A 'Watershed' For The Internet, An Invitation To Use A N. Korean ISP And Other Fallout From The UK's Porn Filtering Plan

from the who-knew-people-having-sex-could-be-this-much-trouble? dept

It’s been a rather eventful weekend as David Cameron’s porn vendetta (porndetta?) is now completely underway. Just in the past week, we found Cameron blaming search engines for child porn, claiming topless women in British newspapers were NOT porn and that the UK government had outsourced its filtering system to a company headquartered in China.

In other, non-Cameron news, a self-appointed Guardian of Purity, Claire Perry, had her website hacked, goatse’d and referred to in a blog post. Perry’s response? To blame the hacking on the blogger reporting the news and threatening to call his editor and discuss… well, something, I guess. Long story short: Perry is now facing a possible defamation suit for calling the blogger a hacker.

Over the weekend, the inadvertent gift kept on giving.

First off via Slashdot, the Polish Minister of Justice got swept up in the anti-porn spirit and declared Cameron’s filtering system to be just the sort of thing Poland needs. This set off a debate which, unlike many, was resolved by the end of the day, when the Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk (along with the Minister of Administration and Digitization, Michal Boni) took the idea ’round back and had it shot.

We shall not block access to legal content regardless of whether or not it appeases us aesthetically or ethically.

That’s PM Tusk leaving zero room for argument with a firm statement. Boni, showing he’s one of the rare politicians who understands how the Web works, added:

I would like to find solutions that are effective and at the same time do not cause concerns regarding surveillance of Internet users or over potential of erroneous limiting our Internet activity. (…) Filtering does not remove the content.

It’s a sad statement on the world’s political leaders when a little technical know-how is enough to set you apart from your peers. Claire Perry’s grasp on “hacking” seemed to rely on the “fact” that screenshots and hyperlinks are interchangeable, as well her assumption that reporting on a site hacking is the same as hacking the site.

On the plus side, Perry’s lack of knowledge still puts her ahead on another anti-porn crusader, Rhoda Grant of the Scottish Parliament who, back in June, posed this question:

“If there’s a watershed on the TV then why isn’t there one for the internet?”

O….K…..

Absolutely, Rhoda. We’ll get right on it. We’ll send a letter down to The Internet (a.k.a. “Google”) informing it of the 10 PM cutoff. Once the kids are in bed, Google The Internet is free to resume its regularly scheduled programming of porn and sweary bits. But not before 10 PM. (P.S. That includes Image Search.)

Speaking of obtuseness, Deborah Orr at the Guardian has a lengthy editorial wondering what’s so bad about filtering porn and why are so many people outraged.

[I]t’s irksome to me that I’ve had to write this piece, which is essentially an appeal for calm in a climate that says, with a baffling disregard for the view of the vast majority, that the right to porn must be universal and that access to it must be protected from all possible inhibitions

There’s a lot more to it than that, although if you’re paying attention, you already know she’s arrived at the wrong conclusion. Orr spends time attacking every argument against Cameron’s filtering, including the censorship argument.

The most shrill complaint against Cameron’s wheeze is that it’s “censorship”. This seems to me like saying that not placing a copy of Anna Karenina in every home, pre-web, was censorship against Russian novels. No one is telling people that they aren’t allowed to access porn on the web. They’re saying that in order to do so, you have to tick the box pretending that you’ve read the terms and conditions. And why not? Even in the highly sexualised public spaces of contemporary Britain, there’s still broad agreement that footage of people humping shouldn’t be up on a screen at Piccadilly Circus. There’s absolutely no reason why the internet should be any different.

But it is censorship, Deborah, even if it’s a low-flying, somewhat malign, “opt-in” version of censorship, one that proves Cameron’s not above using the bodies of murdered children as a platform. With Cameron’s plan in place, a person’s internet is now filtered by the government (routed through a Chinese third party). No one’s expecting porn to come bursting out of their computer unbidden, but people would still like to believe they can use the web un-fucked with by the government.

Illegal images, such as child porn, are already blocked. So is other illegal material. At this point, the government is treating adults like children in order to protect children from adult images. This makes no sense.

