# Pornography to be blocked by default in the UK



## Thanatos Telos (Jul 22, 2013)

> Most households in the UK will have pornography blocked by their internet provider unless they choose to receive it, David Cameron has announced.


 
Just read about this on Reddit. According to Cameron, ISPs will force people to have to opt-out to watch pr0n. And boy, that's not all.



> Other measures announced by the prime minister included:
> 
> New laws so videos streamed online in the UK will be subject to the same restrictions as those sold in shops
> Search engines having until October to introduce further measures to block illegal content
> ...


A nice summary of these:
Annoying, not unreasonable, good, and smart.

So, to sum it:
ISPs make you automatically opt in for no pr0n, and you have to manually opt out, resulting in what I assume to be a list of people who opted out, which will presumably be leaked some time soon.

In other news: Underage use of VPN and proxies have skyrocketed in the UK.

 Source

Sorry, if this is plagiarism, incorrectly formatted, or something, but this is my first time writing news. If something's up, feel free to edit it, mag. staff.

EDIT: Formatting and obligatory pun: Nothing 'Great' about this.


----------



## Armadillo (Jul 22, 2013)

What a prick, that is all.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 22, 2013)

No offense to Mr. Cameron but that's just stupid. We've been through this on numerous occasions, politicians - do not block free exchange of information via the Internet, no matter what that information might be. This encompasses pornography.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 22, 2013)

Thou shalst not deny my basic right to sexual interactions with my hand.
That's immoral 

#VoteLabour


----------



## Thanatos Telos (Jul 22, 2013)

Also, consider this:

If you live with your parents and can access it, you know your dad is doing the dirty with his hand. Also, if you rent, you have to let your landlord know about it, which is fucking creepy as hell.

Obligatory:


----------



## smile72 (Jul 22, 2013)

Eh....why are conservatives so against people having sex and choosing to video tape and perhaps make money off it, I thought that was part of capitalism? But i guess he's still hundreds to millions of times smarter than our conservatives.


----------



## Rydian (Jul 22, 2013)

These people probably have no idea how the internet works, and assume that everything that gets on the internet is like stuff that gets on TV, it has to be under contract and reviewed and rated by an official legal board, etc.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 22, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> Thou shalst not deny my basic right to sexual interactions with my hand.
> That's immoral
> 
> #VoteLabour


To me it's not about whether this concerns pornography or baking cupcakes - the point is that information a metaphorical user may be willing to access is being withheld not because it's illegal but because it's encompassed by some idiotic system of restrictions.

If they want to chase child molesters, go on ahead and chase child molesters, but not at the cost of restricting access to _all_ kinds of pornography, legal or not.

This is the equivalent of fighting drug abuse by restricting access to _all kinds of drugs_, regardless of whether they're legal, medicinal drugs like Paracetamol or recreational drugs like cocaine.


Rydian said:


> These people probably have no idea how the internet works, and assume that everything that gets on the internet is like stuff that gets on TV, it has to be under contract and reviewed and rated by an official legal board, etc.


Technically they could use a search engine and blacklist phrases like _"lethal deepthroat"_ or _"group anal bombardment"_ to block the sites, they don't necessarily have to be reviewed or approved to be blocked - you can block them on the basis of their content _(tags and whatnot)_.

That being said, yeah, good luck implementing this without accidental casualties, aka someone calling another person _"a dick"_ on an Internet Forum.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 22, 2013)

If an adult wants to view this type of content, he calls his ISP and within half an hour he's browsing away, but if it's just kids in the house trying to look at this stuff, it's blocked by default. I think this is good news.


----------



## DinohScene (Jul 22, 2013)

Like OP said, Hello VPN!


----------



## Thanatos Telos (Jul 22, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> To me it's not about whether this concerns pornography or baking cupcakes - the point is that information a metaphorical user may be willing to access is being withheld not because it's illegal but because it's encompassed by some idiotic system of restrictions.
> 
> If they want to chase child molesters, go on ahead and chase child molesters, but not at the cost of restricting access to _all_ kinds of pornography, legal or not.
> 
> This is the equivalent of fighting drug abuse by restricting access to _all kinds of drugs_, regardless of whether they're legal, medicinal drugs like Paracetamol or recreational drugs like cocaine.


 
#VoteFoxi4

Haloman800, look at my post earlier about other circumstances.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 22, 2013)

It's like one minute I am all like, "I wanna live in the UK!"
Then I read this news and I am like, "I guess I can stay and fap in the USA" .-.
Seriously what happened to options or parents or not butting into people's personal lives? Not to mention how awkward it's going to be to call them up to ask them to turn your porn back on. This is a pointless feature that I doubt will be staying for very long.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Jul 22, 2013)

But then they'll have the list of people who opt for pornography, don't they? That's effectively keeping track of online activity.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 22, 2013)

Thanatos Telos said:


> #VoteFoxi4
> 
> Haloman800 , look at my post earlier on about other circumstances.


 
Your ISP already knows if you access pr0n or not, they obviously have access to the websites you visit, so "you'll be put on a list" is a moot point.

I'm not equating child molesters with watching pr0n, like the post says, you can opt in with a simple call it looks like and you'll be good to go. Most parents are too tech illiterate to block pr0n on their own, so this is great to protect young children from being exposed to this type of content.




trumpet-205 said:


> But then they'll have the list of people who opt for pornography, don't they? That's effectively keeping track of online activity.



Your ISP can already view your web traffic, and looking at pr0n is not illegal, so even if they had such a list (which they do now, with your web traffic) they couldn't do anything to you.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 22, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> It's like one minute I am all like, "I wanna live in the UK!"
> Then I read this news and I am like, "I guess I can stay and fap in the USA" .-.
> Seriously what happened to options or parents or not butting into people's personal lives? Not to mention how awkward it's going to be to call them up to ask them to turn your porn back on. This is a pointless feature that I doubt will be staying for very long.


You can already block access to sites - you can inform your ISP about the ones you're unwilling to display, you can change your router settings to restrict access to given IP's, you can install screening software. All this changes is the _"default option"_ on the ISP side, meaning it creates unnecessary hoops for those who do not wish to be encompassed by such restrictions and it's implemented because parents are technologically-illiterate, not because it's necessary.

It'd be ten thousand times better to just order ISP's to offer screening, be it software-based or ISP-controlled alongside their standard services. It takes one checkbox on the agreement and it magically produces additional revenue for screening software developers - that way everyone's happy. But no, let's make it complicated and convoluted because hey, 21st century.


Haloman800 said:


> If an adult wants to view this type of content, he calls his ISP and within half an hour he's browsing away, but if it's just kids in the house trying to look at this stuff, it's blocked by default. I think this is good news.


No, it's not "good news" because it creates a legal precedence. You don't know what kind of content will become restricted ISP-side in the future if this passes.

One of those days you might end up not being able to log on GBATemp because the site is _potentially dangerous_, meaning, gives you hints on how to launch _"illegal backups"_, ergo _it's very naughty and bad for the children_.

In that case, if you choose to log on either way by unblocking it, you end up listed as a potential copyright infringer regardless of whether or not you infringe copyrights. What follows next is monitoring you.

Fun prospect, isn't it?


----------



## Depravo (Jul 22, 2013)

Meh. Certain torrent sites are also blocked by default in the UK. I still use them.


