New 'We The People' Petition Demands UK-Style Porn Filtering

from the aspiring-to-be-the-nation's-conscience dept

M.G. in Greenbrae, CA must have been inspired by UK Prime Minister David Cameron's quest for a porn-free Britain. The Prime Minister's idealism has resulted in an insistence that all internet providers make access to porn "opt-in." Anti-porn filters are on by default. For the children.

As the Daily Dot points out, M.G.'s petition for online porn blockage is likely to be severely short on support. For one, the US government has been generally opposed to regulating the internet in this fashion. Not that there aren't plenty of little instances where legislators have imposed their will on internet communications, but by and large, a nationwide censoring of certain content is highly unlikely. For another, it's highly unlikely a majority of Americans would be supportive of a plan that makes them ask, in writing, for their internet porn tap to be turned back on.

That being said, it's a large nation with 300 million people, a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their morality on others. 100,000 signatures isn't completely out of the question. (Not that this will guarantee an administration response…)

But what is M.G. asking for, specifically? Here's the entire petition, which is mercifully brief.

Require Porn to be an "Opt In" feature with Internet Service Providers rather than a standard feature.
Hang on. Let's deal with the title first. I don't believe any ISP offers porn as a "standard feature." Yes, your internet access will provide you with a gateway to porn, but it's not on the feature list right after the breakdown of your underachieving (but overpriced!) connection speed. So, "porn" isn't a standard feature -- it's just something that's available on the internet. And it's far from the only thing.

OK. here's the entire petition.
In its current state, Internet porn seeks out users by email solicitations and massive amounts of free content throughout Internet browser searches. The average person, even children, can type in the word "cat" or "home" or "soup" and instantly be inundated with offensive and disturbing pornographic images. Parents and individuals have to go to great lengths to install Internet filters that often don't weed out all porn. We are asking for greater protection and responsibility from Internet Service providers and our country. We are asking that people who are interested in porn should have to seek it and choose it. They should have to "Opt In" for it by making arrangements to receive it with their Internet Service Provider. Everyone else should be free from it and assumed "Opt Out".
It would appear that M.G. has clicked through on some very questionable ads and linkbait and, worse, provided some sketchy forms with his or her email address. I have yet to receive a porn email solicitation -- or at least, I haven't received one in years. Anyone using a halfway competent email service will find these sorts of solicitations routed directly into their spam folder without ever being made aware of porn's apparent ubiquity. Perhaps what's sketchy here is M.G.'s email provider.

Following up this dubious assertion that "average people" (including children, which is what this is all about, innit?) can stumble across porn using words like "soup." And "home." You can, if so inclined, perform some iterations of everyday words that will allow you to "inadvertently" conjure up pornographic images, but for most people, using common words will return common search results, especially considering most search engines provide a "safe" search by default. Sure, you may find some edge leakage, but for the most part, searching for "soup" will net you soup-related images and links, not porn.

And then M.G. tanks the whole thing by complaining that parents have to make an effort to protect their average children from accidentally accessing soupporn, and notes that even these so-hard-to-use filters don't even filter out all of the bad stuff. But then, M.G. ignores this gaping (soup) hole in his/her plan and arrives at a pair of bad conclusions.

1. ISPs are supposed to "protect" users. What?
2. The government can make a perfect porn-proof filter, even if private companies cannot. Wat.

This sounds like someone who wants to look at porn, but believes he (or she) shouldn't and feels this "responsibility" should be entrusted to higher powers in order to protect he/she from his/her vices. Anyone can be almost completely free of porn (edge leaks excluded) with a minimum of effort. What M.G. wants is something that prevents users from accessing porn, even if they want to. Signees want the government to force ISPs to be their conscience, so to speak.

Don't believe that? Check out the list of signatures. One state is hugely over-represented.

Utah.

Now, I won't paint everyone in Utah with the same brush, but the state does have, shall we say, a prevailing religion. Now, like most religions, Mormons believe porn is "wrong." Thus, it would follow that they'd like to see it blocked. But why would they feel the government should get involved, what with church and state and all that?

