Evidence That UK Needs Mandatory Porn Filters? Informal Survey Done At One School

from the serious-policymaking-much? dept

In the UK there is currently a campaign and associated petition from the organization "Safety Net: Protecting Innocence Online", which calls for mandatory Net filtering of pornography -- people would need to opt out of the system if they wanted to view this material. The justification -- of course -- is the usual "won't someone think of the children?" Here's the pitch:

Every day children and young people are accessing mainstream pornography on the internet, including the most hardcore, violent and abusive images. Evidence clearly shows pornography has a detrimental impact on children and young people including premature sexualisation, negative body image and unhealthy notions about relationships. This cannot be allowed to continue.
Nick Pickles from Big Brother Watch looked into what that "evidence" might be, and found something rather interesting:
One of the key statistics relied upon by the campaign is that "1 in 3 10 year olds have seen pornography online". They do recognise it was published in Psychologies Magazine in 2010, but the appearance is given that this is a serious statistic. It’s also used in their 'Key Facts' briefing.

When you dig a little deeper however, that definitely isn't the case. The full section in the magazine reads:
"We've had plenty of letters from concerned readers on this very topic, and when we decided to canvass the views of 14- to 16-year-olds at a north London secondary school, the results took us by surprise.

Almost one-third first looked at sexual images online when they were aged 10 or younger."
So, the statistic -- […] at the heart of the petition's press release -- is based on one magazine's anecdotal research at a single school.
Actually, it's even more ridiculous than that. That "statistic" states "[a]lmost one-third first looked at sexual images online when they were aged 10 or younger." But as is well known, UK newspaper titles like Rupert Murdoch's "The Sun" carry "sexual images" -- pictures of topless women -- every day. Given the large circulation of the those titles, it's far more likely that children will have seen "sexual images" there, rather than online, and that their attitudes to women will have been harmed more by this kind of relentless objectification than by isolated images they come across on the Internet. And yet strangely no one is calling for Rupert Murdoch's newspapers to be censored.

It's a classic demonization of the Internet that ignores the broader context, and is based on the flimsiest of pretexts. Worryingly, the UK government is sending out clear signals that it supports this campaign regardless. It's currently conducting a consultation on "Parental Internet controls", which closes on September 6. It's extremely poorly worded and clearly biased in favour of the idea of making blanket censorship the default.

If such Net blocks are brought in, legitimate sites will inevitably be blocked by mistake, but it's not so clear that the objectives of protecting children will be achieved. With blocks in place, parents may be lulled into a false sense of security, and so fail to supervise their children's online activities adequately, which will leave the latter exposed to greater not lesser risks. Meanwhile, young people will find ways to circumvent the blocks -- or just buy a copy of "The Sun".

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 10:46am

    Censorship will always be considered before actively monitoring a childs online habits.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 10:51am

    But as is well known, UK newspaper titles like Rupert Murdoch's "The Sun" carry "sexual images" -- pictures of topless women -- every day.

    You really think this compares to some of the more depraved shit on the net that is readily available?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 10:56am

    If you actually take good care of your kid till he/she has enough age that talking to them will help them filter most internet dangers out then it's ok. It only takes parents acting like they should: as parents.

    And it's amusing:

    unhealthy notions about relationships

    My relationship with my girl is everything most of these moralist morons would find unhealthy. And yet we have a load of fun and we love each other. And for the record, I first saw a porn pic when I was 12 ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 10:57am

    The Sun's page 3 photos are designed to sexually arouse the reader, just like any other pornographic picture or photo. Yes, it is softcore, it's just a woman baring her breasts, but it still falls under the heading of pornographic. A child of any age can buy a copy of the Sun newspaper, there's no restriction at all.
    Yet, if suddenly, they see the exact same content on a computer screen...that's when its evil? That's when we must lose our heads and stop thinking?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 10:58am

    Re:

    Yes. First because it's with the light pictures that comes the interest for more depraved material. And second, nudity by itself is not the problem but how the media objectifies and devalues women that creates distorted ideas that will either haunt the teenagers in the future or make them complete and utter douchebags.