----------



## Thanatos Telos (Jul 22, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> Your ISP already knows if you access pr0n or not, they obviously have access to the websites you visit, so "you'll be put on a list" is a moot point.
> 
> I'm not equating child molesters with watching pr0n, like the post says, you can opt in with a simple call it looks like and you'll be good to go. Most parents are too tech illiterate to block pr0n on their own, so this is great to protect young children from being exposed to this type of content.


 
Look at the landlord part. Also, this is censorship, which is no different than China. Just look at Foxi4's posts. Those sum up my argument. Not that children should be watching pr0n, but why shouldn't their parents be supervising them? The internet, like TV, isn't a parenting replacement. Finally, think of the people living with their parents while in college.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 22, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> You can already block access to sites - you can inform your ISP about the ones you're unwilling to display, you can change your router settings to restrict access to given IP's, you can install screening software. All this changes is the _"default option"_ on the ISP side, meaning it creates unnecessary hoops for those who do not wish to be encompassed by such restrictions and it's implemented because parents are technologically-illiterate, not because it's necessary.
> 
> It'd be ten thousand times better to just order ISP's to offer screening, be it software-based or ISP-controlled alongside their standard services. It takes one checkbox on the agreement and it magically produces additional revenue for screening software developers - that way everyone's happy. But no, let's make it complicated and convoluted because hey, 21st century.


 
I may have misread the article, I was put back on some pretty strong pain meds, so my mind isn't quite up to speed like it should be, so if my responses seem a little off, they are off and that's why.
But honestly my issue is that is that they are blocked by default, it just seems to me they made up your mind for you. I would rather it thought out more before enacting it.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Jul 22, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> Your ISP can already view your web traffic, and looking at pr0n is not illegal, so even if they had such a list (which they do now, with your web traffic) they couldn't do anything to you.


This isn't about whether pornography is legal or not. By compiling a list of people who opt for pornography, you are effectively doing internet surveillance. You are now spying on your own people, whether or not there is a probable cause or court order.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 22, 2013)

Depravo said:


> Meh. Certain torrent sites are also blocked by default in the UK. I still use them.


 
That's because governments are technologically-illiterate.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 22, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> That's because governments are technologically-illiterate.


 

And my government is a shining example of said illiteracy,


----------



## Thanatos Telos (Jul 22, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> And my government is a shining example of said illiteracy,


 
Not the NSA.

Ah, our good ol' NSA.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 22, 2013)

Thanatos Telos said:


> Not the NSA.
> 
> Ah, our good ol' NSA.


 

The entire government is illiterate, or just alliterate.  The NSA can f**k off for all I care.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Jul 22, 2013)

I wonder what's next though? Government has better things to do than to do censorship and keeping track of people's activity.


----------



## Thanatos Telos (Jul 22, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> The entire government is illiterate, or just alliterate. The NSA can f**k off for all I care.


 
They've seen all of us do the same, so it would be due payback.


----------



## shakirmoledina (Jul 22, 2013)

i feel the idea of blocking porn is good but the way they have done it makes one expose his 'weakness'

then again, i am for blocking porn thats all


----------



## FireEmblemGuy (Jul 22, 2013)

This is why we created 'murrica, land of the free. At least our government doesn't generally make public announcements when they cut into our rights, perceived or otherwise.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 22, 2013)

Thanatos Telos said:


> They've seen all of us do the same, so it would be due payback.


 

Payback for what? I'm lost at what you were trying to say, sorry  You mean by their watching us?



FireEmblemGuy said:


> This is why we created 'murrica, land of the free. At least our government doesn't generally make public announcements when they cut into our rights, perceived or otherwise.


 

No, they just violate our rights without telling us. What people do is their own business.


----------



## Depravo (Jul 22, 2013)

So kids, you have between now and the end of the year to download *ALL* the porn on the internet. Go go go...


----------



## Thanatos Telos (Jul 22, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> Payback for what? I'm lost at what you were trying to say, sorry  You mean by their watching us?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

I'm saying that they've seen us f*ck off, so we should see them do the same. It was a joke, nothing more.


----------



## xist (Jul 22, 2013)

As someone who lives in the UK and who hates the idea of content being restricted for the sake of it, I don't see any problem with child porn being blocked and made illegal and your ISP asking you whether you want to have a Porn filter in place (as that's what they'll have to do, contact you and ask whether you're opting out or not).

There's no sinister overtones that are obvious...they're trying to do something that seems genuinely positive for British society, and if it stays at what's being discussed here then I don't really understand all the scaremongering about these initial measures.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 22, 2013)

Thanatos Telos said:


> I'm saying that they've seen us f*ck off, so we should see them do the same. It was a joke, nothing more.


 

Sorry, slow to that kinda thing as usual


----------



## Thanatos Telos (Jul 22, 2013)

This thread in a nutshell:


----------



## kristianity77 (Jul 22, 2013)

If David Cameron is going to block all things to do with porn does that mean hes blocking himself out of all the search engines then as that is just like looking at a c**t as well


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 22, 2013)

xist said:


> As someone who lives in the UK and who hates the idea of content being restricted for the sake of it, I don't see any problem with child porn being blocked and made illegal and your ISP asking you whether you want to have a Porn filter in place (as that's what they'll have to do, contact you and ask whether you're opting out or not).
> 
> There's no sinister overtones that are obvious...they're trying to do something that seems genuinely positive for British society, and if it stays at what's being discussed here then I don't really understand all the scaremongering about these initial measures.


 
Child porn, sure - very naughty, bad, bad, bad, should be persecuted against. _All_ porn? Not so much. Just because they're trying to do something good doesn't mean that extreme measures are welcome. A little example from history - prohibition in America stimulated one thing and one thing only - bootlegging.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 22, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> the UK government has no right to dictate what's moral or immoral.



What is it with you and that sentiment in every related thread? Governments have every right to dictate what is moral and what is not among their charges for along with public works that is one of their two main functions. There are checks within most legal systems (see terms like unconstitutional) and joining certain transnational groups makes for extra pressure to make certain laws or not make laws troubling certain things, but it is still their responsibility to decide upon and enforce morals though they usually get called laws. You are quite free to restrict yourself more harshly if you want and governments may also try to do the same (see reasons for many tax breaks) but that is a different discussion.
I might invite the UK goverment in this case to do one and/or learn how computers work but they can certainly try for this. It may or may not violate certain agreements somewhere but that has yet to be questioned in this thread.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 22, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> What is it with you and that sentiment in every related thread? Governments have every right to dictate what is moral and what is not among their charges for along with public works that is one of their two main functions. There are checks within most legal systems (see terms like unconstitutional) and joining certain transnational groups makes for extra pressure to make certain laws or not make laws troubling certain things, but it is still their responsibility to decide upon and enforce morals though they usually get called laws. You are quite free to restrict yourself more harshly if you want and governments may also try to do the same (see reasons for many tax breaks) but that is a different discussion.
> I might invite the UK goverment in this case to do one and/or learn how computers work but they can certainly try for this. It may or may not violate certain agreements somewhere but that has yet to be questioned in this thread.


 

You're right about that, I had no reason to say what I said though. I guess what I want to know is, whatever happened to people deciding for themselves? But you're right on them learning about technology; they're so damn illiterate about computers it's hilarious.


----------



## Gahars (Jul 22, 2013)

xist said:


> As someone who lives in the UK and who hates the idea of content being restricted for the sake of it, I don't see any problem with child porn being blocked and made illegal and your ISP asking you whether you want to have a Porn filter in place (as that's what they'll have to do, contact you and ask whether you're opting out or not).
> 
> There's no sinister overtones that are obvious...they're trying to do something that seems genuinely positive for British society, and if it stays at what's being discussed here then I don't really understand all the scaremongering about these initial measures.


