Slashdot Mirror
UK Users Overwhelmingly Spurn Broadband Filters
nk497 (1345219) writes "Broadband customers are overwhelmingly choosing not to use parental-control systems foisted on ISPs by the government — with takeup in the single-digits for three of the four major broadband providers. Last year, the government pushed ISPs to roll out network-level filters, forcing new customers to make an "active" decision about whether they want to use them or not. Only 5% of new BT customers signed up, 8% opted in for Sky and 4% for Virgin Media. TalkTalk rolled out a parental-control system two years before the government required it and has a much better takeup, with 36% of customers signing up for it. The report, from regulator Ofcom, didn't bother to judge if the filters actually work, however."
Dear internet user, would you like the Tory Party to think for you?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
That is, the concept of 'objectionable content'' is itself objectionable. There is NO SUCH THING! That is why certain countries have things called freedom of the press.
What happens is quite simple - certain people (Group A) dislike something. They don't want to see it or hear it. They falsely and incorrectly believe that even seeing said things is damaging - despite zero scientific evidence to it (instead they make up badly designed studies that talk about tendencies and thoughts as if they are actions). Other people (Group B) do want to see it. This makes group A angry. So they try to make a law against letting anyone see it. But the people making the law argue about what exactly is objectionable. They quickly find out that Group A(a) wants to stop people from seeing things that most of Group A thinks is fine. Or they quickly realize that their 'objectionable' content has valid reasons to be seen - such as medicinal and political discourse.
They get angry and try to work out a logical way of differentiating between what is really objectionable and what isn't. The problem is their original hypothesis is totally illogical. There was no real problem with what they thought was objectionable so as soon as they try to apply logic they find it doesn't work.
You can't use logic to decide something when logic says your base assumption is wrong.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Because they don't know, and don't care if they work.
This is just another "oh god, we have to protect teh children" things, and there wasn't evidence to make the choice, so they're sure as heck not collecting evidence as to how well it works. This is purely a "we have to do something" kind of response.
Most of us know these things simply do not work, and end up blocking stuff they shouldn't, and missing stuff.
That most people have no interest in being baby sat by a state sponsored filter comes as no surprise.
But, hey, when you're still considered subjects to an archaic monarchy, that's what you get.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The article linked in the summary requires you to answer survey questions or post it to your google+ / facebook before you can read it.
Don't put up with that crap. It's even worse than forcing you to watch advertisements before reading something. Filter out pcpro.co.uk with your hosts file or whatever other method instead.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Blocking Urban dictionary is a sign that the British still respect integrity and proper use of their mother tongue.
I haven't dealt with any of these British ISPs because I am not British, but it seems like these filters are done at the ISP level, and the connection owners have to call in to turn the filter off. Filters are already enough of a pain for both parents and other places that wish to use them. An example of this:
I went to a Catholic high school. During my Freshman year, the school's sysadmins implemented a very restrictive web filter that was on at all times and that only they could turn off. The sysadmins didn't come in every day - I think they were only there three days a week and even then not there full-time. Right away, conflicts started to form between the teachers and the sysadmins. One of the things the filter blocked was Google Image Search, which a lot of teachers wanted to use for school projects and in the classroom. The school's administration insisted that Image Search stay blocked entirely on the vague chance that someone could use it to find porn (never mind the fact that the filter they were using automatically blocked those results on its own) unless a sysadmin was present to oversee its use.
The end result, between the GIS filter and several other ones, was that it was virtually impossible to use the school's computers for schoolwork. I only stayed in that school for another year, but they never managed to resolve the issue.
I can only imagine what would've happened if the teachers had to make a phone call to the school's ISP every time they wanted the filter off, and then a second call every time they wanted it turned back on.
That's as maybe but we have Healthcare that is FREE at the point of delivery.
Some readers in the US might regard this as a Commie plot to overthrow the world but personally, the treatment I get from the NHS is wonderful.
I got Cancer 5 years ago. From initial diagnosis to first Chemo was less than a week. No constant calling my healthcare provider to check to see if the test or treament was covered by my healthcare plan.
Bollocks
Watch those corners
That's as maybe but we have Healthcare that is FREE at the point of delivery.
That's not quite true for dental work, but the price is capped, so you'll typically pay £18.50 to see a dentist, £50.50 if you need something done, or £219 if you need something serious. It's only free if you qualify for extra assistance, which is automatic if you are under 18, under 19 (25 in Wales) and in full-time education, on income support or similar.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News