The worst part about Orr’s editorial is that she seems completely unaware this really isn’t about porn. That’s the just a way to get a governmental foot in the door. “Kids shouldn’t be exposed to porn, right?” it asks and then hands out a list of pre-checked boxes that cover a whole lot of non-porn territory.


If you can’t read the photo, here are some of the other types of content that are filtered:

– Dating sites
– Drugs, alcohol and tobacco
– File sharing sites
– Gambling
– Suicide and self-harm
– Weapons and violence

This is the slippery slope. Block a crowd-pleaser like pornography and you can set up shop in the public’s internet service, ready to toss filters on anything else deemed “offensive.” People aren’t fighting for porn. They’re fighting against government intrusion. If they’re not doing anything illegal, the government should be willing to let individual responsibility be the watchword, rather than lurking in the background reading over the public’s shoulder.

If that’s how you want your internet, Deborah, by all means, support this plan. Most people don’t. Most ISPs don’t. UK ISP Andrews & Arnold has no interest in offering a filtered internet and it’s released a statement making its feelings clear on Cameron’s plan.

Active choice is NOT a choice

The government wants us to offer filtering as an option, so we offer an active choice when you sign up, you choose one of two options:-

Unfiltered Internet access – no filtering of any content within the A&A network – you are responsible for any filtering in your own network, or

Censored Internet access – restricted access to unpublished government mandated filter list (plus Daily Mail web site) – but still cannot guarantee kids don’t access porn.

If you choose censored you are advised: Sorry, for a censored internet you will have to pick a different ISP or move to North Korea. Our services are all unfiltered.

Is that a good enough active choice for you Mr Cameron?

The ISP also offers a very thorough Q&A/fact sheet at the same site detailing the flaws with this plan and offers advice for those who want to offer a safer Internet for their kids, leaving the decision in the hands of the consumers. As it should be.

Finally, via Boing Boing, Jeremy Hardy of BBC’s The News Quiz, asks the question everyone’s afraid to ask:

“A porn filter is all well and good, but who’s going to empty it?”

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “A 'Watershed' For The Internet, An Invitation To Use A N. Korean ISP And Other Fallout From The UK's Porn Filtering Plan”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
82 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

i wonder if the gun used by the Polish Prime Minister has a long enough barrel to reach across to the UK and shoot the proposed porn filter dead there? perhaps, if it does, it has a big enough spread to get to the damn fools who are trying to DICTATE to the people of what is supposed to be a ‘Democratic Country’ what they can and cannot do,look at and what sites they can and cannot go to. this isn’t, never has been and never will be about porn, about ‘protecting the children’! the filters are already lined up to stop ‘file sharing’ and this is exactly what the whole issue is about. it’s about the UK activating the filter so as to know who wants to ‘file share’, so as to allow any and all entertainment industries, particularly the the USA industries, Hollywood, RIAA, MPAA and MAFIAA as well as the BPI to have access to who they can then blame for the fuck up they have made by not embracing the Internet and giving real, legal alternatives, instead of the half-baked ideas they have atm! they can then threaten and intimidate more customers than ever before. there will be a deluge of court cases. there will be a never ending stream of people having their Internet service cut off! this whole plan is one to try to stop, at any cost, people from file sharing, just to please the US entertainment industries! as far as the UK government and every other government in the world, as soon as this filtering is in place, the file sharing will become top priority and they wont give a flyin’ fuck what happens to the children! if they were the real aim, they wouldn’t do this sort of thing. it is going to make the police forces job of tracking down the traffickers in child porn so much harder because it will all be pushed underground! Cameron needs to get off this high horse of his and leave things alone before he causes unmendable screw ups! as for Perry? what can anyone say except how sorry we feel for her partner!

Anonymous Coward says:

But it is censorship, Deborah, even if it’s a low-flying, somewhat malign, “opt-in” version of censorship,

OK Censorship, just like the kind employed here on TD, with the “REPORT’ system, is it not an ‘opt-in’, somewhat malign version of censorship as well ?

Oh is it ok for TD to employ such censorship methods, but not others ?

After, it’s is such a powerful tool here on TD to allow people to censor comments they do not agree with ?? (probably like this very one !!).

Putting free and open speech behind an ‘opt-in’ ‘HIDDEN’ and not clearly marked icon, and calling it “REPORTING” a comment is appropriate here on TD ??