 

My problem with this is, well, how do you define child porn? Sure, there's the obvious examples, but the line can get sort of grey. I mean, we've seen teenagers get sentenced for trafficking in child porn because they sexted each other. The standards can be stretched to ludicrous extremes, I don't exactly trust my ISP to decide where it lies for me.

Plus, I just take issue with the idea of punishing everyone for the actions of an extremely tiny minority, no matter how distasteful they may be.


----------



## EzekielRage (Jul 22, 2013)

so first Merkel goes like "The Internet is new for all of us" in front of millions of people on lvie TV AND in front of Obama, now the brits ban porn. This is Europe in 2013 not Iran in 1973... Dafuq is wrong with people?
Yeah right and when I tell them I want my porn they look at me like a pervert. I am but that's beside the point


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 22, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> I guess what I want to know is, whatever happened to people deciding for themselves?



That went away thousands of years ago and possibily millions when our ancestors found out that evolution had largely made creatures self serving arseholes but slightly beyond that those which banded together into groups with rules governing actions tended to survive better.

Some places still manage this, we tend to note those places are places that are in a state of anarchy.


----------



## pwsincd (Jul 22, 2013)

Only in Britain , fuck i was in Minorca the past two weeks and my son seen more cock shaped key rings and sex t shirts than he ever did. Fake tits , porn mags etc etc.. Only this fuckwit ran country of the UK do we feel the need to block the most natural act there is ,, well maybe taking a dump aside.


----------



## Blaze163 (Jul 22, 2013)

So now would be a good time to invest in shares in old school porn mags?


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 22, 2013)

Blaze163 said:


> So now would be a good time to invest in shares in old school porn mags?



You mean the lesser spotted hedge porn might make a comeback?


----------



## Blaze163 (Jul 22, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> You mean the lesser spotted hedge porn might make a comeback?


 

I'm surprised in the modern age that old school porn mags and dvds are still going. Pretty much everyone has the internet these days anyway. Although funny story, in the hostel I was living in for a while I found two porn mags under my mattress when I moved in. Girlfriend at the time thought it was hilarious, that they were a gift from the management.

Sold them to my best mate. They're kinda pointless when you have a girlfriend, after all.


----------



## EzekielRage (Jul 22, 2013)

I have a relationship for more than 7 years and consume porn almost daily. So no, they are NOT pointless because of your girlfriend...


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 22, 2013)

Blaze163 said:


> [porn mags] They're kinda pointless when you have a girlfriend, after all.



Should significant others be present 24/7 I usually find there are bigger problems.


----------



## Blaze163 (Jul 22, 2013)

EzekielRage said:


> I have a relationship for more than 7 years and consume porn almost daily. So no, they are NOT pointless because of your girlfriend...


 

Might want to get a more entertaining partner there...


----------



## Thanatos Telos (Jul 22, 2013)

Blaze163 said:


> I'm surprised in the modern age that old school porn mags and dvds are still going. Pretty much everyone has the internet these days anyway. Although funny story, in the hostel I was living in for a while I found two porn mags under my mattress when I moved in. Girlfriend at the time thought it was hilarious, that they were a gift from the management.
> 
> Sold them to my best mate. They're kinda pointless when you have a girlfriend, after all.


 
You should have kept them. Now you have no action until a while after October (Babies are hard to take care of.)
Also, this.


----------



## Thirty3Three (Jul 22, 2013)

Awwww, I'm sorry guys! I feel bad for you UK-ers. Looks like you're back to National Geographic issues. Hope ya saved some up :/

Now, please excuse me while I go "relax" for a bit...



Blaze163 said:


> Might want to get a more entertaining partner there...


 

Actually this is true. Most individuals in a relationship still need their "alone time".


----------



## Enchilada (Jul 22, 2013)

I'm not a regular porn watcher, butI feel sorry for British people.


----------



## Blaze163 (Jul 22, 2013)

Thanatos Telos said:


> You should have kept them. Now you have no action until a while after October (Babies are hard to take care of.)
> Also, this.


 

I'll be doing my bit to take care of Freya just as much as my fiancee, but it's hardly the end of the sexual side of our relationship. She's borderline nympho, ain't nothin' gon' stop her. And that's without the crazy hormonal imbalances during pregnancy, they pushed her well over the border.


----------



## emigre (Jul 22, 2013)

If the Lib Dems support this, I vow to give Harrow Liberal Democrats piece of my motherfucking mind.

The Tories have always been regressive shits, so I'm not surprised by this. Cameron is really out of his depth as a PM.

LET MY PORN ALONE!


----------



## Deleted-236924 (Jul 22, 2013)

The internet is now useless.


----------



## EzekielRage (Jul 22, 2013)

Blaze163 said:


> Might want to get a more entertaining partner there...


 

dude, whatever you do, DONT tell me how to live my life. just dont... you grow up, get out of your naivity closet and experience love the way i do and then look back at what you just said and be ahsamed of yourself little boy...


----------



## Blaze163 (Jul 22, 2013)

EzekielRage said:


> dude, whatever you do, DONT tell me how to live my life. just dont... you grow up, get out of your naivity closet and experience love the way i do and then look back at what you just said and be ahsamed of yourself little boy...


 

Might want to invest in a sense of humour too. Jeez, if you can't take a joke the internet's not for you, mate.


----------



## EzekielRage (Jul 22, 2013)

right, because that was OBVIOUSLY a joke... no matter forget it-.-


----------



## Thirty3Three (Jul 22, 2013)

Okay guys, let's not argue. Especially on a thread about porn! Porn's a nice and fluffy thing. So why don't we keep this conversation civil? (you know... aside from the 'porn').


----------



## nl255 (Jul 22, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> If an adult wants to view this type of content, he calls his ISP and within half an hour he's browsing away, but if it's just kids in the house trying to look at this stuff, it's blocked by default. I think this is good news.


 
Of course, there may be negative consequences for doing so.  Such as having CPS come and try to declare you an unfit parent because you opted out, your employer firing you once they find out you are on the list, or even being publicly shamed once the list is made available to the public (because after all, don't people have a right to know about the perverts in their neighborhoods?)



xist said:


> As someone who lives in the UK and who hates the idea of content being restricted for the sake of it, I don't see any problem with child porn being blocked and made illegal and your ISP asking you whether you want to have a Porn filter in place (as that's what they'll have to do, contact you and ask whether you're opting out or not).
> 
> There's no sinister overtones that are obvious...they're trying to do something that seems genuinely positive for British society, and if it stays at what's being discussed here then I don't really understand all the scaremongering about these initial measures.


 
Oh really?  So when they try to have people declared unfit parents because they opted out will you still see it the same way?  Or when people get fired because they are on the list which will no doubt be made public after a while?


----------



## jacksprat1990 (Jul 22, 2013)

EzekielRage said:


> dude, whatever you do, DONT tell me how to live my life. just dont... you grow up, get out of your naivity closet and experience love the way i do and then look back at what you just said and be ahsamed of yourself little boy...


 
To be fair, I think it's pretty sad that your looking at porn every day while in a relationship.


----------



## The Minecrafter (Jul 22, 2013)

Couldn't instead of blocking the porn at the ISP level, couldn't they have the blocks enabled on the routers firmware, so it is an easy way to switch on or off and doesn't involve the ISP knowing if you switched it on or off? Because from what I have seen, most people that buy their own routers normally have the technical knowhow of how to set up blocks, while people who use the router the ISP gave them rarely change any settings because they are afraid they might break something. It just seems that that would be a more sensible option.