    Also, depraved is relative. Some might think a pic of a young mom breastfeeding a baby is depraved.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 11:05am

    I don't care what anyone says

    One does NOT stumble across porn on the Internet unless they are searching for it. These proposals are a massive government overreach that will be the start of a downward spiral.

    If parents don't want children accessing porn, they should take responsibility themselves to educate their children on the subject and to monitor their Internet use. If they want to they can also put a block on certain types of content, it's not bloody difficult.

    There seems to be a culture, nowadays, where parents expect everyone else to protect their kids but don't want to do the work themselves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 11:06am

    Re: Re:

    "You really think this compares to some of the more depraved shit on the net that is readily available?"

    For you AC:
    The magazine survey didn't ask or say if children had seen some of the more depraved shit on the net, it said one third of under tens had seen sexual images, any sexual images.
    Also, what definition of readily available are you using.
    Readily available if you go looking for it or readily available as in shoving itself in front of your retinas when you search for pluming supplies.

    For Ninja:
    "it's with the light pictures that comes the interest for more depraved material." - link?
    I would have thought it more reasonable to suggest that interest in porn comes from unfulfilled and usually fairly basic sexual urges are going unfulfilled.

    Feeding a woman's breasts to a baby is depraved and misogynistic in the extreme! ...
    Ooops, misread that
    breastfeeding is, naturally, fine.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 11:19am

    TO THE MANDATORIUM!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Ben S (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 11:20am

    Re: I don't care what anyone says

    Actually, it does happen, and by the intention of the companies trying to sell this stuff. I don't know if it still exists, but when I was a kid, I was hearing about a neighbor of mine who accidentally stumbled across this because he was looking for information on the white house. He went to www.whitehouse.com, the official website ends in .gov. The kid was doing research for school. Yes, you *can* just "stumble across" it while not searching for it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 11:22am

    Demarcation!

    Evidence clearly shows pornography has a detrimental impact on children and young people including premature sexualisation, negative body image and unhealthy notions about relationships.
    And, Dammit, that's the mainstream media's job!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    BeaverJuicer (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 11:22am

    Typo?

    The article said "Given the large circulation of the those titles..."

    I read "Given the large circulation of the those titties..."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 11:23am

    They don't want to take more surveys because the surveys themselves increase the children's curiosity.

    "Have you ever seen a naked person on the internet?"

    ==> "Yes"

    "Have you ever seen a money shot on the internet?"

    ==> [Child googles "money shot."] "Yes."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Cory of PC (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 11:23am

    Their "justification" into putting these blocks kinda bugs me, especially the quote of having the kids looking at " the most hardcore, violent and abusive images." If kids are really looking into that, then it's best to talk to them about that. And honestly I could take that quote and provide it to something else that doesn't involve porn.

    Evidence clearly shows pornography has a detrimental impact on children and young people including premature sexualisation..."

    "Premature sexualization"? Wouldn't that be call puberty?

    "... negative body image..."

    I do question my own appearance, but I am at least satisfy with what I am now and I do want to improve my image. And this isn't thanks to porn that made me think about my body.

    "... and unhealthy notions about relationships."

    Who needs porn when you have Twilight to show you how an unhealthy relationship turns out?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 11:26am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I would have thought it more reasonable to suggest that interest in porn comes from unfulfilled and usually fairly basic sexual urges are going unfulfilled.

    Poorly written, my apologies. I mean that for a teenager without proper parental care (which excludes any idiotic Govt interference) then it may lead said teenager to look for further 'depraved' material and create a twisted, artificial view of sex. And yes, unfulfilled sexual urges can lead to interest in porn but I'd argue that applies to healthy individuals too ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 11:30am

    The horror!!!