You talk the talk, now it’s time to walk the walk..

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Yeahhh… people don’t report you because they disagree with you, they report you because you act like a child and then throw a fit when you get called out on it.

They report you because you’re a giant hypocrite, always claiming(falsely) that people ‘run away from you’ rather than debate you, yet doing the same yourself whenever you’re challenged to provide evidence in support of your claims.

They report you because you lie, over and over about what has been said, both in the comments and the articles themselves, and either completely ignore posts that call you out on such, or throw fits when caught.

They report you because you whine, constantly, about how your posts are always ‘censored'(due to the above mentioned childish behavior), when in reality, unlike actual censorship your posts remain all of one click away.

In short, you get reported and your comments hidden, because you have shown you deserve such.

Togashi (profile) says:

Re: Re:

It’s not blocked, it’s not removed, it’s not censored. It’s just hidden from view, restored with a single click. Nobody is kept from reading the comment. You don’t have to sign yourself up for the People Who Want To Read All The Comments list to see them. The only way someone will know if you read it or not is if you reply.

The report feature is intended for “abusive, spam, trollish, or otherwise inappropriate” content. Maybe if you would put your arguments forward in a way that wasn’t trying to insult everyone else here, people wouldn’t find your comments abusive/trollish. Plenty of dissenting comments remain unhidden when they’re actually civil about it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Yeah, let’s not split hairs. The way the report system is implemented right now, it is, most definitely, a tool for censorship.

I don’t care what the report button is meant to be used for. Power corrupts, and the Techdirt community is mostly composed of report junkies that even report legitimate comments just because they come from certain people (like out_of_the_blue). And then, just for extra fun, you can’t “un-report” comments.

When you try to block something just because you don’t agree with it, then you are censoring. There’s no way around it.

Don’t take me the wrong way. I used to defend Techdirt on this, hoping that they would get their act together eventually. But I just got tired of coming up with elaborate excuses for Techdirt.

Mike (or whoever is in charge): Fix this. Please?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“I don’t care what the report button is meant to be used for.”

So, you agree that tools can sometimes be misused and this is the problem people have with a government enforced filter on an entire country’s internet connection? A little more important than whether or not members of a community opt to filter out a known troll’s comments in way that’s easy to anonymously bypass, don’t you think?

Why are you wasting time arguing over a report system that doesn’t remove anybody’s comments? There are more important matters at hand.

“And then, just for extra fun, you can’t “un-report” comments.”

This is a lie. You just click the button again and the report vote is removed.

You’re on flimsy ground here.

out_of_the_blue says:

Re: Re: Re:2 @ "PaulT": no way for others to counter your precious "report" button.

>> “And then, just for extra fun, you can’t “un-report” comments.”

This is a lie. You just click the button again and the report vote is removed.

You’re on flimsy ground here.


Are you claiming you’re so pusillanimous or so judicious as to change your mind and un-report? Pffft! Once clicked, I’m sure no one goes back and decides it’s okay.

First, I’m NOT complaining. I think the “report” button and its usage is one of the more poisonous aspects of Techdirt, so it’s fine with me if used often! This is the wackiest web site I’ve run across, yapping about free speech but actually unable to bear ANY dissent, just try to drive it off one way or another, as indeed your post here does. I like to point out the hypocrisy, especially when the censored comments are SO mild. You “Insiders” never used “report” against Dark Helment in his foulest days. (It was ME who pointed out that vulgar is offensive and doing the site no good — and I only wrote what his mother would, that’s why effective, it’s just common decency.)

Anyhoo, now let’s look at the little bit of power the “report” button gives you fanboys, ’cause it’s quite insidious: the ability to “report” a comment is all that’s needed to establish a mindset favoring censorship. Soon as you see comments that you don’t wish the general public to read,, too dangerous for THEM to consider, you click report. Then you make up excuses about how it’s good that mere dissent is hidden, that those punished deserve it1 The more TRIVIAL are the comments, the WORSE you’ve been corrupted, until now you’ve essentially automatized it. — You “Insiders” have just nearly no self-awareness or big picture view. You are ripe for the control grid.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 @ "PaulT": no way for others to counter your precious "report" button.