----------



## Depravo (Jul 22, 2013)

I can see the headline now: "Porn Blocked By Wanker!"


----------



## Flame (Jul 22, 2013)

i cant "handle" this news..... too much.


----------



## Thirty3Three (Jul 22, 2013)

GUYS. Stop fighting. Jeez.

Okay, first off, Ezekiel is getting mad. So you go at him more? Yeah that'll help! /s

Second, Ezekiel is going overboard with what he's saying

Third, Jacksprat, That comment was un-needed and rude. You know nothing of relationships then. Look at surveys, articles, or even grab a girlfriend (or boyfriend if you roll that way) - EVERYONE does it. Even if they're in a relationship or married. You don't just get a girlfriend then stop "yeah"-ing with yourself. What you said just shows your ignorance when it comes to relationships and life.



Can we all PLEASE STOP FIGHTING?


----------



## Smuff (Jul 22, 2013)

Yet more nanny state bullshit from the House of Commons (not the government in particular, but all these self serving corrupt assholes).

They'll ban porn for being "dangerous" but quite happily fail to ban tobacco which is a *proven killer* just because it pays their salaries to let people smoke and destroy themselves.

Tossers.


----------



## Chaossaturn (Jul 22, 2013)

Wow, what a crap law, I wonder if rape rates will go up because of this, as people who can't vent their urges over watching porn may resort to rape. Also the sale of pirate copy porn DVD will increase (like the old days), as this will make it harder to get. Also there making a list of "banned child porn images" what happens if you get a pop up, fake email or someone spams a forum with this stuff, according to this law, you will be consider a paedophile.

These people are meant to make the country a better place not create laws which will damage, I can’t believe these people don’t have better thing to do, there waste time ruining thing, what ass holes.


----------



## emigre (Jul 22, 2013)

Chaossaturn said:


> Wow, what a crap law, I wonder if rape rates will go up because of this, as people who can't vent their urges over watching porn may resort to rape.


 







ok...


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Jul 22, 2013)

I'm pretty sure this is old news. I read about it months ago, though I'm not certain if that was about UK.


----------



## Rockhoundhigh (Jul 22, 2013)

There can be no peace; we must go to war.


----------



## xist (Jul 22, 2013)

Wow, i go away for a few hours and lots of replies.

In the most basic terms if you don't want this to effect you, guess what, you hit the opt out of the filter option. Bam! No changes. The goal, to help prevent children being exposed to porn is admirable as well as stopping the abuse of children involved in child exploitation images. I can't think of anyone who'd object to child porn being gone for good so it boils down to being given the option to prevent your ISP giving you access to porn. I agree that ISP's shouldn't be seen as moral arbiters and that it's down to parents to police the web browsing of their children, but it's an option that computer illiterate or struggling parents could use to allow their very young children access to the internet in safety. I believe mobile phones in the UK already have these sorts of filters in place.




nl255 said:


> Oh really? So when they try to have people declared unfit parents because they opted out will you still see it the same way? Or when people get fired because they are on the list which will no doubt be made public after a while?


 
Better check that tin foil hat isn't ripped. Unfit parenting isn't giving yourself access to porn....you'd have to be deluded to think any court in the land would rule a parent opting out of the filter would face punishment. The filter isn't an excuse to give kids carte blanche, nor is opting out of it a poor parenting decision. Are you an unfit parent if you let your kids play sport and they get hurt in the process?

As it stands now if you don't want to be affected you opt out. I'd wager that the adoption of the filter would be under 10% of households anyway, and if this is where it starts and finishes (and there's no indication of filter creep) i genuinely don't see the harm.

Am i opting out....damn right i am. But when the filter comes in and nothing has changed for me....well, nothing will have changed.


----------



## MegaBassBX (Jul 22, 2013)

Where I from they block all porn sites by default and they don't give you the chance to choose from only censored internet, so I think you some what lucky to have an option to start with.


----------



## Qtis (Jul 22, 2013)

Chaossaturn said:


> Wow, what a crap law, I wonder if rape rates will go up because of this, as people who can't vent their urges over watching porn may resort to rape. *Also the sale of pirate copy porn DVD will increase (like the old days), as this will make it harder to get*. Also there making a list of "banned child porn images" what happens if you get a pop up, fake email or someone spams a forum with this stuff, according to this law, you will be consider a paedophile.
> 
> These people are meant to make the country a better place not create laws which will damage, I can’t believe these people don’t have better thing to do, there waste time ruining thing, what ass holes.


Buying a 5$ per month VPN will give you all the porn available on the internet with a lot less hassle than porn DVDs (legit or bootleg). It also opens up cool possibilities with Netflix and the likes (different catalogues etc).

I read about this on a tech news site and I'm a bit surprised. It remotely reminds me of the SOPA ideology with "lets just try to hide the problem instead of actually doing something useful" (note: porn isn't necessarily a problem. Sometimes it's even a solution). While I don't necessarily hate the idea of a filter, it should be off by default and the listing should be the opposite: if someone wants the filter, they ask for it compared to the proposed "I want to watch porn, therefore I have to sign a list". Also what kind of bullshit is censoring search engines by default? I could imagine DuckDuckGo (anonymous search engine) getting a nice boost in site visits, if it remains outside of this huge blunder.

Also the compulsory spideyImjustheremasturbating.jpg


----------



## pyromaniac123 (Jul 22, 2013)

Chaossaturn said:


> -snip- Also there making a list of "banned child porn images"


 
I'm pretty sure lists like that already exist.



Chaossaturn said:


> -snip- Wow, what a crap law, I wonder if rape rates will go up because of this, as people who can't vent their urges over watching porn may resort to rape.


----------



## lokomelo (Jul 22, 2013)

I would expect this news coming from China, Iran, North Korea, etc. But never from UK.


----------



## BORTZ (Jul 22, 2013)

Some much for my dreams of being a page 3 girl in the news paper.


----------



## xist (Jul 22, 2013)

lokomelo said:


> I would expect this news coming from China, Iran, North Korea, etc. But never from UK.


 
A purely optional method to help prevent young children who have access to a computer from seeing age inappropriate content?


----------



## Qtis (Jul 22, 2013)

xist said:


> A purely optional method to help prevent young children who have access to a computer from seeing age inappropriate content?


Optional, but on by default. I'm skeptical mainly due to how well the Finnish anti-childporn filter works. Private master lists are never good. The internet wasn't meant to be censored in the first place. Censorship usually leads to going overboard.


----------



## lokomelo (Jul 22, 2013)

xist said:


> A purely optional method to help prevent young children who have access to a computer from seeing age inappropriate content?


Still look like this news is from Iran.


----------



## mightymuffy (Jul 22, 2013)

The OP is a bit misleading: you're not banned by default, you're given the option to choose, if this stands then I've no problem.
Strange though (I've got 2 lads who are now 13 and 11yo), that they teach them sex education in Year 5 (when they're 9-10yo) to raise awareness: "now kids, when you're old enough to notice your wee tinklies grow bigger after a little fumble, DON'T choke the chicken, grab a similar aged little girl for a spot of jolly good intercourse, become a daddy and reap the benefits we have to pay you" - WTF, they've not thought this one through have they.....

My lads are fast approaching tickle time (actually with the eldest being nearly 6 foot already - Christ I'd best bring out the birds & the bees convo!), I see no problems them hitting redtube in my house so I'm opting out! ......Not old enough to be a fukkin Grandad yet thankyouverymuch!