    Evidence clearly shows pornography ....[snip] negative body image [snip]
    "OMG! If I ever have sex I'll end up looking like Ron Jeremy! AAAaaaaaaaaarghhhhh!!!!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 11:31am

    First point, I'm fairly sure while there is overlap, Sexual Image does not describe the same thing as Porn. Don't make me Venn Diagram in ASCII.

    Extra long second point, you can not say they were simply exposed, that says nothing. They were likely exposed to a sexual image NOT on the internet LONG before they were exposed to one on the internet. There is a significant difference between

    1.'Ah, ok, I didn't know what that was. Don't want to go there again'

    2.'What is with all these pictures? I can't find a funny cat picture without seeing one every other click',

    3.'Finally, found what I was looking for'

    The is only a problem of protection when it is the second scenario/thought process, which is not a problem for the majority of businesses in the world that make more use of the internet every day than these kids.

    As for the other two. The first one is called learning, which is why they are supposed to be supervised to tell them before the find out themselves.

    The third is hopefully not an issue with kids under 10, but if it is and the only solution is a filter, someone just screwed up because the kid just went and got physical copies of what they wanted or they were encouraged to learn how to bypass filters.

    Unless the UK has a different Internet, filters are not going to be a solution for any problem they could be having.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 11:32am

    Re: Re: I don't care what anyone says

    Agreed. I was looking for a chat where you could post images when I saw my first few porn images when I was 12.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 11:33am

    Re: I don't care what anyone says

    Agree with pretty much everything except the stumble on porn part.

    There seems to be a culture, nowadays, where parents expect everyone else to protect their kids but don't want to do the work themselves.

    And there seems to be a culture where Governments want to be the parents of all children while at that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 11:34am

    Re: Typo?

    Gentleman, we found a guy that was exposed to the internet... I mean, too much porn on his young days.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 11:36am

    Re:

    I'm pretty sure every1 is gonna google for "money shot". Considering it's a porn related topic I'll do it at home to avoid being fired ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    PornNO, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 11:39am

    I never used to have any problems with the availability of pornography in general but over the last 4-5 years I get fed up seeing it popping up everywhere on the net when I am surfing. If I want to find some pornography that's fine I can make a search and voila.
    However I would like to see 3 types of internet.
    One for Pornography
    One for Commerce
    One for Community

    In a nutshell that would mean if I want porn I go to the Porn web
    to buy stuff the commerce web
    for research the community web

    So unless I want adds and people trying to sell me stuff or
    Porn I would not have to see them

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    Mike42 (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 11:41am

    Re: Demarcation!

    What evidence? A quick look at Wikipedia shows that studies have been inconclusive, mainly because of too many contradictory findings.

    So, once again, they run off legislating without fact checking. Politics as usual.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 11:42am

    Many so called porn sites are scam sites and run by criminals.
    Also there are some porn sites that are simply way OTT

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 11:45am

    Re: Re: Demarcation!

    What evidence?
    What? You mean "Because we say so and we can shout loud and... OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!" isn't compelling enough for you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 11:54am

    Re:

    Perhaps true though in the first statement I'd say "Define 'many'" and in the second "From who's point of view?". Either way, what's that got to do with a mandatory filter?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Pixelation, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 12:11pm

    Those poor kids will never have the opportunity to Goatse their friends. Think of the children!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    anon, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 12:16pm

    Kid's

    Kids will be kids and at around 10 they will find what they want to see no matter how hard you try to stop them, actually the more you make a performance about porn and depraved porn especially the more they will want to see what you are talking about, not realising how it harms there perspective on sex possibly forever.

    The best way to resolve this would be for all porn to be moved onto the xxx domain's, it is much easier to block a domain range than site by site, also responsible parents will discuss only briefly the need to avoid porn and not make a big issue about it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 12:20pm

    Mind of a 10 year old...

    Ok the study says sexual images. We know that they never specified what type. It's a bad correlation study. SafetyNet was employed at Mount Vernon City Schools until they realized it interfered with Biology (blocked out ANYTHING to do with evolution), Anatomy and Physiology, and Health class. Imagine trying to do a research essay on childbirth only to find it's blocked out.