Because Utah can't help itself.
A study by a Harvard Business School professor shows that Utah outpaces the more conservative states -- which all tend to purchase more Internet porn than other states…

Utah has the nation's highest online porn subscription rate per thousand home broadband users, at 5.47, while the nearby states of Idaho and Montana showed the lowest rates of 1.98 and 1.92, respectively, according to the study.
All speculation, of course, but this looks a whole lot like a bunch of people want assistance curbing their vices. This puts the onus (a word that only sounds dirty) on someone else to put them on the path to righteousness. More "evidence?" The next two states listed most frequently are Idaho (Utah Lite) and Texas (a state that elected Rick Perry, someone who still makes political hay complaining about the disappearance of prayer from public schools).

Now, the petition is gaining new signatures at a slow but pretty steady pace, making it a long shot to make 100,000. But not impossible. So, there's a slim chance the administration may have another petition to ignore (or talk around) by the end of November.

Conversely, if you're one of those people completely unaffected by this sort of moral panic, you may be finding your internet is woefully inefficient when it comes to delivering the porn-y goodness. Good news! Someone out there, also inspired by David Cameron's porn blocking, has compiled a bit of scripting to help you properly filter the internet [possibly NSFW - "denial" page contains hand-drawn penises] by swiftly separating the porn wheat from the overly-inhibited chaff (via Egg Miliband) by using a porn filter against itself.
The filter is a dns server which checks all queries against the OpenDNS FamilyShield DNS server. Any request that is denied by OpenDNS is then allowed by our DNS server, and any request allowed by OpenDNS is blocked by us.

The server itself is built using the python Twisted framework which handles both the DNS requests and acts as a simple web-server to host the denial page.
Here's a brief video explaining the HOW. [Again, NSFW - penis drawings]



Happy surfing!



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Nov 5th, 2013 @ 7:57am

    You don't find porn if you don't look for it actively or visit questionable websites. At best you'll see slightly erotic or insinuating stuff. Or if you go to places with user generated content that has no moderation.

    This begs the question: What has MG been up too? Naughty little fapper ;)

     

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

  2.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Nov 5th, 2013 @ 8:02am

    Don't believe that? Check out the list of signatures. One state is hugely over-represented.

    Utah.

    Now, I won't paint everyone in Utah with the same brush, but the state does have, shall we say, a prevailing religion.


    Wait. Isn't that big barn for harvested haystacks from the NSA being built there? Wouldn't such a filter, installed at the ISP level, allow easier surveillance? /conspiracy-nut-or-is-it?

     

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

  3.  
    icon
    Mark Harrill (profile), Nov 5th, 2013 @ 8:07am

    Sorry M.G...

    You can't take away my right to look for Chicken Boobie Soup, no matter how much you may want to!

     

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

  4.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Nov 5th, 2013 @ 9:57am

    The big problem

    People clearly don't understand what an ISP does. this petition makes it sound like an ISP provides content. It doesn't. It just provides a communications service. In this sense, it's no different than your telephone service provider.

    ISPs do not, and should not, decide what content you can and cannot access. Period.

     

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

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 10:02am

    Troll petition?

    Ill bet the White House responds to this one long before it answers about the NSA.

     

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

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 10:05am

    I don't want to look at churches

     

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

  7.  
    identicon
    Mats Svensson, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 10:06am

    Religion first

    Religion is infinitely more harmful.
    Ban that first, THEN move on to porn.

    Make love, not war.

     

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

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 10:11am

    "The average person, even children, can type in the word "cat" or "home" or "soup" and instantly be inundated with offensive and disturbing pornographic images."

    I just want to know what search engine they're using??!

     

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

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 10:12am

    Nationwide Censorship

    … but by and large, a nationwide censoring of certain content is highly unlikely…

    It's a dirty secret, but I'll let you in on it:   By and large, a majority of Americans would prefer censorship.

    Take, just for instance, one of the more recent pronouncments on the first amendment, United States v Stevens (2010). That case got decided by the Supreme Court because Congress passed a law. The politicians in Congress passed that law because they thought it would help them get re-elected. They did not think it was an unpopular measure.

    Censorship has popular support.

     

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

  10.  
    identicon
    Bengie, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 10:16am

    ack

    "The average person, even children, can type in the word "cat" or "home" or "soup" and instantly be inundated with offensive and disturbing pornographic images."