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jul 22, 2013)

I don't know how to feel about this, Good I guess?


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 22, 2013)

So by the end of the year, the UK'ians have their internet cut unless they want to keep surfing? It'll be the only effective way, and I think those politicians know this as well. 


Of course, this is going to have quite some backfire, seeing how popular tabloids are. I give it two months until rumors or even lists start to pop up of celebrities who don't have their blocking filters up.


----------



## emigre (Jul 22, 2013)

BortzANATOR said:


> Some much for my dreams of being a page 3 girl in the news paper.


 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jul/22/cameron-no-ban-sun-page-3

Cameron is ok with page 3 though. Christ he truly is an appalling cunt.


----------



## xist (Jul 22, 2013)

Taleweaver said:


> Of course, this is going to have quite some backfire, seeing how popular tabloids are. I give it two months until rumors or even lists start to pop up of celebrities who don't have their blocking filters up.


 
The Leveson Inquiry debacle practically ensures that this won't happen.


----------



## Blaze163 (Jul 22, 2013)

Just gonna leave this here...


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 22, 2013)

nl255 said:


> Of course, there may be negative consequences for doing so. Such as having CPS come and try to declare you an unfit parent because you opted out, your employer firing you once they find out you are on the list, or even being publicly shamed once the list is made available to the public (because after all, don't people have a right to know about the perverts in their neighborhoods?)
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really? So when they try to have people declared unfit parents because they opted out will you still see it the same way? Or when people get fired because they are on the list which will no doubt be made public after a while?


 

My point is, no matter what you do online, it's being tracked. That means your ISP can see your google search for "filipino t******'s", regardless of whether you  "opt-in" or not.


----------



## XDel (Jul 22, 2013)

Wow, they would make the internet so much less annoying! Now if they would block all those stupid adverts too! I miss the internet of 1994 badly!!!!


----------



## EzekielRage (Jul 22, 2013)

adblock plus - you are welcome


----------



## jonthedit (Jul 22, 2013)

EzekielRage said:


> adblock plus - you are welcome


Or just make a hosts file instead of having the company that made Adblock receive every page you go to?


----------



## RedCoreZero (Jul 22, 2013)

I see *LOTS* of people moving to the US. Just joking.I don't watch porn anyways, and I live in the US so meh.


----------



## EzekielRage (Jul 22, 2013)

jonthedit said:


> Or just make a hosts file instead of having the company that made Adblock receive every page you go to?


yeah because without adblock NOBODY knows what you do on the internet -.-


----------



## DinohScene (Jul 22, 2013)

Thanatos Telos said:


> EDIT: Formatting and obligatory pun: Nothing 'Great' about this.


 

Stop making puns, it's getting old and unfunny.


----------



## Sefi (Jul 22, 2013)

I wouldn't have much of a problem with this if you had to opt-in, and not have it automatically throw everybody in by default.   This has the potential to publicly shame anybody that wants to keep their access to porn.  Odds are they are hoping that is the case, to scare people into not calling/notifying/whatever the method is, in order to opt out.  

And after everything is said and done, do you really think that it will block out 100% of porn?  I really, really doubt it.  Is it going to catch a torrent with the files named something else?  How about a compressed file?  How about usenet?


----------



## K3N1 (Jul 22, 2013)

Yeah this is retarded, let child porn flock the internet if it wants to!


----------



## xist (Jul 22, 2013)

Sefi said:


> And after everything is said and done, do you really think that it will block out 100% of porn? I really, really doubt it. Is it going to catch a torrent with the files named something else? How about a compressed file? How about usenet?


 
That's not the main point of it. It's real virtue is that a 6 year old is that much more unlikely to stumble across something they shouldn't. If a child is actively looking for porn they'll find it filter be damned...but as i say that's not why it's being implemented. It's to prevent unsolicited stumbles...


----------



## tbgtbg (Jul 22, 2013)

What do you expect from a country that still worships a Queen?


----------



## Sefi (Jul 22, 2013)

But it targets all porn, not just child porn. If that were the case I don't think anybody would oppose it. Nobody should be looking at that sick shit, I don't care how free you think you are.

Edit:  And what if a kid stumbles upon a picture of a dead body?  Shouldn't that be banned as well?  There's much more than porn out there that you wouldn't want your kid to see.  Also, there are such things as internet filters parents can use already.


----------



## kehkou (Jul 22, 2013)




----------



## smf (Jul 22, 2013)

Thanatos Telos said:


> If you live with your parents and can access it, you know your dad is doing the dirty with his hand. Also, if you rent, you have to let your landlord know about it, which is fucking creepy as hell.


 
Why would your landlord need to know? If you rent a property then you normally have the utilities etc in your name, not your landlords.
If you're living in shared accommodation where you share the bills then you might need to have the conversation with whoever has the name on the bill.

I think it's an interesting idea.



trumpet-205 said:


> This isn't about whether pornography is legal or not. By compiling a list of people who opt for pornography, you are effectively doing internet surveillance. You are now spying on your own people, whether or not there is a probable cause or court order.


 
I assume you mean opt in for pornography. It's not particularly useful internet surveillance, because you have to opt in for even legal pornography. There will be so many people opting in that the list of people won't tell you anything. They already monitor people watching illegal pornography, the problem they have is that they have identified hundreds of thousands of people and last year they only had the resources to go after 2000 of them.

The idea of the black list on search engines is to cut down the number of people who just fall into watching illegal stuff, so they don't get a chance to become desensitized to it. Leaving them to deal with those who are committed to break the law. Google already removes search results due to DMCA takedown notices, so identifying searches that are aimed at finding child porn seems reasonable to put up a warning.

It may not be effective, but I think it's an interesting experiment. It's not as censored as internet in China and it could have a positive effect. It will be difficult to come up with something that is foolproof that doesn't trigger too many false positives, I imagine google will come up with a better solution than just black listing searches.


----------



## Naridar (Jul 22, 2013)

The proposed intention of the bill is acceptable - namely, protecting children from pornography. However, the methods aren't thought out well enough. It's not enough that the list of opt-outs is basically a hall-of-shame in and of itself and can lead to serious blackmailing cases (after all, if you're the employee who handles this list, and you see a celebrity or politician on the list, it's easy to give in to temptation), but any idiot who leaks such a list can cause perhaps unrepairable harm to the lives of thousands.

The second, and more serious issue: define "pornography" for me. How exactly do you draw the line between porn and nude art and/or nudism? Blocking the entire domain of, let's say, deviantart is, as a proverb in my language says, "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". Not to mention that in a country of ~60 million, you're guaranteed to piss off someone who has the programming abilities to replace any government website with the most revulsive porn imaginable.


----------



## Judas18 (Jul 22, 2013)

I had to tell my mother bullshit saying that it'd stop us from being able to watch flagged youtube videos and my dad wouldn't be able to go on his gambling sites so that she'd opt out. I can't live without my porn OMG!


----------



## Gahars (Jul 22, 2013)

Naridar said:


> The proposed intention of the bill is acceptable - namely, protecting children from pornography.


 
My problem with this line of thinking is that this is the parents' responsibility, not the state's. The government should not be censoring people's internet access (opt-out option or no) on the off chance that little Timmy might be exposed to naughty bits.


----------



## Carnivean (Jul 22, 2013)

Ridiculous and poorly thought out. The incredibly strict filters in place in schools have never stopped kids accessing porn on their grounds and these filters will be just as poor about it. Censorship should never be on by default outside of actual verified child porn and the likes.