    Onward to things about 10 year olds:
    Psychology teaches us that the moment you leave your mother's woom, you are brought up or nurtured. Mind you that you still have a disposition of shyness or of being outgoing naturally, the rest is most certainly developed over time. I'm all for censorship of porn in schools. It's a place of learning. So while the data SafetyNet puts out about what is pornography is wrong, the psychology is somewhat more accurate. The sexual representations that pornography gives is certainly detrimental to the mind of a 10 year old. It's one thing that they see how things are done medically, it's another to show them what to expect in a mate when seeing porn.

    My view on porn:
    When you have sex, most of the fun is the mystery of trying to get to know the person you are mating with. Pornography, with all it's fake moaning and loud groaning, makes people wha are none the wiser think that's what you should expect. One of the things I used to advise couples visiting my office on is that porn sucks the fun out of sex. I roll my eyes inwardly every time the husband or the wife makes the excuse that they just watch it to discover new positions...I have two things to say to them.

    1. Use the Kama Sutra.
    2. It's more fun exploring each other than making expectations of each other.


    Tangent aside. Porn censorship in schools is one thing, but SafetyNet takes it too far.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    anon, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 12:20pm

    Re: I don't care what anyone says

    You obviously don't want to hear the truth if you are so closed minded.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Paul Walsh, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 12:25pm

    Family safety

    I don't think the Government should mandate the censorship of the Web. But I do agree with them mandating ISPs to implement software that helps parents protect their children from illicit content while being able to access it themselves - if they wish.

    I'm the CEO of MetaCert and we've classified over 630 million pages of pornography to help companies implement new and better controls to ensure that sites shouldn't be blocked, aren't blocked. The real problem is that existing systems block way too many sites that they shouldn't. What's more, all our consumer products are free - so this isn't a sales pitch.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Digitari, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 12:28pm

    Re: simpler solution

    this is a very easy fix ya know....





    .......Just ban Children, then they will be 100% safe

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    anon, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 12:30pm

    Kid's

    Some of the stuff I have seen has been very depraved and no I am not talking about anal, I wont even describe it as I was going to because that is enough to make most civilised people sick to there stomach.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 12:33pm

    Re:

    They were likely exposed to a sexual image NOT on the internet LONG before they were exposed to one on the internet.

    This. I was exposed to porn in the 10 year old range, before I had a computer or access to the internet - because few knew anything about "the internet" in 1990. I don't have distinct memories of which was first, but either a friend found a stack of his father's magazines, or an older cousin with his magazines were probably first. Depending on how loose your definition is, postcards of women in bikinis and wet t-shirts from the family's annual vacation to the beach might beat the others.

    The objectification of women IS a problem, but it was around long before the internet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 12:36pm

    Re: Re: Demarcation!

    This is actually a difficult thing to study effectively, because the suspected damage that porn "causes" in children is not really due to the porn itself, but due to how society deals with the porn.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 12:43pm

    Re: Kid's

    Kids will be kids and at around 10 they will find what they want to see no matter how hard you try to stop them,

    Yup this Dilbert cartoon says it all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 12:43pm

    Re: Re:

    If they didn't find it themselves, they were likely shown by one of the friends, which I would wager is the more likely scenario. 1 kid finds a magazine or even just a picture and shows 5 other kids on purpose and they all just giggle/laugh and make jokes. I think it's the adults that are being more perverse putting so much thought and effort into the potential scenarios the kids are being put in.

    If the kid doesn't bring it up as a problem, then it is more likely to be uninteresting, forgetable, and not harmful to the kid in any significant way, until that is the adults continue to make them think about it.

