
UK’s porn filter plans are just an illusion - iProject
http://gigaom.com/europe/why-the-uks-porn-filter-plans-are-just-an-illusion/
======
daeken
> “It filters out 35 categories of content, including porn, adult, suicide,
> anorexia etc,”

What? Ok, I don't agree with filtering out porn but I can at least understand
it. But why would you filter out sites about suicide, anorexia, "etc"? Way to
increase the stigma around already difficult issues, block people from useful
pieces of information, and make it harder for people to actually get help in
the way they want it?

I really, really dislike that.

~~~
EdiX
I think that with 'anorexia' they are referring to pro-ana websites
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-anorexia>).

Maybe websites promoting suicide also exist? I don't know.

~~~
daeken
Even if they are (which is quite possible), this sort of filtering is just
_not that good_. No matter the intention, this _will_ limit access to valid
information and almost certainly cause harm.

~~~
EdiX
Agreed.

------
mike-cardwell
There will _always_ be politicians trying to ban things on the Internet. They
will slowly chip away at it until all sorts of things become banned. I really
think we need technical solutions to make it impossible or much more
difficult.

~~~
gouranga
Killbots that go after politicians?

~~~
tomjen3
Aren't those called drones?

~~~
gouranga
No they are the ones that the politicians send after civilians in other
countries.

~~~
tomjen3
For now.

Surely some of the gangs would love to get their hands on them. It would be
very, very difficult prove who committed the murder and it would be all but
impossible to prevent.

~~~
gouranga
Isn't that how it works now under US government control?

------
aspratley
Ah the irony. Filtering the Internet but you can buy porn through the same
companies eg Sky <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_channels_on_Sky:_Adult>

~~~
cheez
That's not irony, it's a business plan.

------
Monotoko
Just leave the Internet alone. I'm not against filtering inappropriate content
(although suicide 'etc' should not be blocked) but the next generation of
parents will be more aware of the issues online and put their own filtering
software in place if needed. Government mandated filtering is a really bad
idea

~~~
theorique
But what kind of content is deemed "inappropriate"? Who are the ones who make
that distinction?

I certainly don't want either government bureaucrats or corporate bureaucrats
making that distinction for me.

~~~
tomjen3
It would be reasonable to me that the parents may designate certain things as
inappropriate.

That said, I don't think they should be allowed to block e.g information on
politics and religion (just as you can't cause bodily harm to your child).

~~~
theorique
Parents doing this for their own children = good idea

Some entity of government / society doing this for its citizens = bad idea

Neither government nor corporations are our parent, and we are not their
children.

------
guard-of-terra
"So even if you think the mandatory filters are a good idea, the question has
to be whether these filters are worthwhile"

People who think the mandatory filters are a good idea don't really "think" in
the common sense of this word.

They move on. Yesterday they were furiously pro-filters when asked by media,
but today they moved on. They don't remember a thing about the idea. They
don't care. You can ever persuade them that filtering in this shape is bad.

But: they'll move on again. And tomorrow they won't remember a word of your
explanations. The media baited them once more and once again they will vote
"with their hearts". They aren't exactly the caring-about-the-end-result kind.

------
cheez
I'm so tired of this game.

The Internet as the Wild West is what contributed to its success, both as an
economic powerhouse and as a tool for connecting people. Leave it alone.

It starts at censoring porn and will end at censoring dissenting thought.

~~~
nkoren
My UK mobile provider (O2) requires you to opt-in (with a credit card) to
"adult content" for their mobile web service. I haven't done this, because I
really don't need porn on my mobile, and also because I don't have a UK credit
card. Anyhow, during the revolution in Egypt, I discovered that one of the
most prominent and important Egyptian bloggers -- "Sandmonkey" -- had for some
reason been blocked by O2's adult figure. So although I doubt that this was
their actual intention, vital dissenting thought is _already_ being censored
by these filters.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_vital dissenting thought is already being censored by these filters_

Years ago when my dog was a small puppy, I had a webcam set up in the laundry
room so I could check throughout the day that he was OK. That worked great
until WebSense, the filtering system that my company uses, decided to classify
my puppy-cam as "adult content".

When I complained to WebSense, they did change the designation in their next
update. But still, it makes me wonder just how they go about setting these
classifications.

~~~
nsns
While errors will always happen, the main concern, IMO, is that slowly it will
become intentional and accepted.

This hasn't happened yet outside certain countries. For example, we could
still access Wikileaks, despite the US government's visible wrath.

Let's hope it doesn't happen, although the technology probably already exists
to set up "private" internet services, e.g. onion routing.

------
tudorw
What do parents do at the moment? I am one but they are so youung it's not an
issue (yet...)

~~~
rahoulb
For me, I talk to my children all the time, so they know the standards I
expect and I know if something's bothering them. If they do want to look at
something I disapprove of, they can and will, so I don't try to stop them
directly - as that will just make them do it in secret and never tell me if
they find something that really upsets them.

However, I don't think this kind of legislation is aimed at that kind of
parenting.

~~~
tomjen3
That sounds like too much effort. I want a free instant fix dammit.