Hilarity is due when the next batch of 18-2X year olds find out they have to ask their parents to unblock porn or pay for a VPN though.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 22, 2013)

Gahars said:


> My problem with this line of thinking is that this is the parents' responsibility, not the state's. The government should not be censoring people's internet access (opt-out option or no) on the off chance that little Timmy might be exposed to naughty bits.


 
Exactly. This is a direct equivalent of banning alcohol from store shelves because they might give little Timmy naughty ideas _(with the option of opting out of this restriction in which case you'd receive a super-secret brand on your forehead stating that you drink alcoholic beverages. Let's call it the scarlet letter "A")_.

If parents are technologically-illiterate then simply make it a formal duty of the ISP to inform users that they have the option to restrict their Internet if they want to protect their kids from stumbling upon content for mature audiences _or_ promote the use of surveillance software that the parents themselves could use. Those programs are literally idiot-proof.

You can't ban the use of cuttlery just because a metaphorical crook might stab another person with a knife - that's just plain silly.


----------



## jonthedit (Jul 22, 2013)

EzekielRage said:


> yeah because without adblock NOBODY knows what you do on the internet -.-


 

No need to get butt-hurt, It's your choice.
Both methods do the same thing, except when you use adblock or similar plugins/software they read the page first. (You can test this by receiving speed of a page without adblock and with adblock.)

Anyway...
Kinda find this ironic, I doubt it'll solve anything. If the targeted audience wants pr0n, and I mean *REALLY WANTS TAT PRON*!!!! They'll find a way around it.

So what did this really solve? More restrictions


----------



## EzekielRage (Jul 22, 2013)

that wasnt butthurt, more sarcastic^^
i dont care if anyone reads my pages, firstly i got NOTHING to hide and secondly its the itnernet, EVERYBODY reads my fucking pages^^ and they should, i visit my own webcomic pages regularly. if the NSA or adblock or whoever reads this, like and share my comics page 

but back to porn: prohibiting something NEVER solved ANYTHING. one might think people learned this by now...


----------



## emigre (Jul 22, 2013)

Pokey said:


> I wonder if this is creeping sharia law or creeping Chinese style statism or a combination of both. In any case anyone was wondering this is the type of control and laws that liberalism/socialism brings.


 

Good God this post is stupid.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 22, 2013)

emigre said:


> Good God this post is stupid.


 
#ShitGBATempSays?


----------



## Gahars (Jul 22, 2013)

Pokey said:


> I wonder if this is creeping sharia law or creeping Chinese style statism or a combination of both. In any case anyone was wondering this is the type of control and laws that liberalism/socialism brings.


 


Spoiler: mfw someone actually wrote down this series of words and posted them in all seriousness











 
I don't know what's worse: Actually thinking "creeping sharia law" is a thing, or blaming this on "liberalism/socialism"... even though this is a measure introduced by the Conservative Party. They literally call themselves the Conservative Party. Come on here, buddy.

Not to say that these were the only two issues here, of course.


----------



## Thanatos Telos (Jul 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> #ShitGBATempSays?


 
Yep.


----------



## Fishaman P (Jul 23, 2013)

A whole bunch of teenage boys are gonna be pissed.
One Direction will have to look up their gay pr0n while they're in the US.


----------



## Hanks6 (Jul 23, 2013)

the road to a police state. first porn, next 'anti-government' content.


----------



## haxan (Jul 23, 2013)

for some reason i can get to porn sites without using any proxy stuff.......


----------



## Amber Lamps (Jul 23, 2013)

I was hoping a long time ago that they made it near impossible for 10 year old kids to get access to pornography.  This at least is a good start and heading in the right direction.

the US has way too large abundance of the stuff.  I remember when it was scarce and you generally would still have to go in to a shop to get stuff.  those days are long gone and  there's too much of this about.

hopefully this will help cleanse uk kiddies and make them more proper and polite as they grow up.  they deserve a good shot at that.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 23, 2013)

Amber Lamps said:


> hopefully this will help cleanse uk kiddies and make them more proper and polite as they grow up. they deserve a good shot at that.


That's implying that watching porn makes them somehow _less_ proper and polite. Which is simply not true.


----------



## Saturosias (Jul 23, 2013)

The first non-gaming news I've seen on the front page and it's... this? :3


----------



## Gahars (Jul 23, 2013)

Amber Lamps said:


> I was hoping a long time ago that they made it near impossible for 10 year old kids to get access to pornography. This at least is a good start and heading in the right direction.


 
"Impossible" - Because, before the internet, kids had absolutely no access to pornography whatsoever. Television, magazines, literature, lewd photography, taint paints, noodle doodles, none of these avenues ever existed at all. Good thing there's no such thing as proxies or anything, either.

Too bad parents can't just parent their children. Lord knows that'd be asking far too much.



Amber Lamps said:


> the US has way too large abundance of the stuff. I remember when it was scarce and you generally would still have to go in to a shop to get stuff. those days are long gone and there's too much of this about.
> 
> hopefully this will help cleanse uk kiddies and make them more proper and polite as they grow up. they deserve a good shot at that. *Because porn makes you improper and impolite, according to, uh... my feels?*


 
Porn has never been scarce. Historically, it's always been one of the most throbbing thriving industries out there. Just because you were ignorant of it doesn't mean it wasn't there in an abundance of some sort or another.

Plus, of all the things to worry about corrupting our youth, depictions of people having sex take top priority? Really? How about we focus on issues that actually do damage - like the appallingly high rates of crime and poverty among the youth? I don't know about you, but those seem a wee bit more pressing to me.

Censoring and filtering the internet to "protect the children" from the "horrors" of pornography is like nuking a city to take care of the litter.


----------



## kuwanger (Jul 23, 2013)

"Customers who do not click on either option - accepting or declining - will have filters activated by default, Tory MP Claire Perry, Mr Cameron's adviser on the sexualisation and commercialisation of childhood, told the BBC."

Because apparently Mr Cameron needs help on how to further sexualize and commercialize childhood.  What better way than to equate pornography and childhood?  Or to sell pornography as "for the children".  Oh, filter *out* pornography?  Protect the "innocence" of childhood?  I guess that leads to the point:

"Mr Cameron also called for some "horrific" internet search terms to be "blacklisted", meaning they would automatically bring up no results on websites such as Google or Bing."

Things like "kill" and "rape" and "how children are made".  The only results to return with family-friendly filters is links to Disney.  Because Disney is all about commercializing childhood and sexualizing childhood.

Yea, okay, I'm done with my rant.  I honestly just don't understand.


----------



## gamewitch (Jul 23, 2013)

I am not even British, but on this one David Cameron needs to piss off. It will just lead to more censorship by the government.


----------



## DAZA (Jul 23, 2013)

You can imagine before they set this new situation up that everyone is going to be d/l all their favourite pictures for the memory bank lol. im 50/50 with this, fair enough they should block illegal child content but not block porn all together, it can cause all sorts of havoc and blocks out rights. why should we  be on a list just because you want to look at adult content.

Takes away out right to freedom.... we all know no matter what you cant stop everything, many things have been tried before and comes back in other ways they can never win yet we suffer in between


----------



## ferofax (Jul 23, 2013)

This is no different than restricting access to cupcakes because the current governing system doesn't like cupcakes. Assuming, of course, that people fap to cupcakes in various states of "unwrap". This also means un-baked cupcakes is tantamount to pedophilia, because the cupcakes aren't cooked yet.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Jul 23, 2013)

illegal content..RIIIGGGHT....

everyone knows that why they pushed for this so hard was because to block DMCA copyright infringing files..

it's ALWAYS been about the RIAA, CRIA, MPAA, and DMCA when it comes to internet censorship.

which is why they did this in the first place.

i'm sure people that opt-out will be "profiled" for future analyzation.

and other "undesirable" content [sites about how the UK government is a fucking wanker] will be filtered out with time.

sounds like this is SOPA but premature and will grow larger to it's original intended size with time


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Jul 23, 2013)

I see this flying the same way it did in Australia. Like a lead filled balloon.


----------



## EzekielRage (Jul 23, 2013)

I find the americans here that say that government intrusion on the internet, your civil liberties and rights alongside big government very amusing...
whats it with religious people and sex? there are only three things more natural than sex: breathing, eating/drinking and bowel movements.


----------



## TeeR (Jul 23, 2013)

So... What's the second biggest thing the internet is for in England?


----------



## EzekielRage (Jul 23, 2013)

same as it is everywhere: piracy! oh... wait...


----------



## zigzagslims (Jul 23, 2013)

Welcome to the United Kingdom of America...

What worries me is it wont be long before sony, nintendo, m$ etc will lobby our government to block sites like gbatemp etc because you know.... its unsafe for our children. Sites like this will eventually be blocked under the guise of "promoting piracy".

Talktalk, an UK isp, already blocks torrentfreak. Torentfreak maybe questionable to the morons but it dont do anything illegal.

Hiding your children away from pr0n will have the opposite effect. Young children will become repressed young adults, and them young adults will search out for what they have been forbidden from with no guidance from anyone.

Then again I highly doubt this is to "protect the children". They claim they protect your children while they cut funding to child abuse organizations and the child poverty in this country reaches new heights. This is about control of the free media. The day before this "block pr0nography" excuse, the excuse was "we must block to protect your children from the pedophiles". Yeah cause the pedophiles search for questionable material on google?? I get a feeling the normal public will be blocked from sites that are deemed to be against the governments/big businesses wishes while the pedophiles will keep doing what they have always done, tor, vpn encryption etc to remain unnoticed.

But hey because I believe this is a pointless waste of money from a technical point, and also just down right dangerous, I have been called a pedophile for it. NICE......


----------



## Ziggy Zigzagoon (Jul 23, 2013)

_'Most households in the UK will have pornography blocked by their internet provider unless they choose to receive it'_
Do you see how people circumvent the pornography filters in their homes? Do you see how widespread pornography is being advertised?
_'New laws so videos streamed online in the UK will be subject to the same restrictions as those sold in shops'_
In other words, they are applying consistency in their laws.
_'Search engines having until October to introduce further measures to block illegal content'_
In other words, they are supposed to make theri filters stricter, patching at least some of the flaws of current filtres.
_'Experts from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre being given more powers to examine secretive file-sharing networks'_
...define 'powers'.
_'A secure database of banned child pornography images gathered by police across the country will be used to trace illegal content and the paedophiles viewing it'_
In other words, this is meant to 'put the brakes' (so to speak) on pornography of children and child prostitution.


...seriously, I am going to be part of the hated minority by cheering of David Cameron. (Then again, I wish that Europe has gone ahead of its pornography ban.) I mean, people think that pornography is a simple diversion without giving a thought from exactly where does their pornography comes. (Then again, people do not care about their electronic parts coming from Foxconn, or again, their meat coming from disgustingly crew farms.)
...I am just going to put my previous anti-pornography posts here.


> This is not new, since Iceland is banning pornography.
> 
> To be honest, though, there are reasons behind this. A lot of wimmen were hurt due to the porn industry, being left with emotional voids, neglect, and sicknesses, leading to substance abuse and even suicide. Some wimmen even reported abuse and rape while on their jobs! ( https://www.shelleylubben.com/ex-porn-star-neesa-story ) Then again, since when did the pornography industry care about safety? ( http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/porn-producers-in-uproar-over-new-l.a.-health-ordinance/ ) Also, consider recent reports on how increasingly younguer children are engaging in crimes of an intimate nature ( http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/po...itish-children-into-sex-offenders-report-says ). Simply telling parents to up their protections or teach them harder is ignorance on our increasingly perverted society (foe example: Beyonce's bit in the latest Super Bowl) making harder for parents to prevent these things.
> 
> ...


----------



## WiiUBricker (Jul 23, 2013)

UK is the biggest porn consumer I guess?


----------



## KasaiWolf (Jul 23, 2013)

David Cameron is just that....a CaMORON. Does he seriously think to tell people what to do online. Granted I don't really watch porn so it's not going to affect me but this should be against the law. Next think you'll know it'll be "CONservatives put funds into research into inventing machine to tell people what to think".


----------



## koimayeul (Jul 23, 2013)

Government's duty to help preventing sexploitation and pornography banalization, voted Yes to this decision.


----------



## HugeCock (Jul 24, 2013)

I really don't see the major issue here and would like to see this brought to the United States. They aren't banning porn but rather they are just not making it easy for kids to get their hands on it. I have kids now and on their Xbox 360 we went from watching movie trailers for sci-fi moves to...in about 6 clicks full on pornography on the youtube channel. Maybe it would be better to have a switch so people like me could just opt-out rather than force everyone else to opt-in for porn? Then again I am sure a large portion of people bitching are under age anyway and I know one thing... when your used to a vice and it gets taken away...damn does it ruffle my feathers.

And by the way if this was in America then the *big* bad government would just push their views and not give any sort of options to the citizens and just say they are doing it for our best intrest.

Again it sounds like they are giving you an option (if your of legal age) while protecting the kids... not a bad thing


----------



## kuwanger (Jul 24, 2013)

HugeCock said:


> I really don't see the major issue here and would like to see this brought to the United States. They aren't banning porn but rather they are just not making it easy for kids to get their hands on it.


 
And why would kids want to get their hands on it? Oh, right, you're not thinking about "kids". You're thinking about 16+ year olds. Honestly, I'd be a lot more worried about what your 16+ year old "kid" is *doing* than what their watching, but then, you know, I don't many babies born from a person watching pornography.



> I have kids now and on their Xbox 360 we went from watching movie trailers for sci-fi moves to...in about 6 clicks full on pornography on the youtube channel.


 
Wow! If you look for pornography, you can find it? Amazing! Btw, AFAIK, youtube blocks pornography by default. You have to sign in and only then can you potentially view anything "adult". But, yea, it wouldn't surprise me if (a) some stuff has yet to be flagged as "adult" yet (which, oops, is the whole reason blacklists won't work as a panacea) and (b) there's other ways to browse for porn on an Xbox 360 (or a PS3 or a Wii)  if you go out of your way. Really, except for the general rickrolling, you don't just stumble on porn. And if you do, you can almost invariably close it right away*.



> Maybe it would be better to have a switch so people like me could just opt-out rather than force everyone else to opt-in for porn?


 
Well, what do you know. That'd be great. Because that's what we have now. You can opt-in for an ISP that filters. You can opt-in for a home router that filters. You can opt-in for software that runs on your own computer that filters. Everything about getting the government involved is precisely to avoid opt-in. Btw, I just love how you turn "opt-out [for filtering]" into "opt-in for porn". There's more to filtering than porn. Swear words. Violence. Religious sects you'd like to ban. Etc. But, then, that's the beauty of opt-in. It can cover whatever you're willing to pay for.