    A very telling point is, where are the children complaining about to much porn in their internet?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 12:52pm

    Re:

    "sexual images" means what? Maybe Adrian Barbeau in a tight, low cut sweater all the way to cartman's mom in a german schieskopf film? This, coupled with the fact this was in no way a proper study, makes the entire thing suspect as hell.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 12:53pm

    Re:

    don't know if you're helpin' or hurtin' there ninja.
    /s

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 12:56pm

    I am usually against censorship. But in this case, until parents become responsible, I approve of this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 12:57pm

    Re: Kid's

    True, there's plenty of stuff out there likely to make most people lose their lunch, however that has nothing to do with filtering. Opinions of "depravity" vary, the defining quality should be "is the act being comitted illegal?" not "is there some percentage of the population that objects to it?" or "do I persoannly object to it?"

    As for filtering "to protect the children", it's already there - it's called education about what porn really is and responsible parenting - and it's a damn site more likely to be effective than any software, which has been pretty much proved by, oh only EVERY filter and DRM package ever.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 12:57pm

    Re: Re:

    there is no normal, only what falls within plus or minus two of the bell curve in a standard gaussian distribution. This only signifies where most of the data lies. Is that normal. Is it normalized. Is it a load of shite? I tend to fall into to the belief that it is the latter.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 1:00pm

    this is exactly the sort of 'evidence', and i use the term very loosely, that is always produced by any body that wants to take something away from the people because a few dont like that something. the figures used are typical of and probably been produced using the same formulas as the entertainment industries. in other words, get a 'study' done using the smallest amount of participants possible over as short a time as possible. was completed, take the figures, rework them so as to give a distorted and exaggerated result that can give no other impression than the one desired so as to convince a bunch of complete fucking idiots (politicians, law makers etc) that it is a true representation of what is happening in reality. once that is achieved, all the other extremists can shove their two cents worth in and away we go down the censorship path, a path that leads to nothing good, simply because there will always be someone else that wants something else stopped, blocked or removed and that enough is never enough!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 1:00pm

    Re: Demarcation!

    right. The insidious part about mainstream medias method is that the whole family can watch together.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    MrWilson, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 1:01pm

    Re:

    "until parents become responsible"

    So you're saying you'll never approve of an un-censored internet?

    Even if the statistic were valid, it should be restated as, "1 out of 3 sets of parents of children have let their children use the internet unsupervised at a young age."

    Nobody is screaming to outlaw parental irresponsibility despite the fact that it's the actual underlying cause for the issue. Where are proposals for a law that charges parents for letting their children see pornography?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    printersMate (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 1:22pm

    Re:

    What about when it is necessary to request removal of the porn filter because it blocks sites like ttp://scoraigwind.co.uk a blog about homemade windpower. (hello there T-Mobile).
    There are perfectly good internet fiolters that can be used on a home or school network such as dans guardian, and dns server that also do such filtering. These are opt-in systems, and require a small amout of effort to use.
    Would you agree if techdirt got added to the block list. It sometimes uses adult language.
    This sort of system could all too easily become a light form of censrship, Get a site added to the list to cut down its effectiveness. Also how long before the usual suspects get 'pirate' sites added to the list?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    JEDIDIAH, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 1:26pm

    Blinded by the beaver shot...

    It doesn't need to. It just demonstrates how broadly these terms can be defined. They're meaningless. I've seen Cosmo covers that were more prurient than some of the more artistic celebrity pictorials you can see inside of a Playboy.

    Sexual imagery is everywhere. It's not all extreme.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    letherial (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 1:26pm

    Ya this will work, curious children will not go to the internet, instead they will find another child who is equally curious and will work it out together.

    Fact is, children are as interested in there body's and why things feel good as we where, they will explorer it with or without naughty images.

    Its called human nature, growing up and maturing....seems like this group wants to keep kids kids until they say otherwise.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 1:57pm

    Re:

    that's how I was introduced to "porn". A girl of my own age, quite young, convinced me to let her show me how baby's were made. I have never looked back.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    BigKeithO, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 2:11pm

    Re:

    What kind of stuff are you looking for if you see porn popping up "everywhere"? Stick to the legitimate side of the internet and chances are you won't see much random porn. Search for things of a more shady nature and you might get porn.

