Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="j&amp;#039;nuh" data-source="post: 583960" data-attributes="member: 55446">This isn&#039;t quite true. The block would be put on by the ISP, so I believe that the account owner will have to get in touch with the ISP to make changes to the block.It may seem innocent on the surface, as you just have to opt-out of the service, but there are some considerable &quot;pitfalls&quot;.My biggest concern is over websites that are non-pornographic but sexual in nature (eg, sexual advice forums for teenagers), or websites that are just partly pornographic. Does reddit get blocked for its gonewild section? 4chan and deviantart? What of websites such as Liveleak, which may have political merit in spite of containing pornographic material, or of shock news websites such as ogrish? Wouldn&#039;t it be easy for the government to apply pressure to have these websites blocked on the account of pornographic content, in order to break up vocal, anti-government groups?My next biggest concern is the precedent it sets. They simply have to add a string of &quot;extensions&quot; to the law, each extension a small addition to the last, and we&#039;re heading more into an era of censorship. Such happened with university tuition fees. Pre-1998: Â£0. 1998: Â£1000. 2006: Â£3000. 2012: Â£9000.My final concern is how much a load of crap the whole affair is. It may instil a false sense of security in some parents (pornography isn&#039;t the real threat to children on the internet: it&#039;s viruses, strange people, fraud, bullying, addiction etc.) and kids may now be even more unsupervised on the internet than before. Wrapping kids in cotton wool is no good for them either. Kids need to know about sex and porn and drugs and alcohol in the modern world, and at a young age. Isolating them in order to preserve their innocence only strengthens their ignorance, and it may just come back to bite them when they&#039;re older.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="j'nuh, post: 583960, member: 55446"] This isn't quite true. The block would be put on by the ISP, so I believe that the account owner will have to get in touch with the ISP to make changes to the block. It may seem innocent on the surface, as you just have to opt-out of the service, but there are some considerable "pitfalls". My biggest concern is over websites that are non-pornographic but sexual in nature (eg, sexual advice forums for teenagers), or websites that are just partly pornographic. Does reddit get blocked for its gonewild section? 4chan and deviantart? What of websites such as Liveleak, which may have political merit in spite of containing pornographic material, or of shock news websites such as ogrish? Wouldn't it be easy for the government to apply pressure to have these websites blocked on the account of pornographic content, in order to break up vocal, anti-government groups? My next biggest concern is the precedent it sets. They simply have to add a string of "extensions" to the law, each extension a small addition to the last, and we're heading more into an era of censorship. Such happened with university tuition fees. Pre-1998: Â£0. 1998: Â£1000. 2006: Â£3000. 2012: Â£9000. My final concern is how much a load of crap the whole affair is. It may instil a false sense of security in some parents (pornography isn't the real threat to children on the internet: it's viruses, strange people, fraud, bullying, addiction etc.) and kids may now be even more unsupervised on the internet than before. Wrapping kids in cotton wool is no good for them either. Kids need to know about sex and porn and drugs and alcohol in the modern world, and at a young age. Isolating them in order to preserve their innocence only strengthens their ignorance, and it may just come back to bite them when they're older. [/QUOTE]

Verification