RSS
Porn Is Hard To Filter
from the i'd-rather-someone-work-on-killing-spam dept
A throrough study, published today (not by the Pew Internet, incidentally), deemed that Internet pornography is difficult to fight. In the "un-sexy" report, they discuss the limitations of filtering and legislation, promoting a more balanced and broad approach to prevent our nation's youth from being exposed to smut. I suppose like most problems, there's no simple fix -- just steps we can take to try and make a difference a small bit at a time.
3 Comments | Leave a Comment..
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- New Study Says Leaked Albums From Popular Artists Lead To More Sales
- Research Shows Little Relationship Between Stricter IP Laws And Innovation Or Economic Growth
- Bogus Stats Again: BSA Puts Out Its Yearly Propaganda About Software Piracy
- DailyDirt: What Do You Remember?
- DailyDirt: Wuzzle Means To Mix. Sculch Is Junk. Alate Means To Have Wings. A Baloo Is A Bear....
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Dammit...
Git' yer mits off us. Filters do not work and furthermore, even if they did, would require me to subscribe to someone else's definitions of what is appropriate (and that goes so both ways!).
Parenting is not a web service...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Agreement
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
How many times...
does it have to be said that filtering is an unreliable practice. I'm especially bothered by the idea of public libraries (some have done this of their own accord) using filtering on their public access machines. It's ironic that institutions that celebrate banned books would even buy into this.
Complex is right. By bluntly filtering common words associated with p0rn you end up crippling access to literary criticism, gender/queer studies, and a lot of perfectly valid if slightly pottymouthed opinion sites.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment