almost as bad as if the dictator was bad.
4. Whenever a dictator is out of power, there is not infrequently no clear answer to who will be the next dictator. Frequently, when that's a question, it's been answered by a civil war.
To quote a famous Prime Minister: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
I am officially gone from
I choose both. I'm almost certain the school yard side concentrates on different things, and kinda forgets to address issues concerning things like birth control, "you really should wait until you yourself feel comfortable doing things like that" and "your body, your rules", and birth control. Did I mention birth control yet? Also covering the laws about parenthood and alimony might be skipped on the yard. And birth control. And alimony. And how much you pay if you skip the birth control part. If my kids want to have sex, good for them. If they find someone to do it with, very good for both of them. Just don't please make babies before you are a bit older and have means to raise them.
Have they added plots yet? Or fired the dude who made all the music for all films? Untill that person is gone I refuse to watch anything.
As weird as some porn tends to get, the mainstream stuff is very good educational material. My niece asked her mother, after hearing about what parts go where, "but don't the legs get in the way?" So at some point it is very educational to see a little porn and go "ah, well now it all makes sense."
Who determines what political sites are extreme?
Isn't it any site that criticises the currently elected government?
http://blog.nexusuk.org
"The more uneducated, the more easily manipulated."
This is absolutely not true.
Sounds like the filter would be properly blocking obscene material in that case.
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
"UK ISP Adult Filters Block Sex Education Websites Allows Access To Porn"
I think this wins the award for Most Confusing Slashdot Headline Ever. Without some sort of punctuation, it's a paradoxical statement. They're both blocking and allowing it?
The best I can parse it is as
"(UK ISP Adult Filters) Block (Sex Education Websites); [Subject Missing] Allows Access To Porn"
or
"(UK ISP Adult Filters) Block (Sex Education Websites' Access) To Porn" (dropping "Allows" entirely).
Also love how they're bitching about the filters being hard to make. "7% miss rate? Unacceptable! Make it work, programmer boy!!"
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
More likely that suppression of the kids' sex drive will lead to perversity and dysfunction. Porn is at least a relatively realistic depiction of bodies, the alternative treatments of sex by the "upright" people are usually much more "warped". Someone who uses the word "intimacy," for example, almost certainly has a troubled mind
"Illiterate" is not a synonym for "stupid." I'm sure this guy can read.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
No, it's not.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I highly, highly doubt that most people (even kids) aren't capable of distinguishing between reality and porn. But even if someone isn't capable of doing that, a five second talk would likely suffice;
Kids learn by watching and doing. I think you are exceptionally naive to believe that a "5 second talk" could undo the kind of subconscious effect that watching porn over an extended period of time would have absent realistic sexual role models.
I'm as anti censorship as they come. But head-in-the-sand denial of human nature is exactly the kind of thinking that the worst of the pro-censorship people use. Don't be the other side of that coin.
Ultra violent war simulation is training for military service. Obey the Man, man!
In the future, 80% of basic training will consist of recruits un-learning what they learned from video games. Lesson 1: No rocket-jumping. Lesson 2: No tea-bagging enemy corpses.
Redundancy is good And also good.
More likely that suppression of the kids' sex drive will lead to perversity and dysfunction.
That's a false dichotomy. You are assuming that the only alternative to porn is sexual repression. As if there weren't all kinds of more realistic material out there - isn't that what the article is complaining about? That important non-porn sexual information is being blocked by the filters?
Someone who uses the word "intimacy," for example, almost certainly has a troubled mind
Wow. I think that sentence is one of those where the author unintentionally reveals himself to the world.
hahahahahaha
Truth.
Kids learn by watching and doing.
But they're not mindless. I think people often make the mistake of thinking that children are mindless little objects.
I think you are exceptionally naive to believe that a "5 second talk" could undo the kind of subconscious effect that watching porn over an extended period of time would have absent realistic sexual role models.
I don't believe that to be naive at all. I just don't believe in magical brainwashing waves, or anything such as that. I don't think porn is harmful at all.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I just don't believe in magical brainwashing waves, or anything such as that.
Then it would logically follow that all those tv shows like sesame street have no impact on how kids learn to interact with other people despite showing by doing being 90% of their content.
As weird as some porn tends to get, the mainstream stuff is very good educational material. My niece asked her mother, after hearing about what parts go where, "but don't the legs get in the way?" So at some point it is very educational to see a little porn and go "ah, well now it all makes sense."
The trouble is that people are so interfering that if anyone got wind of someone showing their child some porn, even carefully selected porn for legitimate educational value like you mention, they'd get a visit from social services faster than you could say "bonk".
http://blog.nexusuk.org
The more uneducated, the more easily manipulated.
