|
Quote:
Not sure what your problem with the Victorians is, you seem to have it in for them :joker: Thanks to philanthropists of that era we are having this conversation today, the improvements to society are fluid. Then it was medicine and housing that maintained an ordered society... today it is ensuring the vulnerable are safeguarded with regulations on internet access. |
Quote:
Margaret Thatcher harped on about wanting a return to Victorian values and she ended up creating the yuppie generation which led to today's culture. David Cameron is similarly seeking to send us back to the dark ages; and I just used the Victorians as an example because that's what Thatcher wanted. These are the same people that sectioned people with syphilis and left them to die in "sanitoriums" rather than admit that everyone was randy and getting it on with prostitutes and multiple partners and that's how diseases were spread. They were blaming everything from fresh air to the work of the devil before they were blaming themselves, so that's why I'm particularly opposed to viewing the Victorian era as being some kind of morally perfect era that we should be harking back to... And I agree that the vulnerable should be safeguarded... by having their parents and guardians block their access to porn, rather than the other way round! I don't know why this is even up for debate. The idea is a good one but it's been approached in the completely wrong way. It's not difficult to track down households with people under the age of 18 living in them. Apply this to all of those households that have internet access; and thereafter it is down to the parents to take risks regarding smart phones, letting their children stay over at friends' houses and generally going out and growing up. What more can they do? This doesn't even cover a fraction of the ways that people can share nude images. Text messages, blogs, instant messaging services, personal databases ("wank banks") being swapped, a black market for porn... and don't think for a second that it wouldn't happen, because it would. The citizens of the USSR relied heavily on black market culture to get through life; if you knew how to fix machinery you could arrange to fix something for a bag of rice or a loaf of bread. We of course live in a much more developed country, but the concept is the same. Whether it be straight up cash for porn swaps or something less savoury like swapping sexual favours for porn, there are a plethora of problems that come with something as extreme as this. |
How easy would it be to switch this to:
Question 1: Are there any occupants in your home or people who regularly use your internet connection who are under the age of 18? Yes/No (If No) End of questionnaire. No further action taken. (No one individual should be allowed to decide on the behalf of the rest of the household) (If Yes) Question 2: Do you wish to restrict access to adult material (link to a list of what is considered adult material) in your household? Yes/No (If Yes) Material is blocked. (If No) Onus has firmly been placed upon someone to choose; they have opted not to do so. Some form of identification should be required to verify the decision, but it should only be binding if it can be proven that the person completing the form is doing so to protect someone under the age of 18 and isn't just doing it because they believe it's immoral to view pornography in spite of the wishes of the other members of the household. It's just so deeply flawed. I've already seen someone I know complain about how his deeply religious mother would not allow pornography in their house even though he's 22 and the youngest in his family. That shouldn't be acceptable in my opinion. |
Quote:
Zee let's leave it, it's getting more complicated than it needs to be :laugh: |
Quote:
Yes Sticks It has to start some place |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Hows the Anger a day later Jack. Never Mind the the D.M This is something thats was being built up so Labour or Conserv-LibDem or even UKIP its has to come in. A Big Pop Up 5" x 8" from your Internet Provider will Pop Up in the next 12 months Click Yes to Legal Porn Or No to Porn (family mode) You can not escape it until you click Yes or No Why is it a Problem? |
It's a problem because they've put it on a "per household" basis rather than an individual one; and while it may be necessary to have to openly snoop on what people are up to (it's a badly kept secret that they monitor people anyway) I think it's very wrong and like something out of fiction that our government is bulldozing this measure through and telling us "this will happen" with no further discussion. We didn't vote for that.
|
Quote:
Hang on Zee Lots to be Modified. It can be to Each Laptop or Computer as well And Many debates will happen in the next 12 months on this |
As things stand though arista, he has simply stated this will be an all-encompassing ban which is to be rolled out within the next 6 months with no apparent debate or attempt to consult the public; and evidently lots of people have got a problem with this decision for what it represents as well as it stopping people from watching porn, and plenty of those people have suggestions on how to improve existing technology or how to make this system less awkward - suggestions which won't be listened to because Mr Cameron has not asked for opinions, he's simply stating that this will happen, end of discussion.
|
won't stop anything. My parents wouldn't even let me use a computer when I was younger for fear of what I would see.
Paid a kid at school ten bucks to steal one of his dad's playboys for me when I was 12. If a kids want porn they'll find it Won't effect me but regulation of the internet anywhere is a scary sight |
Quote:
Zee it does not work that Easy. Its about stopping very young children watching porn. And some USA sites like directv.to do not show what you are viewing so the IP is just directv (they know you are over 18) Even though you are watching a JWplayer showing 3 way porn or One on One |
Yes I know arista, but David Cameron has stated this in a "this is happening" factual manner, there is no hint of democratic debate in there at all and it makes me wonder how he's going to railroad this through government without asking the people of Britain first. If it's about stopping young children watching porn, why will 95% of households in the country be affected by this decision? Not every household has children living in it.
|
Quote:
You are missing the point though. Firstly you were 12 and curious and that is fine, lots of kids do stuff like that, what is not fine, is 5,6 7 8 9, or older depending on maturity googling fairly innocuous words and coming across stuff they shouldn't be seeing. A bit like a Top Shelf for the internet I suppose. |
Quote:
Yes Opt In He has a fight on so he will come over Banging his fist. |
Quote:
That is a very valid point. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
read this somewhere else but it said that people are going to have to call their internet provider and tell them that they want porn unblocked for their computer.
|
Quote:
|
David Cameron is furiously back-peddling already. Anti-censorship and sexual health organisations are already making noises and just as expected, another ill-thought through idea by Mr Cameron is going to fall on its face.
Parents really do need to step up to the plate and stop expecting everyone else to be as concerned about their kids as they are. I have three nieces, they all have laptops, they all have parental controls set and they are monitored all the time they're using them. They aren't allowed to use them in their bedrooms they use them in the family room or somewhere adults are present. These proposed controls won't safeguard children, only vigilant parents can do that. |
|
Quote:
My first thought is that the person that has the ultimate say is the bill payer, if the connection is in their name then any illegal content accessed can be traced to them if they choose to opt out, but as you say if there are multiple users in the home the original problem exists. If they opt in to the filter then that's their right as the service user and nobody else has a say unfortunately. There seems to be a conflict as to what is the driving force behind this is it the ease of access or the illegal practices nobody seems to know. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...et-pornography |
Quote:
It just bothers me that porn has become the obsession of the morality discussion simply because it's the most basic form of sexual expression. Shouldn't we be just as, if not more, concerned about subliminal forms of sexual expression like in music, advertising, television, film, fashion etc? It's everywhere. Porn's probably the only form of it that's considered a private activity, so of course it's all too easy to go after the secretive aspect because it's too much of a challenge to say "our children are being corrupted by our surroundings and it's all of our faults." Little girls shouldn't be wearing glittery t-shirts that say "babe" on them. Topshop and River Island and the like shouldn't be selling t-shirts with half naked models on them. We shouldn't be listening to pop music with lyrics about having sex, taking drugs and all those other things. We shouldn't be watching videos of popstars writhing on beaches. But the fact is, we are, and it comes from all over the world, and there is no way to block it out. What we can do, as a country, is be more honest and educate ourselves and our children in a more honest way. The Nazis had their book burnings to try and suppress what they deemed sensitive material; China has limited social networks and has restricted access to pages criticising the Chinese regime and while the subject of what they're trying to get rid of differs, the method is exactly the same and I don't agree with it at all. |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging (Pro) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