    Splitting up the internet is a horrible idea.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 2:33pm

    Re:

    "I get fed up seeing it popping up everywhere on the net when I am surfing."

    Sounds like you have a virus. I recommend AVG or Microsoft Security Essentials. AVG's a little bloated and MSE is, well, Microsoft.

    In related anecdotal evidence; in 7 years of working as tech support, I have never accidentally (or intentionally) found porn on my work PC. There was only one time where there was porn on my monitor and that was due to me being remoted into a client's PC who was infected by a virus.

    It wasn't due to lack of surfing, or some kind of filter, it just didn't happen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Digitari, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 2:41pm

    aint this nice

    this reminds me of the anti-tobacco groups, the Local Hospitals here where I live have banned tobacco on their property. Before it was implemented I was talking to the head of the hospital and asked him why. His reply was that because tobacco was harmful and second hand smoke was bad, even in small amounts. I said really? but yet you let running cars park 10 feet from the door, his replay was, that's different..
    I said well let me ask you, if you were in a closed garage with a smoker for an hour or a car, which was more harmful..

    he stopped talking to me after that for some odd reason......

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2012 @ 2:58pm

    Copyright, american censorship
    Pornography, uk censorship

    Why are they making it harder for us to organise a revolution? /s

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 3:21pm

    Re: Re:

    "This. I was exposed to porn in the 10 year old range, before I had a computer or access to the internet - because few knew anything about "the internet" in 1990. I don't have distinct memories of which was first, but either a friend found a stack of his father's magazines, or an older cousin with his magazines were probably first. Depending on how loose your definition is, postcards of women in bikinis and wet t-shirts from the family's annual vacation to the beach might beat the others."

    I can definitely drink to that. It was hard doing those things you mentioned, you actually had to put effort into it.


    Today's internet porn industry is a huge problem. It accelerates the problem of objectification further. It used to be that in my day at that age, dialiup hampered the speed at which you got it, and getting to it was a chore because you couldn't hide the noise modems made in the middle of the night, so even then it was difficult.

    I do agree that it has ALWAYS objectified women in a bad way.

    Odd enough, porn is way too easy to find these days so instead of a few instances of swift views in sneaked rated-R films, blurry worn out pieces of paper and magazines, or dialiup modems (keeping the healthy mystery), you get an overload of the wrong message about women to kids that way.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    Violated (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 3:24pm

    I hate censorship

    I have directly seen what kind of censorship filtering they do including blocking an historical BBS achieve of ASCII art and BBS messages.

    Hmmm their few nudes made up of ASCII characters are so hardcore, not. I would class that at about 5% of what anyone can see daily on page 3 of The Sun.

    Beyond their crazy blocking of weird sites there was also a vast array of much more child inappropriate sites they did not block.

    Well if they are serious on content filtering then that makes for another group of people who need to learn to use a VPN service. Just remember those school kids are quick learners and are often great with technology.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    Violated (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 3:30pm

    Re:

    Yes the UK likes to censor porn but in every case I have seen they have always badly failed. Censorship never stands up well to market demand then people soon do actively work around this Government censorship.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 3:31pm

    Re: Re:

    MSE is what I use...it picks up Macintosh viruses from 20+ years ago on virtual volumes. You can control how much of the CPU Thread Percentage MSE uses so it doesn't interfere with other tasks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    Violated (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 3:41pm

    Re: Kid's

    I presume that is the usual shock sites like 2 girls 1 cup, blue waffle, and lemon party. That type of thing is take it or leave it. Learn your likes and dislikes where you then aim to avoid your dislikes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 3:47pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You do raise a good point, but I can easily answer that question at the end of your post. Simply put, the children don't know better. So while they are learning from kid to kid, usually it's treated as a rare treasure. Internet porn now a days takes away what was once held as a rare treasure by those who held it because if you get caught looking at Internet porn, it stays there. Whereas if you got caught holding a nudy pic in your hand, it would most likely be destroyed and the children were given a talking to about the facts of life and how to properly treat a lady.

