The problem with the announcement is that it confuses two very different issues - the blocking of illegal content (which nobody can be against in principle regardless of the technical practicalities) and allowing people to choose whether they want to receive "legal" porn (which is more controversial)
And also conflating it with a broadening of what counts as illegal content, without any consultation or evidence. If it's legal for consenting adults to do something, why should it be illegal to possess images of it?
with regards to a couple of earlier posts talking about protests , I think the posters missed the obvious, of course protests wont be in the form of people taking to the streets , but given the medium and nature of the policy I would be fairly certain we would see a few large scale DDoS attacks
with regards to a couple of earlier posts talking about protests , I think the posters missed the obvious, of course protests wont be in the form of people taking to the streets , but given the medium and nature of the policy I would be fairly certain we would see a few large scale DDoS attacks
The green arrows are very much against the Mail's stance
It doesn't seem to be a popular policy so far. Hopefully someone has been watching the reaction to this policy and taken note.
It is divisive because the prudish nature of the British public. No-one wants to admit they watch porn regularly but they do and this has shoehorned social policy with civil liberties - not a nice combination.
The green arrows are very much against the Mail's stance
I'm fairly sure the daily mail wont be so positive about it when the algorithms start counting their own prevelance for 15 year olds in bikini photographs as child porn and they get blocked.
The problem with the announcement is that it confuses two very different issues - the blocking of illegal content (which nobody can be against in principle regardless of the technical practicalities) and allowing people to choose whether they want to receive "legal" porn (which is more controversial)
I think this is a deliberate - and very cycnical - ploy by Dave.
What is the goal here, make it harder for pervs, or stop child abuse, isn't Cameron just trying to score points before the imminent arrival of the Royal birth which will eclipse all this shite. Target the real criminals of this sick trade, hunt them down and give them sentences befitting their crimes, instead of pussyfooting round it, nothing more than justification of snooper charter and gaining a tighter control of the internet.
The problem with the announcement is that it confuses two very different issues - the blocking of illegal content (which nobody can be against in principle regardless of the technical practicalities) and allowing people to choose whether they want to receive "legal" porn (which is more controversial)
That's the underhand intention though isn't it and the all too predicable course with this kind of thing.
The use of one stance, to ship in a whole host of other changes that in truth aren't strictly related at all.
At last someone with a few morals.i paid for cyber patrol while my kids were growing up and would have been very thankful for the new rule on porn.
You don't need to impose something on millions of people to get what you wanted for yourself - which is what Cameron is suggesting.
Today, right now, there are internet providers that will give you what you want - a filter that doesn't need you to install anything on your computer - and if you want it you can opt-in, without forcing millions of others to opt out.
All of the mobile phone networks have had filters for ages, too.
There is just no need for this idea. Any parent who feels the need to censor the internet for their children can ring up TalkTalk or a couple of other providers and get a filter put on their own internet connection.
And also conflating it with a broadening of what counts as illegal content, without any consultation or evidence. If it's legal for consenting adults to do something, why should it be illegal to possess images of it?
In effect you might say that depictions of some form of bondage could be classed as a depiction of a form or rape. There might be several other forms of sex-play that might also, if there were no actual consent to also be rape.
In effect you might say that depictions of some form of bondage could be classed as a depiction of a form or rape. There might be several other forms of sex-play that might also, if there were no actual consent to also be rape.
all bdsm these days online induces interviews before and after if it's videos. for picture series the last picture is always the girl smiling at the end.
it wouldn't surprise me if people did try to make the link. but it would be crass.
I think this is a deliberate - and very cycnical - ploy by Dave.
You may be right, and perhaps even for a variety of reasons. For example, imagine you were PM and you had a couple of outspoken morality freaks in your party. They kept urging you to ban born. They won't shut up about it, being outspoken morality freaks. What do you do?
Maybe you tell them to put a policy together and float it to the public. Tell them you're right behind it. Then let public outrage kill the thing forever.
On the other hand I wouldn't be all that surprised if Cameron happened to be one of the morality freaks who, apparently, don't enjoy seeing photos or movies of attractive people having consensual sex.
In effect you might say that depictions of some form of bondage could be classed as a depiction of a form or rape. There might be several other forms of sex-play that might also, if there were no actual consent to also be rape.