Flailing personal attacks with no facts and absolutely zero relevance to the actual subject of the article? Figures. Stop attacking me for whatever activity you imagine I perform, and address reality for once in your pathetic life.

“especially when the censored comments are SO mild.”

What does mild have to do with it? An obnoxious troll is an obnoxious troll whether he swears or not.

“You “Insiders””

You can’t even get basic facts right, can you? (Hint: I’m not an “insider”, which you can see if you spent more than half a second reading instead of whining).

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I like to call it ‘the boy who cried wolf’ syndrome.

Certain posters to the site have demonstrated time and time again that they are completely and utterly incapable of having a civil, reasonable discussion, and would instead rather lash out at those around them, throwing insults, lies, personal attacks, and countless other less desirable posts far and wide.

People will put up with this sort of thing for a while, after all everyone can have a bad day, but when 99% of what a given person posts is nothing but crap and insults, eventually the patience wears out, and people stop giving them the benefit of the doubt, and always assume the worst of them and anything they might post, reporting them as a matter of course.

Personally I try and always give a poster the benefit of the doubt, but even I have found myself at times more inclined to hit the report button for a given poster, simply due to how offensive they have proven themselves in the past, and the reputation they have garnered for themselves with their actions. They themselves have lowered the bar as to what people will put up with regarding them, and the increased willingness to report their comments is the result.

Put bluntly I, and others here will only put up with someone screaming insults in our faces for so long before deciding that that person is just not worth listening to, and if some good points get buried in the process, that’s a pity but it’s no-one’s fault but the screamer.

Not sure what you mean about ‘un-reporting’ comments, but the two ways that occur to me are both very possible. If you report a post and change your mind, clicking report again takes back the vote, and if you want to read a reported/hidden comment, it takes all of one click and you can view it, so unless you’re talking about something else, not sure what you mean there.

out_of_the_blue says:

Re: Re: Re:2 @ "That One Guy"

“Personally I try and always give a poster the benefit of the doubt,”


RIGHT BACK ATCHA! Over time, I see YOU are one of the WORST TROLLS. — I know you think that you aren’t, but you’ve just stated you can’t bear certain ideas and certain people, and here you are doing nothing but ad hom justifying censoring.

I’ll save you the trouble of writing that others started it, ’cause if you had any sense, you wouldn’t continue back and forth with me…

You kids just can’t comment on topic and let readers decide. No, you’ve a notion that unless you attack dissent each and every time, you’re letting down His Mikeness and the “community”. You go ad hom, ’cause it’s all you’ve got, and poison the site for casual readers so they don’t wish to join. As a strategy, it’s counter-productive.

As I’ve said before (and countless others have tried to), JUST SAY what you wish on topic, and that’s your counter. “Discussion” doesn’t mean back and forth ad hom. [And yes, I’m making an exception: usually I ignore you ankle-biters, don’t even read your yapping, because useless.]

RD says:

Re: Re: Re:3 @ "That One Guy"

“You kids just can’t comment on topic and let readers decide. No, you’ve a notion that unless you attack dissent each and every time, you’re letting down His Mikeness and the “community”. You go ad hom, ’cause it’s all you’ve got, and poison the site for casual readers so they don’t wish to join. As a strategy, it’s counter-productive.

As I’ve said before (and countless others have tried to), JUST SAY what you wish on topic, and that’s your counter. “Discussion” doesn’t mean back and forth ad hom. [And yes, I’m making an exception: usually I ignore you ankle-biters, don’t even read your yapping, because useless.]”

All I have to say to this unbelievable wall of lies is YOU FIRST YOU STEAMING PILE OF SHIT.

How you can talk out of both sides of your mouth like this and expect to be taken seriously is amazing to me. You are a true sociopath, you dont see ANY hypocrisy in making the above statements while at the same time DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU DESCRIBE YOURSELF! And then when called out on it, you will go “Persecution! I didn’t write any of those things in this post, so you are unfairly maligning me!!”

Truly incredible.

Total sociopath.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 @ "That One Guy"

I do not think ad hom means what you think it means.

Explaining his reasoning due to the long storied post history of you and others isn’t ad hom.

Calling us ankle biters, kids, compiling our opinions like we all share the exact same opinion and then dismissing it because were children or whatever.