A legitimate fear of parents is that our children are being manipulated under the pretense of education.
That's like saying that if you say that people can get good ideas from television shows, you must also believe that violent content makes people more aggressive. Nonsense. If you believe that people can 'intelligently' decide what to take away from these shows, that bit of nonsense falls right apart.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Care to expand?
That's like saying that if you say that people can get good ideas from television shows, you must also believe that violent content makes people more aggressive.
I think your over-simplification is harmful. I would say that violent content does not necessarily make kids violent (note the difference between violent and aggressive) because there are tons of other role models for kids to learn from who do not interact violently. But for sex, porn dominates the landscape of role models.
The more uneducated, the more easily manipulated.
A legitimate fear of parents is that our children are being manipulated under the pretense of education.
If so, then those parents are probably just as, if not more, uneducated. In any case, teaching people to think clearly and independently is the best education and is more important than teaching them "stuff" - facts and/or fiction - and I believe that this is what people (including the media, politicians, religious leaders and corporate overlords) really fear.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The BBC was created to be the mainstream media mouthpiece of the British government, disseminating propaganda and social engineering messages. When Britain formalised its security agencies around the time of WW2, the BBC officially became an arm of the intelligence services (known, with basic correctness, as MI5 and MI6). All BBC foreign correspondents are required to be 'unofficial' employees of MI6. All significant BBC employees are vetted by MI5 personnel that have permanent offices in every major BBC facility.
During Tony Blair's attempt, early this year, to launch the greatest series of air attacks in Human History against Syria (with an estimated 0.5 millions Syrians murdered within the first week), Blair had the BBC run non-stop anti-Syria propaganda on every form of program produced by the BBC. Over and over, the British people were told by BBC propagandists that Syria posed a 'GREATER' threat than Nazi Germany did back in the day. However, the British people, by a large majority, consider Blair to be one of the most evil war criminals ever born, so on this rare occasion Blair's genocide was delayed a little.
Anyway, to the specifics of the article- censorship. While most comments here represent the dribble of complete morons, let me point out the REAL issue. The point of the BBC propaganda piece was to DEMAND more, and more effective censorship. The tabloid press in the UK (and that most certainly includes the BBC) operate with this crude psychological ploy. Such a ploy gets the anti-dribblers worked up and hurtling down the WRONG path (see the above comments). Meanwhile, the IMPLEMENTERS of the censorship methods get the clear message that they must do a more robust job of censoring the sheeple- develop better tools with less option to route around them.
In a years time, the filth of the BBC will run programs showing how VPN and the like can bypass Blair's Internet censorship project, and how this PROVES that VPN must NOT be an option for ordinary users. Everyone in Britain KNOWS that a VPN ban (except for licensed businesses under VERY limited circumstances) will be made law during 2015 (all British ISPs must, by law, censor all their users by the end of 2014, using conventional DNS blocking).
The 'slippery slope' in the UK is a literal vertical cliff. Every major organisation in the UK- political, religious, military, business, charity, etc- is headed by a Tony Blair loyalist (Putin DREAMS he had this level of dominance in Russia). The only problem Blair has with the BBC is that its crude, patronising methods are often self-defeating. Goebbels used to 'do his nut' in wartime Germany, at the hopelessness of their 'tame' BBC-like mainstream media services, for the same reason.
But Blair solves the problem the same way as the Nazis did, by simply imposing horrors upon the British people, and then using the BBC to tell people to 'suck it up'.
As a parent, I resent this comment.
I have two children, both were born within 10 months of deciding to have them (apparently we are pretty potent). I would say that we, as parents, understand sex as a reproductive instrument pretty well.
I think your over-simplification is harmful.
I don't think it's an over-simplification at all. As I said, I do not find porn to be harmful in the least.
I would say that violent content does not necessarily make kids violent (note the difference between violent and aggressive) because there are tons of other role models for kids to learn from who do not interact violently
I don't think that's why.
But for sex, porn dominates the landscape of role models.
And? Look, I think most people are unintelligent, but I don't think they're completely without brains. Yes, even children.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Looks like we got ourselves a breeder here!
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
I don't think it's an over-simplification at all. As I said, I do not find porn to be harmful in the least.
At this point your argument has become circular - assuming the proposition without proof. It doesn't help that you keep resorting to the strawman of black and white reasoning either ("completely without brains" and "magical brainwashing rays").
So there is not really any point in continuing.
At this point your argument has become circular - assuming the proposition without proof.
What, you mean like what you've been doing the entire time? I simply stated my opinion; that is not circular.
It doesn't help that you keep resorting to the strawman of black and white reasoning either ("completely without brains" and "magical brainwashing rays").