Yep. This is effectively an attempt to ban expression of sexual minorities involved in BDSM.
all bdsm these days online induces interviews before and after if it's videos. for picture series the last picture is always the girl smiling at the end.
I doubt the question of whether the participants actually consented is going to make any difference - they certainly don't matter in the current laws on "extreme" porn.
You don't need to impose something on millions of people to get what you wanted for yourself - which is what Cameron is suggesting.
Today, right now, there are internet providers that will give you what you want - a filter that doesn't need you to install anything on your computer - and if you want it you can opt-in, without forcing millions of others to opt out.
All of the mobile phone networks have had filters for ages, too.
There is just no need for this idea. Any parent who feels the need to censor the internet for their children can ring up TalkTalk or a couple of other providers and get a filter put on their own internet connection.
i believe it should be my right to be protected from porn.i shouldn't have to pay for what should be my right.innocent searches bring up porn,I had no choice but to pay.i didn't want my sons thinking porn was normal and in later life having difficulty in their relationships because for example they expected anal sex etc.
I doubt the question of whether the participants actually consented is going to make any difference - they certainly don't matter in the current laws on "extreme" porn.
Comments
And also conflating it with a broadening of what counts as illegal content, without any consultation or evidence. If it's legal for consenting adults to do something, why should it be illegal to possess images of it?
Did i say ban it ?
bet your life on it.
It doesn't seem to be a popular policy so far. Hopefully someone has been watching the reaction to this policy and taken note.
It is divisive because the prudish nature of the British public. No-one wants to admit they watch porn regularly but they do and this has shoehorned social policy with civil liberties - not a nice combination.
seeing that on the DM site amongst all their soft porn is like a physical embodiment of irony.
I'm fairly sure the daily mail wont be so positive about it when the algorithms start counting their own prevelance for 15 year olds in bikini photographs as child porn and they get blocked.
Because they will.
I think this is a deliberate - and very cycnical - ploy by Dave.
That as well.
That's the underhand intention though isn't it and the all too predicable course with this kind of thing.
The use of one stance, to ship in a whole host of other changes that in truth aren't strictly related at all.
I never know what are scarier - the opinions in Mail articles or the ones in the comments section.
along with government websites giving advice to teens.
You don't need to impose something on millions of people to get what you wanted for yourself - which is what Cameron is suggesting.
Today, right now, there are internet providers that will give you what you want - a filter that doesn't need you to install anything on your computer - and if you want it you can opt-in, without forcing millions of others to opt out.
All of the mobile phone networks have had filters for ages, too.
There is just no need for this idea. Any parent who feels the need to censor the internet for their children can ring up TalkTalk or a couple of other providers and get a filter put on their own internet connection.
For example, this - https://sales.talktalk.co.uk/product/homesafe
so are you saying you would not have had to have paid for cyber patrol had the rule been in place?
In effect you might say that depictions of some form of bondage could be classed as a depiction of a form or rape. There might be several other forms of sex-play that might also, if there were no actual consent to also be rape.
If parents want more controls let them monitor their internet and kids useage.
all bdsm these days online induces interviews before and after if it's videos. for picture series the last picture is always the girl smiling at the end.
it wouldn't surprise me if people did try to make the link. but it would be crass.
You may be right, and perhaps even for a variety of reasons. For example, imagine you were PM and you had a couple of outspoken morality freaks in your party. They kept urging you to ban born. They won't shut up about it, being outspoken morality freaks. What do you do?
Maybe you tell them to put a policy together and float it to the public. Tell them you're right behind it. Then let public outrage kill the thing forever.
On the other hand I wouldn't be all that surprised if Cameron happened to be one of the morality freaks who, apparently, don't enjoy seeing photos or movies of attractive people having consensual sex.
Yep. This is effectively an attempt to ban expression of sexual minorities involved in BDSM.
I doubt the question of whether the participants actually consented is going to make any difference - they certainly don't matter in the current laws on "extreme" porn.
i believe it should be my right to be protected from porn.i shouldn't have to pay for what should be my right.innocent searches bring up porn,I had no choice but to pay.i didn't want my sons thinking porn was normal and in later life having difficulty in their relationships because for example they expected anal sex etc.
well it's not simulated rape. it's bondage.