That’s ad hom.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 @ "That One Guy"

Hi, nutjob! Great to see you. By the way, look at this article

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130722/13112723888/students-free-speech-victory-is-victory-everyone-even-if-you-disagree-with-his-speech.shtml?threaded=false&sp=1#comments

Can you see how many comments are “censored” or hidden? Go on. Count them. There’s plenty of dissenting views from the regular Techdirt community that are still viewable, even from that homophobic bigot The Real Michael.
Want to say again we do nothing but censor comments we disagree with? Go on, I dare you, I double dog dare you.

McGreed (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The voting here is as much censorship as putting criminals into jails are. It might have been censorship if all your posts were blocked so no one could see them, however they are not, everyone can see your post with little effort…and the ‘censorship’ is only applied to that one stupid post that everyone seemed to agreed is moronic. Or else it would have been even out by the insightful votes…

RD says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“I don’t care what the report button is meant to be used for. Power corrupts, and the Techdirt community is mostly composed of report junkies that even report legitimate comments just because they come from certain people (like out_of_the_blue). “

Well, thats because OOTB’s has spent most of his time here writing specious and abusive comments in an attempt to derail the topics, and his “legitimate” comments are anomaly’s, and as we all know from OOTB’s posts himself, anomaly’s are to be ignored and dismissed as not legitimate.

Dean William Barnes (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Actually, there is nothing wrong with a web site like TD censoring postings. What content is allowed to be posted or not is the right of the owner, and is part of the creation process. People may not like it but that is the price of free speech. A website censoring its content is considerably different then a government controlled and enforced filter blocking access to certain websites because the government deems them unfit for public consumption. Let’s not cloud the issue.

Peter Wakefield Sault (user link) says:

Re: Re: TD's Rights

TD is the only site on the entire WWW that has not banned me for truthsaying. I am banned by youtube, google, russia today, veterans today, all newspapers, the BBC, yahoo, godlikeproductions, the entire 9/11 “truth movement” and many others too numerous or too worthless to list here.

See, for just one example, comments that got me banned from russia today:-
http://www.odeion.org/russiatoday/

P.S. google is blocked at my router, along with a long list of ad servers, for old skool (i.e. google-free) websurfing. I use startpage.com for searches. Everybody should try it at least once. It’s like a breath of fresh air.

Josef Anvil (profile) says:

Re: Thanks for the lesson

You can claim that the report button is censorship all you want and it won’t be true.

If something is censored then you can’t get to it, full stop.

Thankfully you’ve just illustrated quite clearly how the internet works. We CHOOSE what we want to view. Click to view or click to remove. It’s that simple. Censorship removes choice.

Don’t like porn, then don’t watch it. I still don’t understand why this concept is so difficult.

But but but… what if its on a public screen? Ummm don’t watch it. Same principle.

But but but… a my child my see. Ummm tell your child not to look or cover the child’s eyes.

RD says:

Re: Re:

No, it isnt.

Techdirt doesn’t carry the weight and authority of the government. Any “censorship” by techdirt does not carry the full weight of the law behind it. The fact that you cant differentiate between these two principles shows you are only interested in playing the victim to get attention and use as an attempt to “get” Mike.

Now, please GFY and STFU.

S. T. Stone says:

Re: Re:

Your argument has a few flaws:

1.) Techdirt, which exists as a privately-owned website, has no obligation whatsoever to allow you to use the platform of user comments to say whatever you wish. You have the right to Free Speech, but you don?t have the right to force Techdirt to help you express yourself. Techdirt admins can hide your comments all they want and you have no way of forcing them to do otherwise.

2.) I assume that Techdirt?s report system relies on a set number of ?report? votes to trigger the hide-line, but even if it relies on human intervention, it only happens because enough commenters have reported your comments?

3.) ?because those commenters feel that your comments add nothing to any potential discussion of a subject. You and other ?trolls? (e.g. Out of the Blue) constantly end up behind the hide-line because you do nothing but whine about Techdirt censoring you, complain about the Google bogeyman, launch ad hominem attacks against Techdirt writers, and generally offer no added value to the article above.