Not so much a straw man as it is me not understanding your vague nonsense. When people mention nonsense about "role models" and how porn is somehow harmful, I can do little else but mock them.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
How many times is the world going to have to go through this nonsense before apparently technologically illiterate politicians get the message that filtering/censoring the Internet does not work? It's been tried time and time again and the results are the same every single time!
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Care to expand?
Any site claiming that the tories are bad and labour is the answer is of course allowed.
Any site claiming that labour is bad and the tories are the answer is also allowed.
One needs the illusion of choice, and a healthy dose of I'm a celebrity, to keep the masses happy.
As a parent, I resent this comment.
I have two children, both were born within 10 months of deciding to have them (apparently we are pretty potent). I would say that we, as parents, understand sex as a reproductive instrument pretty well.
That's why he said the word often, rather than always. You made a decision to have children. I did the same thing. Most of my peers were the same.
However a large number of children are unplanned. Not necessarily because the parents didn't know how to prevent conception, but that they didn't want to.
He's on /. - the Mountain Dew and Doritos have that guaranteed.
My 3 year old daughter watches Sesame Street and Super Why all the time. She does not believe that she can solve problems by just waving a magic pen and changing the story. Nor does she only eat cookies or think she can fly or talk only in the 3rd person.
She is 3 and she understands the difference between fantasy and reality. I asked her once if she was a dinosaur cause she was running around acting like one and she stopped, look at me, and with her hands on her hips pronounced, "No, Mommy. I'm pretending" with this tone that said "how can you be so dumb as to actually think I'm a dinosaur?"
What the fuck is it with all this black and white thinking?
So your kid knows that magic pens don't work, but does she also know that sharing and being considerate to her friends also doesn't work?
... (notwithstanding the fact that most kids in the world see their first one within a few hours of being born)... ...most kids see their first one within a few minutes of being born.
Sometimes a few seconds.
Kinda makes up for all that trauma, perhaps...?
Can someone please stop the country? I want to get off -.-
I see what you did there.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Honestly, we force our kids to live in a world of bubble wrap.
Then, when things don't work, we blame everyone else.
Your the parent, do your job.
The world wont change overnight, you need to teach your kids whats right and whats wrong.
Stop relying on tech to be the parent you cant be bothered to be.
The argument is that if kids are taught about sex and told that some people like to shove pineapples up their butts, they will become sexual deviants and suddenly all the kids will be shoving pineapples up their buts or some such nonsense.
Those of us that are sane, reject that logic as idiotic. Kids should be taught that no one gives a crap what you shove up your butt and who you do it with unless you end up in the E.R. We should teach our kids about consent and respect, not 'sex is taboo' and you are a bad person if you like it.
Sex is not bad. How is it that we can fantasize about killing people in the most violent and gruesome ways, but a fantasy about hot girls and suddenly you are a deviant? WTF is wrong with you?
The other problem with that is WHEN you become a grandparent!
I often wonder what become of an old friend that i lost track of shortly after he had his baby...at 14
His mom became GRANDMA at 28!....you reap what you sow i guess.
No internet porn at the time so there must be another way to get there.....
The argument is that if kids are taught about sex and told that some people like to shove pineapples up their butts, they will become sexual deviants
That may be your strawman argument. but it isn't even close to what I've been saying.
What I've been saying is that given the typical sexual role models of modern youth (basically none) porn will fill the gap and teach them porn-sex is normal-sex. Furthermore, that a "5 second" conversation, or even even a few substantial conversations, isn't enough to fully overcome those learned attitudes about sex.
Citing your 3-year old's statement that she isn't a dinosaur as proof of a child's ability to understand something for which they have practically no other context is ridiculous. If children really were so rational then it would be fine to let minors enter into legally binding contracts and age of consent laws would be completely without merit.
You're just making shit up. Porn isn't harmful. There, I just did the opposite of what you've been doing. I can make statements without backing anything I say up, too.
Lesson 0: there is no "restore from backup" option.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Mission option: the vestry.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Actually... it is. You are saying that by watching porn people are taught that 'porn-sex is normal-sex' implying that you believe that porn sex is deviant behavior.
So what is this "normal" sex and why do you give a crap what two consenting adults do in their bedroom? Seriously? THAT is what is wrong with our culture. Maybe, instead of saying 'porn is bad cause it teaches bad sex!' you should decide what 'good sex' is and then we can teach that to our children...
If the problem is a lack of a 'good' sexual role model, then perhaps you should provide one? Oh wait... that would be creepy.
Are you then going to start regulating other fantasies people have? Porn, like video games and role play gaming, is about fantasy. People, including very small children, generally understand the difference between reality and fantasy.