    So really, in spite of the false and wildly inaccurate data given by SafetyNet, the psychology behind other studies provide some clue as to the difference in ease of access to said porn.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    icon
    Violated (profile), Sep 5th, 2012 @ 3:53pm

    Re: Re:

    money shot + porn = cum shot

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Aerilus, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 12:25am

    I just wanted to add: omg not SEX!!!!!!!! god forbid!!!!! run-away! run-away!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Aerilus, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 12:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Demarcation!

    I salute you sir!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Aerilus, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 12:29am

    Re: Re: Typo?

    apparently the horrific symptoms are misreading things in an amusing manner. I say more exposure till i can read whitepaper and laugh then the world will be a better place

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 12:58am

    Re:

    You approve of universal censorship of adult material to all adults unless they jump through hoops to get unblocked, just because some idiot parents are too lazy to do their job?

    Forgive if if I disagree. The costs to society of such censorship are far greater than any proven harm caused by viewing pornography.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 1:20am

    Re:

    "You really think this compares to some of the more depraved shit on the net that is readily available?"

    Do you have any evidence that the depraved shit was what the kids were talking about? There's also far more explicit material available on top shelf magazines in the same newsagents, but the Sun's publishability is not judged by that...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 1:50am

    Re: Re: I don't care what anyone says

    It's possible, but less and less likely. Most people don't just guess domain names, and the whitehouse domain was a holdover from the very beginnings of the internet before rules were changed to prevent such things. It was an exception, not the rule. In fact, if you try visiting the .com today, you'll just see a holding page as the site has been defunct for several years partly due to the controversy its easy access caused (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse.com).

    If you're searching for information in the way that most people would by default nowadays (google it instead of guessing domains, safesearch on by default, etc), it's unlikely that you'll simply stumble across porn and the likelihood is becoming less and less with each passing year as optional filtering improves.

    I'm not saying it won't happen, but the likelihood is definitely not something you want to base laws on as the unintended consequences are likely to be far more damaging.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 1:58am

    Re: Re:

    "This. I was exposed to porn in the 10 year old range, before I had a computer or access to the internet - because few knew anything about "the internet" in 1990."

    Me too. One of the things lacking about taking this study at face value is that it doesn't show historical changes. If they'd have asked the same questions of kids in the same age group at the same school every few years for the last few decades, we may be able to see that this is something new and related to increased online activity.

    As it is, they don't know if the kid in 2012 is really seeing any more than the same kid would have seen in 1992 except that it might be conceivably be easier to stumble across images online. But is it more likely than stumbling across Dad's porn stash or seeing a mate's spank mag he nicked from the local newsagents (my first exposure to porn by the way, several years after seeing boobs in The Sun).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 2:20am

    Re: Kid's

    When I was 10, I was already a horror fan and the video nasty scandal was in full swing in the UK. During this time, many films were either banned or heavily cut and it was illegal for video stores to supply even the approved sanitised versions to under 18s.

    Guess how many of them I saw in the following few years, completely uncut, even if they were complete banned from the country? A lot, I can tell you...

    "The best way to resolve this would be for all porn to be moved onto the xxx domain's"

    Nice idea in theory, but completely unworkable in practice. Unless you completely destroy the ability of anyone to set up a website without prior vetting, you can't guarantee that only .xxx addresses will have porn, and then you have the completely unworkable cultural differences that would make it impossible to agree on what determines porn in the first place. You would need international agreement for such a system to work, but one country might say that Britney concert footage is tantamount to porn, while another might think that topless 16 year olds or mere softcore sex footage doesn't fit in that category.