Now I?ll string all those prior points together in a single sentence: Techdirt admins have a right to hide your comments, and they do so because enough commenters thought your comments added no value to the article or to any potential discussion of the article and reported them.

You can spout your valueless nonsense elsewhere, but Techdirt commenters (myself included) don?t feel as if we have to put up with the nonsensical ramblings of trolls. We?ll use the report button on you and OOTB and anyone else we deem a troll.

If you don?t like it, go complain about it to your Congressperson. I bet they?d love to take on your case and dismantle the First Amendment just so you can post here without Techdirt having the ability to hide your worthless comments, amirite?

Togashi (profile) says:

This seems to me like saying that not placing a copy of Anna Karenina in every home, pre-web, was censorship against Russian novels.

Except that there already is a copy of Anna Karenina in every home, and the government is coming around and taking yours if you don’t object.

Also, how in the seven hells are (most) games on the web inappropriate for children? I can’t seem to twist my mind enough to come up with the ridiculous explanation they’d have for that.

PaulT (profile) says:

?If there?s a watershed on the TV then why isn?t there one for the internet??

Christ, they really are this stupid, aren’t they?

For the similarly intelligence-challenged: TV is a series of programs linearly broadcast on a centrally controlled schedule. The watershed is there to ensure that content unsuitable for children/families is not broadcast before 9pm. This is increasing irrelevant not only with the advent of VCRs, DVRs, streaming services, etc., but most non-terrestrial services have an agreement where they can broadcast adult material as long as the channel is encrypted (e.g. Sky’s movie channels allow unsuitable movies to be broadcast if the viewer uses a PIN to bypass the encryption).

So, not only is the watershed a rather quaint notion that has little real relevance to anyone other than a casual TV viewer, it’s totally dependant on a linear broadcast schedule. The ENTIRE POINT of the internet is that there is no central control, and no schedule. So, what’s being proposed is literally impossible – even if it was acceptable to simply block every adult in the country from doing what they wish in case a child is around (which, of course, it’s sure as hell not).

You have to be a real moron not to understand this, or at least so clueless about the very basics of the technology that you shouldn’t be let near it with a 30 foot pole. What a shame that it’s these self-appointed crusaders who are so stupid as to not understand what they’re talking about. Sadly typical for the Tories and their Daily Fail fanbase, who did exactly this sort of crap last time they were in power – and are presumably annoyed at how badly it failed.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Not stupidity, just wishful thinking

While it’s impossible with the internet as it stands now, it would be quite possible if the internet could be crippled to the extent that they, and a whole slew of other countries, apparently wish it would be.

If the internet was changed to the tv-style ‘we broadcast, you consume, end of story’, then yes, they could indeed set up something like that, and the fact that it would take the crippling if not outright destruction of the greatest technological innovation since electricity is, I’m sure, considered a small price to pay to get the peons back in line and under control.

Anonymous Coward says:

Filter

What guarantees are their that the opt out is a complete opt-out of the filter, rather that only allowing what the government considers as unacceptable for children?
What will the government reaction be when various people offer unfiltered Internet to attract minors for various nefarious purpose? This could be paedophiles, and also criminals looking for minors to act as drug couriers etc.

out_of_the_blue says:

Techdirt, not just PRO-porn, but for pirating it!

The (UK) gov’t MAY (repeat MAY) be in some small part implementing the wishes of most people to not be bludgeoned by porn on every web page — because that’s certainly the trend. Gov’t is also putting final touches on a total surveillance grid, of course, using its agent, Google. But gov’t always does the latter, and it’s still possible that blocking porn might accidentally help common decency, which would be indirectly to the good in setting a climate that might limit the gov’t in its tyrannical aspects. So it’s a mixed bag.

But Techdirt doesn’t do nuances. Minions can’t see any difference between persons actively buying Page 3 girls and having Google bombard everyone with targeted advertising only wail that their pornz are being taken away; such an extreme view that they end up mere reactionaries, and can’t help but go wrong. — Just from threat of losing their porzn unless they opt out, they go wrong exactly as intended, have their buttons pushed and stop thinking: become PRO-porn and embrace the state’s main surveillance engince, become PRO-Google.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Techdirt, not just PRO-porn, but for pirating it!

See, you start making a point and then get sidetracked by the Google monster.