    Stop using Bing. I know Google doesn't do this. Just be careful about image searches, I've seen nudity in those, but not porn; but some people get confused between the two.

     

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

  11.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Nov 5th, 2013 @ 10:19am

    The average person, even children, can type in the word "cat" or "home" or "soup" and instantly be inundated with offensive and disturbing pornographic images.


    Is this guy on drugs? Searching Google Images (with SafeSearch off even) for "cat" produces page after page after page of...um...cats.

    I'm with Grumpy Cat on this one:

    http://cdn.memegenerator.co/instances/250x250/39603752.jpg

     

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

  12. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 10:24am

    And "a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their IMmorality on others."

    So what's wrong with opt-in?

    Because you kids think that YOU are the authority who can impose "unable to opt out" on everyone else, seems a good time to deflate you with this laugh I just ran across:

    Mike claims "a consistent Technorati Technology Top 100 rating":

    http://www.techdirt.com/about.php

    But that was LONG ago. Down to 5946 at the moment (actually a slight increase of late). To find out what it means, look what sites have the same "Technorati Authority".

    http://technorati.com/blogs/directory/overall/page-242

    5946. That VideoGame Blog Recent: Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance gets ...
    ......
    5946. Techdirt Recent: Aussie Security Research Hacks Music ...
    ......
    5946. The Onion Recent: Financially Ruined Executive Still ...
    ......
    5946. Lolcats 'n' Funny Pictures of ... Recent: Gravity Can Either Work with You or ...

    Check it for yourself, kids! Techdirt today has the same authority as "The Onion", and "LOLcats"!!!

     

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

  13.  
    identicon
    Michael, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 10:24am

    I was searching for a cat soup recipe the other day and didn't accidentally find any porn.

    Hmm...

     

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

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 10:27am

    Re: And "a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their IMmorality on others."

    You are such an idiot, it's stunning. But that's a normal day for you.

    What's wrong with Opt-In?? How about I want to preserve my anonymity and have no need for the ISP/Government to track my occasional indulgences in porn?

     

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

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 10:31am

    Re:

    Not, that to some people, if any part of a women’s skin is exposed, it is porn, hence the Burka.

     

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

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 10:33am

    Re:

    Keeping in mind that Google returns different results for different people, and if you are into that sort of thing, cat could result in furry stuff and home could result in home made porn.

    But I'm left wondering: is it even possible for "soup" to result in porn in any context?

    Actually...er...I probably would rather not know. Rule 34.

     

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

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 10:40am

    Re: Re: And "a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their IMmorality on others."

    So what's wrong with opt-in?

    Anybody can set up their own filter on the Internet; one option being Linux and Dans guardian. Any organisation could set up a proxy server filter for their members. So if you want a filtered internet, it is easy to arrange, and does not requires forcing your morals down others throats.
    By the way, ISP provided filters on mobile broadband in the UK are notorious for blocking perfectly reasonable sites, like a site about wind power.

     

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

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 10:41am

    Re: And "a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their IMmorality on others."

    You already have the option to "opt-in": Configure your browser and OS to only show you what you think is appropriate.

    The alternative that is being proposed is leaving that up to the ISP, which will do a terrible job - as always - blocking legitimate sites.

    You see, rules derived from blind morality - often disguised with the pusrpos of being "for the children" - favour overzealous enforcement, because if you are not overzealous, and something happens to slip by, people will accuse you of "hurting the children". And that is just bad PR. So ISPs will always err on the side of censorship.

     

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

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 10:43am

    Re:

    Is this guy on drugs? Searching Google Images (with SafeSearch off even) for "cat" produces page after page after page of...um...cats.
    Yes, but most of those cats are naked!

     

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

  20.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Nov 5th, 2013 @ 10:46am

    Re: And "a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their IMmorality on others."

    So what's wrong with opt-in?


    Tons. Once again Blue, the devil is in the details (you know, those little things you simply ignore).

    1) How would you define porn? And how would you filter for something that even the Supreme Court can't define but "knows it when they see it"?

    2) ISP's are supposed to be "dumb pipes" and now you'd have them filter content? (pretty weird stance for someone is all crazy about Google scanning email and tracking web use)

    3) A opt-in solution would remove anonymity. (also a pretty weird stance for someone who trolls constantly with a pseudonym.)