> Then again I am sure a large portion of people bitching are under age anyway and I know one thing... when your used to a vice and it gets taken away...damn does it ruffle my feathers.


 
Yep, nothing like attacking the other side directly. They're just a bunch of under age kids, getting off on their vices! Don't listen to them! While we're at it, let's ban all the other vices (sugary foods, alcohol, cigarettes, cell phones, etc) from the general store space, and you can opt-out by getting a card from the store allowing you to enter, providing an id card on each visit, and then you can enter the darkened/curtained-off space where all the vices are. 'Cause we all know vices aren't for kids! They're for adults!



> And by the way if this was in America then the *big* bad government would just push their views and not give any sort of options to the citizens and just say they are doing it for our best intrest.


 
Yeah! It's okay because the US would do it worse!



> Again it sounds like they are giving you an option (if your of legal age) while protecting the kids... not a bad thing


 

Want to protect your kids? Keep an eye on them. Don't leave it up to the government, an ISP, or a security program written in a computer or a game console. There's a lot more to worry about your kids than them viewing pornography. And, honestly, pushing some sort of governmental decree for the sake of making a parent's responsibility just a smidge smaller isn't remotely in the ballpark of a reasonable step.

*The one area this may not be true, of course, is malware embedded in websites or spam. But that's an incredibly uncommon occurrence, which doesn't begin to warrant the sort of overreaction to the mere possibility that pornography may be seen. Put another way, if you're that worried about it, don't let your kids *ever* go online because inherently there's always the risk of seeing a fleeting glimpse of a woman's nipple through just about any possible visual medium--ascii porn, if nothing else.


----------



## Alucard8000 (Jul 24, 2013)

Pfch, UK too? I had Pr0n blocked from the entire country here (Bahrain) since 2004/2005 and we cant "choose" to have it.
its stupid, useless and doesn't really fix anything


----------



## Rydian (Jul 24, 2013)

HugeCock said:


> in about 6 clicks full on pornography on the youtube channel.


1a - Youtube doesn't allow porn, if there was porn then it was seen between uploading and removal, since somebody uploaded it when they weren't supposed to.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802272

1b - On that note, that's like somebody flashing your kid on the street.  _Oh fucking well, somebody broke the rules_.  You can implement all the laws you want, but they're just a social thing (and many of them are ignored by the general public), if your kid is trying to get at boobs he'll get at them because _blocking porn won't make it suddenly stop existing_.  I'll refer you to this nice historical lesson that people seem to keep forgetting...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

2 - ... unless you're exaggerating and it was some legit-but-risque stuff, in which case the age/maturity filter should have been in effect, assuming the age/settings on that youtube account were set properly.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/174084

3 - As I pointed out earlier, this is not feasible because *there is no ratings board or review process for anything that goes onto the internet*.  Unlike TV stuff (which requires a rating and review or at least signed ceritification before being broadcast), anybody _on the planet_ with internet access can upload anything at any time.  *I could (right now) pull my pants down and take a picture of my soft, wiggly dick and put it on rydian.net without having to consult anybody, ask anybody's permission, submit an application for review, or it passing by human eyes at all before it becomes available on my website.*  Meaning it would not be blocked.  And there's hundreds of millions of people that could do the same thing.

This idea is not founded in reality.  _It's a dream_ by people who don't understand the forces and technology they're trying to control.


----------



## Blaze163 (Jul 24, 2013)

I'm curious. While everyone's trying to protect the kids from porn, who's trying to protect them from politicians? Porn's just movies, pictures and stories. Politicians are warmongering nanny state inducing lying backstabbing thieving arse wanks. You tell me which is more a danger to society; a bit of harmless girl on girl action, or invading Iraq looking for WMD's (AKA oil) and having good men and women in the British and American armies die for basically no justifiable reason?


----------



## Amber Lamps (Jul 24, 2013)

Ignorant of it?  Poor choice of words.  More like it was quite absent or such.  We knew it was out there, mainly magazines were easiest to get.  I remember when video tapes were scarce.  People normally would have to borrow these from their parents or maybe steal from a convenient store.

Basically at that time since it wasn't that easy to acquire, that means people were more responsible.  In fact, parents were more responsible and better at their duties than the ones I see today.  When my peers started having kids years ago.. oh god.. they let their kids do anything they want, shreik, scream, cry loudly in public just be a total nuisance.  And you know when those kids grow up without proper discipline they do some really bad stuff.  I knew a lady that was an escort in Vegas and her kid grew up so POORLY because she was a nitwit about raising her kid, once she left the vegas strip club scene and whatnot she literally had to pay to send her child to bording school because he was getting involved in gangs.

Yeah... so you see some point there.  people are irresponsible these days, primarily how the internet is done.  If the net was strong armed by the government I would have come across far fewer people online that I shouldn't have even been bothering with and I would have actually been forced to find something else to do with my time / my life.  But ya they are still there.... and their lives have gone nowhere.

and I remember a time when usenet wasn't such a rampant piracy place.  I think it had a lot of porn but I used to look for gameboy roms, this was before gbc came out mind you, and they were very scarce.  a.b.gb would have maybe one or two roms per few months.  now look at it... whole set... every day.  what happened here?

I'm not anti piracy though because piracy has some benefits far beyond just stealing games and saving cash I have found in recent years.  Although some originals are worth purchasing depending what you want to collect.

anyway any flames to troll this post, i'll say cherry lemonaide.



Gahars said:


> "Impossible" - Because, before the internet, kids had absolutely no access to pornography whatsoever. Television, magazines, literature, lewd photography, taint paints, noodle doodles, none of these avenues ever existed at all. Good thing there's no such thing as proxies or anything, either.
> 
> Too bad parents can't just parent their children. Lord knows that'd be asking far too much.
> 
> ...


----------



## Satangel (Jul 24, 2013)

Ridiculous, and probably won't come through. Just keep the internet like it is please, don't restrict what we can  and can't visit, fuck off.


----------



## schmooblidon (Jul 24, 2013)

I look forward to their attempt to block 99.9% of the internet.


----------



## tbgtbg (Jul 24, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Unlike TV stuff (which requires a rating and review or at least signed ceritification before being broadcast),



TV doesn't work that way (and couldn't or there'd be no live broadcasts). The network just picks whatever rating they feel is appropriate. It's probably the least intrusive ratings system out there, save on old reruns when the stupid ratings bugs block something you should be able to see.


----------



## Depravo (Jul 24, 2013)

Satangel said:


> Ridiculous, and probably won't come through.


I wouldn't be too sure about that.  UK ISP's already block certain torrent sites such as TPB. However, the blocking is so inept that I know no less than three ways to visit the blocked sites and I'm far from being some kind of hacker.


----------



## narutofan777 (Jul 25, 2013)

and no1 is mad.


----------



## Yepi69 (Jul 26, 2013)

There goes my british porn.


----------



## Gahars (Jul 26, 2013)

It's looking like the filter is going to affect other content, too.

Wow, this just gets better and better by the day, huh?


----------



## Clarky (Jul 26, 2013)

Figures, Internet porn gets blocked by the biggest wanker in the country


----------



## Rydian (Jul 26, 2013)

Gahars said:


> It's look like the filter is going to affect other content, too.
> 
> Wow, this just gets better and better by the day, huh?
















> it’s now been revealed by the BBC that HomeSafe is being run by Huawei, a Chinese company founded by a former China People’s Liberation Army officer.











> it’s hardly encouraging to discover that even when TalkTalk subscribers turn filtering completely off, their traffic is still routed through Huawei’s system.


----------