Your defense of the scheme that it might “help common decency” I find to be a very weak argument and one contrary to the limited evidence we have about porn (namely that rape statistics go down where porn is easily accessible).

The rest of your post as usual makes zero sense, maybe take the meds?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Techdirt, not just PRO-porn, but for pirating it!

Out of the box, in recent years I haven’t actually seen a single porn ad on any web page, let alone every web page.

Its the sites you browse, you must have your net set up through some porn proxy to be “bludgeoned by porn on every web page”.

Now please hurry up and die, someone more deserving could use the Oxygen you are relentlessly using up to create all that hot air.

Chronno S. Trigger (profile) says:

Re: Techdirt, not just PRO-porn, but for pirating it!

Here’s a little lesson for you, Blue, about how Google works. Google, and other search engines, give you what you search for. So if you spend all day searching for porn to bitch about, you will find it.

I recommend you stop searching for porn to bitch about and start using the porn for it’s intended purpose. It may calm you down a little.

S. T. Stone says:

Re: Techdirt, not just PRO-porn, but for pirating it!

Psst.

Google doesn?t run the entire Internet, nor can you hold Google responsible for the content of millions of web pages not hosted on Google?s servers.

Stop using the Google bogeyman in your arguments. It doesn?t do you any favors because your bogeyman arguments always end up dismantled and you look as if you can?t do anything but argue ?but?but?Google!? (alongside the old standby arguments of ?but?but?piracy!? and ?but?but?censorship!?).

And by the by: Techdirt does not advocate becoming ?pro-porn?, but it does advocate becoming more knowledgable about the government trying to use its power to get a foot in the door vis-?-vis control over all content on the Internet. You can call it a slippery slope argument all you want, but in this case, the slope could actually exist: if the UK government manages to carry out this filter and claim it did so ?for the children?, what would they filter out ?for the children? next, and how far would they want to take its control over the Internet in an effort to further infantilize its citizens?

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Techdirt, not just PRO-porn, but for pirating it!

implementing the wishes of most people to not be bludgeoned by porn on every web page

Well, then, nothing needs to be done! Very, very few web pages display porn except for, you know, porn sites.

With one exception, I’ve never seen any porn in places I didn’t expect. And that one exception was on a machine that had been compromised by a trojan which inject porn ads into regular web sites, and rewrote search results so that the top ten always linked to porn sites.

But the solution to that isn’t filtering, it’s anti-malware software.

BTW, none of this has anything at all to do with Google.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Techdirt, not just PRO-porn, but for pirating it!

There was an opposing opinion? Obessive attacks on things that have nothing to do with the article and attacks on people reading the comment are not “opposing opinions”. They’re either the ravings of a madman or trolling, either of which is OK to hide. Not CENSOR, because if it was censored, neither you nor I could read it. I can read it fine – what’s your problem?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Techdirt, not just PRO-porn, but for pirating it!

There was an opposing opinion? Obsessive attacks on things that have nothing to do with the article and attacks on people reading the comment are not “opposing opinions”. Slanderous lies about the actions of other people here They’re either the ravings of a madman or trolling, either of which is OK to hide. Not CENSOR, because if it was censored, neither you nor I could read it. I can read it fine – what’s your problem?

Michael (profile) says:

A porn filter is all well and good, but who’s going to empty it?

It could be used as a school project.

Any sort of porn filter will be bypassed by the porn companies within days of it being set up. It will have more Sesame Street images than porn within weeks. Of course, Sesame Street images and porn are not mutually exclusive, but THOSE images will get through just fine.

jameshogg says:

I have always loved how porn censors, who claim that pornography corrupts us, always seem to insist that they are the exception to the rule.

I think I know what is going on here. People in our society are just too afraid to call out on parents for being the lazy, irresponsible fucks that they are. We would rather live in a culture where parents are treated like perfect, misunderstood angels who are “just trying to do what is best” and who the rest of us, who have no kids and therefore have a more objective insight to these issues, would not dream of telling how to raise their kids. Fuck that. The cliche “don’t tell me how to raise my kids” is one of the stupidest absurdities ever spouted by those who do not like to be criticised and do not like the idea that they are doing a shitty job at it. If people would actually LISTEN to what garble they chant like mantras for two seconds they would know what nonsense it is.

