Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK ISP Sky Is About To Start Censoring the Web For All of Its Customers (betanews.com)

Posted by msmash on from the say-no-to-porn dept.

Mark Wilson, writing for BetaNews: The UK government is on a mission to protect the young of the country from the dark recesses of the web. And by the darker recesses, what is really meant is porn. The main ISPs have long been required to block access to known piracy sites, but porn is also a concern -- for politicians, at least. As part of its bid to sanitize and censor the web, Sky -- from the Murdoch stables -- is, as of today, enabling adult content filtering by default for all new customers: Sky Broadband Shield. The company wants to "help families protect their children from inappropriate content", and in a previous experiment discovered -- unsurprisingly -- that content filtering was used by more people if it was automatically enabled.

8 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. And we criticise China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And we criticise China?

    UK is one of the WORST violators of human rights laws in Europe. Once they leave Europe, it will get WORSE. They already want to get rid of the Human Rights acts.

    1. Re:And we criticise China? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Patrick Stewart on Human Rights

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA

    2. Re:And we criticise China? by julian67 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Here is the difference:

      In China the government decides that you can or cannot view porn.

      In the *Account Holder* who pays the ISP decides if he/she prefers to allow access.

      It is a huge difference. The sensationalist click-bait reporting is inaccurate, disingenuous and deceptive.

      I am in the UK. I am the account holder for the service I receive from my ISP at home via FTTC (Fibre To The Cabinet) and from my ISP on 4G (different company). In both cases by default, i.e. for new customers, the ISPs' filters block porn, gambling, notorious P2P sites (but *not* P2P protocols!) and so on. I *CHOSE* to disable them and I can browse any site (Ok, any site not explicitly forbidden by the High Court of a democratic, free nation with separation of state and judiciary, whose laws are enacted by a body with a democratic mandate).

      Occasionally my young (below 10 years old) nephews and nieces visit and they like to use any available tablet or PC to find music, funnt videos etc. Before they arrive I open my landline ISP's page, log in and enable the filtering. After they leave I disable it.

      I'm the adult, I'm the account holder and I have the choice. I choose to allow myself any and all kinds of gambling, porn, file sharing, political extremism etc. When minors visit me I choose to disallow the same things that their parents disallow.

      This is not censorship. It is judgement and responsibility. Censorship is when *someone else* decides what adults may or may not see or hear. This is *NOT* the case in the UK. The ISP account holder has full control and responsibility. Nobody cares if you disable or enable filtering, it's just a checkbox you mark or not, according to your whim.

      Judgement and responsibility are when *YOU, as an adult* have the choice. Minors do not get to decide these things, parents and responsible adults do.

      To conflate censorship with responsible parenting (including acting in loco parentis) is inane, disingenuous, hysterical and stupid. Ultimately it discredits liberals and libertarians and does them no service.

  2. PARENTING ISSUE, not Government control issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These are PARENTING issues, not GOVERNMENT censorship issues.

    The control belongs with the parent, not the government.

    No wonder post world war parents are bad. They expect government to do their parenting for them, in schools, the police etc.

  3. Idiots with their heads up their ass by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The reason they are putting it on by default is that only 5-10% of their audience was requesting things be blocked.

    Instead of admitting that their customers DID NOT WANT THIS CRAP, they decided to expand it by making it default

    News flash, when only 5-10% of your target audience wants something, that means you should discontinue it, not force everyone else to use it - and worse, create a 'pervert' list of people that refused to accept your censorship.

    So now they are pissing off over 80% of their customers because

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  4. Re:Good. Porn Is For Scum. by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I watch porn, I have no kids and I don't give half a shit about your opinion about me.

    Anything else?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. if automatically enabled by phorm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    content filtering was used by more people if it was automatically enabled

    Uh, duh. Getting mild electrical shocks is used by more people if automatically enabled. Hell, getting kicked in the knackers would be used by more people - at least for a certain period of time - if you're doing it by f***ing default.

  6. Murdoch by symes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whenever I come across something unpleasant in the world I also seem to find the name Murdoch involved in some way.