    The only way to deal with this is with full information for parents on how and what to filter, and responsible parenting to back that up. Equally unlikely, I know, but at least it's possible in some families.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    exPupil, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 5:16am

    School pornography

    I think I was 9 or 10 when I first came into contact with pornography, and although I think my first exposure was outside of school, I can remember being exposed to it within school as well, albeit on my own time, egged on by a few friends of mine.

    Now unsurprisingly, my school subscribed to the local council's internet filtering effort, so if you tried to look at anything interesting and non-educational, you were soundly rebuffed and redirected back to the safe parts of the internet. Except for the fact it wasn't a terribly good filter and was probably operating off a blacklist or something because there were a number of websites were not blocked, including a number of pornographic ones.
    Now this is the bit where it gets interesting, because when you filter the internet, you go for all the obvious stuff, the softcore, the tamer hardcore, the normal stuff. The stuff I found, which fell through the net, was the abnormal stuff: BDSM, female domination, scatology, and other stuff that people /really/ don't want kids looking at (and to be honest stuff, I probably didn't want to look at, but did as a way of sticking it to the man), and it was only because this was the stuff that was available that I encountered it.

    As I 10 year old, I would probably have been content with a few pictures involving nipples and maybe a penis, and not gone any further, but because that was denied me, I ended up finding the more unpleasant stuff. And I think that is the problem with draconian measures such as this, not only does it usually not work as intended, it might even make things worse than they already are, and that's the way I see this going.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 5:24am

    Re: Re: Kid's

    So what about all the sites showing violent or macabre stuff - you know, like beheadings and people run over by trains? Is that 'porn' of a sort? Is it worse? Where does the censorship stop?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 5:26am

    Re:

    We also have to think that in the past, many more children were exposed to the 'facts of life' from crowded living conditions or a rural environment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 6:24am

    Re: Re:

    No playing doctor? Meh.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 8:17am

    Re: Re: Re:

    It used to be that in my day at that age, dialiup hampered the speed at which you got it, and getting to it was a chore because you couldn't hide the noise modems made in the middle of the night, so even then it was difficult.



    You should have added the M0 flag in your modem's init string ! At least that's what I did back then !!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    Dave, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 10:03am

    Censorship by another name

    I strongly object to being "nannied" in this way. If there are things on the net that children should be shielded from, then parents should bring up their children properly and not allow access. It's THEIR responsibility to regulate what their offspring are subjected to, not some interfering, busybody, bossy-boots government department. There are enough nasty things happening in every-day life that are shown by the media but I don't hear any cries of opting in to TV and radio stations or newspapers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    icon
    Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 12:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Kid's

    you know, like beheadings and people run over by trains?
    What? You mean like a decent percentage of "mainstream" slasher flicks? I've got no desire to watch those either but I don't think they should be censored - as I said, I think the defining limit should be "is the thing being done illegal?" - not looks illegal, but is actually illegal. And yes I realise that causes problems for enforcement, but no-one said freedom was supposed to be easy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    icon
    KingofDarkness (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 1:44pm

    Idiots...

    Clearly every person, young and old, learns about what sex and relationships are supposed to be like, from watching porn. Just like the way everyone learns what the rest of reality is supposed to be like from movies and TV shows.
    All women liked to be tied up and fucked abusively hard and there is a secret war going on all around us between transforming machines from another planet.
    ...get real people. The idiots that think that shit is real have much bigger problems than not being able to function in intimate relationships...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 10:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Being 10 years old and then not knowledgeable of such things at the time....and the M0 option not easily availible...hampered such notions of noiseless modems.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    icon
    teka (profile), Sep 8th, 2012 @ 2:45pm

    Re: Family safety

    But what you are saying is that governments should force companies to use your commercial product (or the product of a company like yours), passing on costs to all users as always happens, instead of end users being responsible for their own actions.

    You don't see the problem that comes from that even beyond the possibility of mandated interference with protected speech as collateral damage?

    (not trying to call you an evil schemer, just looking at things from the position of a user instead of a seller)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This