    4) ....I'm sure there's more, but I not spending any more time on this.




    Because you kids think that YOU are the authority who can impose "unable to opt out" on everyone else...

    What the hell are you talking about? Anyone can "opt-out" from seeing porn now. SafeSearch, parental filters, DNS filters, etc. The chances of seeing porn doing "normal" stuff on the internet is already pretty slim these days.

     

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

  21.  
    identicon
    Alt0, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 10:51am

    Re: And "a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their IMmorality on others."

    You can already "opt out" from ALL that disturbs you online.


    Pull the plug attached to your PC out of the wall.

     

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

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 10:55am

    Re: Re: And "a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their IMmorality on others."

    Ah, that worked well in the 20th century, but in the age of WI-FI and wireless charging, protecting dumb people from themselves has become a hell of a lot harder.

     

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

  23.  
    identicon
    Alt0, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 11:09am

    You are correct sir, and I concede. However while you were posting I did a bit of research and found that none of the suggested terms (home,Soup,Cat)provided me with any porn.
    (Google image search no filter)
    The deviant term "pussy" however was quite the honeyhole!

     

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

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 11:10am

    Re: Re:

    Yeah, best to never underestimate rule 34. I challenged someone to rule 34 shopping carts once...

    View at your own peril http://i.imgur.com/Tv7G9Ka.jpg

     

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

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 11:11am

    Re:

    Ogle.

     

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

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 11:22am

    Re: Religion first

    People whom say this only reveal a deep seated and terrible ignorance of humanity. Religion is everywhere and cannot ever be supressed or done away with. Lets just call everything what it really is. Object BIAS!

    We all have seen religious nuts and scientific nuts advance their own agenda's religious style without regard to either truth or sanity. When people organize, it really is the same as a church of thought, be it science, or even sporting event where people will antagonize or even outright murder oposing fans.

    The only way to BAN religion is to flat out destroy all life.

     

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

  27.  
    icon
    Deranged Poster (profile), Nov 5th, 2013 @ 11:25am

    Re: The big problem

    I don't even want my ISP to block ports (I'm looking at you port 25) I wan't my pipe unfiltered and unrestricted.

     

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

  28.  
    identicon
    Brazenly Anonymous, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 11:32am

    Re: Nationwide Censorship

    It's a dirty secret, but I'll let you in on it: By and large, a majority of Americans would prefer censorship.


    Prove it.

    The only censorship I see mass support for is that of those who broadcast their message without any warning available prior to accessing the broadcast. Even there, we tend to see voluntary ratings systems crop up as opposed to censorship rules.

    Other forms of censorship are fought against and overturned fairly often.

     

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

  29.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Nov 5th, 2013 @ 11:37am

    Re: Nationwide Censorship

    But people do not agree on what they want censored. Even people who want to censor "porn" can't agree on what counts as "porn".

     

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

  30.  
    identicon
    Oolong Kaloofid, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 11:38am

    Porn?

    You can find anything objectionable and therefore call it pornographic. I thought the recent disaster in Congress an abomination and therefore porn... I didn't rally the troupes against Congress - although on second thought maybe I should have.

    Even if - IF - you ban porn, the kids that want it will find it somehow. Teaching your children the difference is more important than trying to ban something. Remember how well Prohibition against alcohol work and how it created underground criminal organizations to supply what America wanted?

    Learn from history so we don't repeat it. I know that's a lot to ask...

     

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

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 11:39am

    What I find most amusing..

    What I find most amusing is that religious nuts who want to impose their morals on everybody else are, by-and-large, Republicans. And amazingly enough, they're the sort of Republicans that fetishize free market economics.
    We are asking for greater protection and responsibility from Internet Service providers
    If this was actually a problem, wouldn't the petition be better directed at the Internet Service providers? And (since the Invisible Market Fairy solves all problems) wouldn't ISPs already be doing this, rather than you having to ask for it?

     

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

  32.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Nov 5th, 2013 @ 11:41am

    Re: Re:

    Keeping in mind that Google returns different results for different people


    That's only true for people who have a Google account and are logged in when they search.

     

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

  33.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Nov 5th, 2013 @ 11:43am

    Re: And "a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their IMmorality on others."