Well guess what? I am here to shatter your silly little comfort zones.

Parents who make these kinds of calls for government babysitting are exactly the same sort of people who will buy their kids 18-rated games since the kids get asked for ID at the shops, and then claim that society, yes everyone ELSE, is responsible for exposing kids to violent content. We PRAISE these parents who expose kids to questionable content as being in the moral right. Can anything be more fucking contemptible? And the reason I can be sure of this is that it is far easier for these sorts of parents to blame a government’s policy than tell their sweet little angels “no” once in a while.

These people have no right to advocate such a dangerous course of government empowering action and spit on free speech. No. Fucking. Right.

Remember, we are in an age where schools are encouraged to dumb down their exams, self-esteem “classes” are encouraged even in spite of blatant requirements to tell kids they are doing something wrong, where discipline is tossed aside, etc. There is also “value for tax money” too when it comes to schools, I will admit. But you cannot ignore the former.

I can guarantee you that any porn filter will be turned off by these same parents. Because they do not want their kids to be mad at them. These people are not worth our time. Put your fucking family computer in the living room so that you can pay attention to what your kids are doing, use a bit of common sense, and for God’s sake stop claiming that having a kid makes you right about everything all the time.

Peter Wakefield Sault (user link) says:

Re: Saint Cameron The Wise And Just

Cameron is looking after his pal Rupert Murdoch’s porn empire. After all, who needs “Page 3 Girls” when there’s beeg.com for porn and techdirt.com for news? Cameron’s next door neighbour on Millionaire’s Alley (the M4 motorway) is Rebekkah Brooks, recently the subject of the Judge Leveson “Inquiry” into the phone-tapping of a child murder-rape victim’s mobile phone by Rupert Murdoch employees at the ‘News of The World’.

Emo says:

Slippery slope

We’ve been sliding down precisely this slippery slope in the U.S. since CIPA was passed. No school nor any public library receiving federal (or certain state moneys) has offered uncensored internet access since its enactment. The expectation of censorship has become the norm for a generation. A second class internet is all that those without means have access to. Appalling, but good luck gaining enough traction to repeal an “anti-child porn” bill that outlawed nothing other than the funding of public services that don’t actively engage in censorship.

Tom (AAV) (user link) says:

Satire

Hi guys.

Great work on trashing that atrocious Orr piece.

Sometimes I think it’s better to explain stuff in a satirical manner though, here’s something I wrote.

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com/2013/07/purely-hypothetical-conversation.html

I’m sharing it because it is relevant, and because I thought you guys might appreciate it…

Feel free to take it down if you deem it spam though.

All the best

AAV

Anonymous Coward says:

M-Orr-on

Orr is apparently too fucking stupid to realized that:
(1) Porn filters repeatedly have demonstrated that they block gay and/or bondage. (Is she a homophobe? She’s acting like one);
(2) A porn filter only works if it also blocks the information about how to subvert the filter. As in, the filter technical manuals and/or every website that provide workarounds.
Dumbass.

Peter Wakefield Sault (user link) says:

Porn And Mind Control

The “problem” with porn is not the porn itself but the fact that it is irresistable bait to any normal human being. Add to that the fact that many porn websites are run by amateurs whose websites usually lack all security and are easily hacked and such websites become the preferred vector for malware,. Once upon a time I was reduced to itinerant PC-fixer, whilst “between jobs”. Those problems not arising from lightning damage (10% ==> replace entire PC) were malware infections caught during porn-surfing (90% ==> reinstall Windows).

Internet nazis have a field day with porn because most masturbators are programmed to be ashamed of the act, it being forbidden in that fabricated propaganda fairytale ‘The Bible’ and so hated by some people that they will genitally mutilate their children in order to prevent it – a monstrously obscene sex crime if ever there was one to prevent what is in reality a harmless release of pent-up libido. Hence it is difficult for anyone to speak of it freely, even those who have largely overcome their programming (childhood imprinting is impossible to remove, hence the enforced imprisonment of children in state indoctrination camps, er I mean “schools”). And, of course, no one gets selected to political office who has overcome such programming in the slightest. In fact such a person is lucky if he can get any job.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...