And yes, a 5 second conversation really can root that difference firmly in a kids mind. If I can tell my kids that Grand Theft Auto doesn't actually represent how real people are supposed to behave and expect them to believe me, then I can also tell them that porn doesn't represent real, long term relationships.
Perhaps that is your problem? You can confusing sex with stable, loving relationships. Sex is a physical act we do for fun and to make babies. Love is about letting someone sleep in late on a Saturday morning and making them pancakes. Love is about giving up opportunities and careers to stay with your partner. Love is about being able to forgive mistakes and giving another person a hug after a bad day. It's turning a term paper in late because that other person was sick and needed you.
Love and long term, stable relationship aren't about sex and there are plenty of role models for children to learn about love and commitment.
You can confusing sex with stable, loving relationships. Sex is a physical act we do for fun and to make babies.
No. Sex is a form of social interaction that is far more than just "fun." People use sex for all kinds of things. It is a necessary component of any normal romantic relationship, it can be transactional, it can be recreational, it can be an escape from problems in life, it can be a tool of manipulation and control, it can be a a way to hurt people - the list of what sex is as varied as the human imagination. And that is the problem you black-and-white thinkers are having - you vastly underestimate the complexity of sex and the potential difficulties of navigating all of it.
And yes, a 5 second conversation really can root that difference firmly in a kids mind. If I can tell my kids that Grand Theft Auto doesn't actually represent how real people are supposed to behave and expect them to believe me
Lol. I don't think you actually have any children if you think telling them something is bad and that they shouldn't do it is enough to convince them. "Don't hit your brother!" Never mind that sex is orders of magnitude more complex than simply getting a kid to play nice.
The same can be said of any thing humans do. Being a nanny can be an exploitative relationship.
If your problem is that sex is a form of social interaction and can thus be used to hurt people then your fundamental problem is one of respect and compassion, not watching John tie up Jill and spank her.
The lesson we should teach our children is "don't do ANYTHING to another person without thinking about how it impacts them". Don't call them names. Don't take their stuff. Don't hit them. Don't rape them. Don't disrespect them. That lesson has nothing to do with sex, but with respecting other people.
And I can assure you that at no point in my life did I ever believe that Grand Theft Auto was ever representative of reality. If you or your kids have difficulty with separating reality and fantasy, then that is your problem, not porn. If you don't like watching porn, don't watch it. Stop trying to impose rules on the rest of us because you have problems.
Not talking about it and thus building this impenetrable wall around the subject just because it's 'complicated' does no one any favors.
The same can be said of any thing humans do. Being a nanny can be an exploitative relationship.
The difference, as I've pointed out repeatedly, is that unlike nearly all other forms of socialization, there are practically no other sources of examples for children to learn about sexuality from. A gallon of porn can massively dilute a few drops of compassion.
The lesson we should teach our children is "don't do ANYTHING to another person without thinking about how it impacts them".
Far more easily said than done. Such a simplistic attitude completely fails to capture the difficulty of the task. If it were so easy, then a couple of episodes of sesame street would have raised a generations of pacifists around the world.
And I can assure you that at no point in my life did I ever believe that Grand Theft Auto was ever representative of reality.
So now you are your kids. Guess I was right.
The blocking system is a menu of categories you can check or uncheck. Unless they're really stupid, the Sex Education category is there so you can block the Porn category but still leave the Sex Education option unblocked so your teenagers can find that (either because you care about their education or because you want to avoid uncomfortable conversations with your kids, take your pick :-) Even if they ARE irresponsible prudes, the Sex Education category is at least there so they can SAY they're giving you the option of leaving it on.
And yeah, there ought to be an option for blocking crazy right-wing political parties, like the Tories and Labour and on some days also the LibDems.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
We let kids play ultra violent war simulation for hours and hours, but god forbid they get a glimpse of love and biology. Something is seriously wrong with this picture Mr Cameron, aside from applying technology to shape what is a social matter (mainly fear of educating properly our children).
Say what you will about censorship, but the vast majority of porn is not about love.
It's sort of about biology, although it gives a totally unrealistic snapshot of it ... that kind of editing in nature documentaries would be denounced as some kind of biology malpractice.
(Not to mention, who is this "we" you speak of, kemo sabe? I don't let my kids play ultra-violent simulations for hours and hours.)
There's also a fair bit more artistically presented stuff. Hopefully things stay this way for a while, the older stuff was just variations on 19 ways to slap a girl in the face with a penis.
Good luck searching for the chief executive of the Parent Zone if you are using the porn filters. The BBC article gives her name as Victoria Shotbolt.