    So what's wrong with opt-in


    Opt-in is what we have right now! If you want a censored internet, you can have it, right now, without turning the ISP into a censor for everybody.

     

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

  34.  
    identicon
    Brazenly Anonymous, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 11:46am

    Re: Re: The big problem

    Campaign for IPv6 so we can all have static IP addresses and spammers can be blacklisted individually. Until then, even if 25 wasn't blocked, you'd still probably be unable to make use of it.

    The cause of this is mostly overzealous DNSBLs (black lists implemented using the DNS protocols) that block whole ISPs because a few spammers use them.

     

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

  35.  
    identicon
    Brazenly Anonymous, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 11:54am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Nope, it does go beyond this. I've trained my work computer to display my work's homepage first for a search where it is normally second. I don't use my Google account at work.

     

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

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 11:56am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I was under the impression they would even track history of folks not logged in with a cookie. Of course, this cookie can be cleared, so the customization won't be as thorough.

    Of course, even without a cookie, there is other fingerprint data they can use to identify a visitor. So they can still track your search history and customize future results. To what extent they may use this, I don't know. But you certainly don't have to give them a username before they start profiling you.

     

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

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 11:58am

    Re:

    That is what I came here to say. If words like soup and home are returning porn results for you then you already have a very scary browser history. Maybe they should stop letting children use his spank machine to do their homework.

     

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

  38.  
    identicon
    Brazenly Anonymous, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 12:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: And "a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their IMmorality on others."

    protecting dumb people from themselves


    If those dumb people weren't protected from learning experiences, maybe they'd be a bit smarter.

     

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

  39.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Nov 5th, 2013 @ 12:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This is true. My bad, I assume that everyone already blocks cookies, javascript, and flash. I shouldn't assume that.

     

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

  40.  
    icon
    McCrea (profile), Nov 5th, 2013 @ 12:32pm

    Right back at you

    Can't we just start another petition asking to make porn mandatory for 21+ year olds?

     

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

  41.  
    icon
    Falindraun (profile), Nov 5th, 2013 @ 12:34pm

    Re:

    the other problem with this petition is that scotus has already said that porn is protected under the 1st amendment.

     

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

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 12:55pm

    you people allowed this sort of thing to start and go unhindered, now you're getting what others are and serve you rights! as long as the government and politicians in general keep getting 'encouragement' unchecked from the entertainment industries, they will continue to give what the industries want in return.
    once the internet has been handed over to these industries and then given to the USG it will be too late to start whining. it should never have been allowed to get to this state in the first place. it's gonna be almost impossible to stop now and even harder to change tack!
    try to imagine, if you will, the greatest communication and sharing facility ever invented being in the charge of Hollywood, the US entertainment industries in general and the USG! then imagine what else will happen. Germany are already talking about starting their own internet. if that trend expanded, look at the detriment to the rest of the world. everywhere having their own little portion and no one speaking to each other or exchanging anything. what a disaster that will be and who is to blame? an industry that relies on the imaginary and one that is so selfish, so unchanging and so embedded in the past that to not have 110% control of as much of that imaginary item(s) is unthinkable and must not happen, regardless of what else is fucked up or stopped on the way!! what a disgraceful attitude!!

     

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

  43.  
    identicon
    wec, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 1:44pm

    GO OGLE

     

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

  44.  
    icon
    Cdaragorn (profile), Nov 5th, 2013 @ 3:34pm

    Re: What I find most amusing..

    "wouldn't ISPs already be doing this, rather than you having to ask for it?"

    No, because the Invisible Market Fairy has already created many free and easy to use internet filters to fill this need.

    Problem solved.

     

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

  45.  
    icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), Nov 5th, 2013 @ 4:39pm

    Alternate interpretation

    Utah may have a reputation of having "a prevailing religion," but it's important to separate stereotypes from reality. My sister lives out there, and the truth is a lot more complicated.

    Things have changed quite a bit since the days of Brigham Young. Less than half of Utahns are Mormons, and a good percentage of those who are are "cultural Mormons" only, who don't actively participate in the religious aspects.

    Despite this, they do wield a good degree of influence in local and state politics, and one point where this is quite evident is that various vices are much harder to obtain in Utah than in other states. If I had to interpret the figures given above, I wouldn't pin the high rates of porn consumption on the Mormons at all; I'd say it's almost certainly the rest of the Utahns, who have trouble finding more local sources of satisfaction.

     

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

  46.  
    identicon
    ernernimiss cerwerd, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 5:06pm

    drawing the wrong conclusion

    I dont think a higher incidence of porn suncription in utah indicates Utahans want the government to protect them from themselves. I think it indicates that they just aren't very tech-savvy.

    It's 2013. Who pays for porn anymore?

     

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

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 8:40pm

    The internet as we know it is going to end.

     

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

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 9:09pm

    My idea is better!

    How about opting out of everyone's goddamn business?

     

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

  49.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 6th, 2013 @ 2:08am

    Re: Re:

    Yep, that's where this kind of thing will always fail. Forget the impossibility of enforcement, the unacceptable collateral damage and the violation of free speech. Just define porn in a consistent manner to everyone. You simply can't.

     

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

  50.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 6th, 2013 @ 2:33am

    Re: Re: And "a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their IMmorality on others."

    If only he'd follow that advice. No content online has ever truly disturbed me, but the fact that someone this delusional and obsessive not only exists but probably has the same voting rights as me? *That's* disturbing and I'd appreciate not being reminded of it so regularly.

     

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

  51.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 6th, 2013 @ 2:50am

    Re: And "a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their IMmorality on others."

    "But that was LONG ago. Down to 5946 at the moment (actually a slight increase of late). To find out what it means, look what sites have the same "Technorati Authority".

    http://technorati.com/blogs/directory/overall/page-242 "

    Oh dear, you're even too stupid to do your own debunking.

    What you linked to - as noted in the URL - is the OVERALL ranking. The claim made in the about page is the TECHNOLOGY ranking. It's true that it's no longer in the top 100 (current ranking 3228, a rather crowded position alongside such blogs as GeekSugar and the official UK XBox 360 magazine - http://technorati.com/blogs/directory/technology/page-133/). Not that anyone actually cares about this metric nowadays but you almost had a valid criticism to deflect with for once.

    But you overplayed your hand and look like an idiot. You can't even use the real facts to debunk things that are actually wrong, even when you have to attack a page that probably hasn't been updated in the majority of the time you've been here. You scraped the barrel to even find something to attack, and even then you failed. You really are a complete moron.

     

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

  52.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 6th, 2013 @ 2:58am

    Re:

    But did you find a recipe?

     

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

  53.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 6th, 2013 @ 3:07am

    Re: Re: And "a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their IMmorality on others."

    "What the hell are you talking about? Anyone can "opt-out" from seeing porn now."

    ootb fails on understanding the very basics of the concepts he's attacking? Quelle surprise...

     

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

  54.  
    icon
    Arsik Vek (profile), Nov 6th, 2013 @ 6:57am

    Porn is a standard feature of my ISP in the same way that milk is a standard feature of my car. I can use it to go get some.

     

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

  55.  
    identicon
    Another Coward, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 11:06am

    Filter Religious Radio

    We need to start a petition to force opt-un for religious broadcasting over the Federally regulated airwaves. I don't like being exposed to it, and it is bad for my children. The government should make it so that I have to ask to receive this material on my radio.

     

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

  56.  
    identicon
    Dave, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 1:08pm

    Re: The big problem

    I agree wholeheartedly. It is not the job of an ISP to police the internet. Here in the UK, we seem to have a whole gaggle of technically-illiterate politicians who seem to think otherwise and we all know what sort of collateral damage can occur with indiscriminate site blocking. Could be that chaos is just what the government want to see with blame being thrown about in order to "prove" what a Wild West situation it all really is. To use a well-worn UK expression - this porn-blocking business is complete cobblers, as any self-respecting techie person will know how to circumvent anything like this. I would suggest that Cameron et al concentrate on things that really matter and not try and score points by scaring people and taking the easy route to try and gain political capital.

     

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

  57.  
    icon
    Just John (profile), Nov 7th, 2013 @ 1:59am

    Cat

    I just googled cat, and almost all of the cats were naked. Now I know why my cats keep going in heat, they are spending way to much time on the computer.

     

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

  58.  
    icon
    Just John (profile), Nov 7th, 2013 @ 2:01am

    Re:

    Porntube?

     

    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