Quote:

Ed Vaizey, the communications minister, has called a meeting with the country’s biggest broadband providers, including BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk, to explore changing how pornography gets into homes. Instead of using parents having to choose to stop access to explicit websites, through parental controls, a block will be placed at source, meaning adults will have to specifically opt-in to receive the images. The move is designed to prevent children from being exposed to sex at an early age and follows warnings about the hidden impact of pornography. However many technology experts said the plans were unworkable even if the broadband providers signed up to a voluntary code. It relies upon the Government or the internet service providers themselves having a comprehensive and up-to-date list of pornographic websites. Critics also argued that the move would be "censorship through the back door" and could end up restricting access to many legitimate websites. The attempt by Mr Vaizey to curb access to online pornography comes as an increasing number of televisions are being sold which allow viewers to watch internet sites through the screens. Mr Vaizey said: “This is a very serious matter. I think it is very important that it’s the ISPs (internet service providers) that come up with solutions to protect children.” “I’m hoping they will get their acts together so we don’t have to legislate, but we are keeping an eye on the situation and we will have a new communications bill in the next couple of years.” A spokesman for Virgin Media said: “We already have an opt-in approach on mobiles. We’re able to block sites, so it would be possible to do the same on the internet. It is just about finding the right approach.”

Internet pornography curb by the Government - Telegraph

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Hmmm... What about shared IP addresses? Technically, I am not entirely against. After all, everybody or thereabout will just opt in and that be the end of a useless regulation...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Will they? I hate all this "nudge" business, but I'm not going to deny its efficacity. I mean, can you imagine a nice little nuclear family signing up to a new wifi contract:

"Name... Password... Opt-in to receive pornography... And we're done."
"And just why do you think you're ticking that box, Mister?"
*daddy bear spends a week sleeping on the couch*

I objected more to two things:

1. You shouldn't have to opt in to your human rights.
2. 'Critics also argued that the move would be "censorship through the back door".' No, it would be censorship through the front door. Censoring porn is still censorship, just like murder is still murder even if the person you killed was really aggravating and deserved it.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Zichao

"Name... Password... Opt-in to receive pornography... And we're done." "And just why do you think you're ticking that box, Mister?" *daddy bear spends a week sleeping on the couch*

Most modern couples do watch some porn together, even if he might top up, as it were, on his own...

Quote:

You shouldn't have to opt in to your human rights.

Fair points. There's also the case of landlord-provided IP and the like. I don't mind a system without much human being interference knowing that I opt-in on porn. Even from my closest and dearest, I can point out that nearly everyone, incl. them in all likelyhood, does watch some porn at some point...

But I am not too happy about letting people like landlords, employers, fellow colleagues etc know I am opting-in for something as personal as porn. Even if the reply that "I am sure you do too" holds, it is just none of their goddam business...

Furthermore, some people pointed out that the parallel with mobile phones (asides from the 1-on-1 vs many-2-many aspect of the technology) was pointing out to a bad future - Whereby perfectly non-porn businesses were barred - I think someone pointed out they couldn't access a lingerie on-line shop. And also there is a difference between porn and adult content but who's going to be able to make the call?

SO, hum, overall, after further thinking, while I still don't mind opt-ins in theory, I would opposed this one...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Well if you "shouldn't have to opt in" then you shouldn;t have to pay for a newspaper or an internet subscription or for Sky TV or for access to media of any sort. Becuase surely, those all represwent much greater impediments to your access, and require more deliberate action, than checking a box.

As for the barred lingerie stores etc, that might actually be a problem solved by a properly organised opt-in system; those sites registered as pornographic and requiring the opt-in would be formally distinct from those that don't.

Last I read, the porn industry itself was basically in favour of a .xxx domain, a similar sort of proposal, just as they have been largely in favour of content filtering software; asnd indeed, the American Family Association opposes it because they say it would legitimize pornography.

It is really ridiculous to describe this as censorship, any more than it would be to so describe the Dewey Decimal System. And as for what couples do, well frankly they should be discussing it, so I bhardly see this as a strong arguemnt against.

Originally Posted by contracycle

those sites registered as pornographic and requiring the opt-in would be formally distinct from those that don't.

Right. And most adult-theme sites (certainly all of those that I have ever seen) have a "Are you above 18/legal age"? and Enter/Leave buttons...

Furthermore, how do you classify something like Wikipedia? They do have some pretty adult content... Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock_an...exual_practice) ... With photos! to top it all...

Finally, someone was pointing out that, by buying a internet connection, I am buying access to the entire free web, not just a part thereof...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Quote:

Most modern couples do watch some porn together, even if he might top up, as it were, on his own...

Fair point.

Quote:

Well if you "shouldn't have to opt in" then you shouldn;t have to pay for a newspaper or an internet subscription or for Sky TV or for access to media of any sort. Becuase surely, those all represwent much greater impediments to your access, and require more deliberate action, than checking a box.

A better metaphor would be that you'd have to sign on to a government register in order to be permitted to buy newspapers.

Quote:

As for the barred lingerie stores etc, that might actually be a problem solved by a properly organised opt-in system; those sites registered as pornographic and requiring the opt-in would be formally distinct from those that don't.

Gilles has already brought this up. How? Who decides what's pr0n and what isn't?

Quote:

Last I read, the porn industry itself was basically in favour of a .xxx domain, a similar sort of proposal, just as they have been largely in favour of content filtering software; asnd indeed, the American Family Association opposes it because they say it would legitimize pornography.

Last I read the pron industry was opposed to it because it would make government censorship far easier and bring no commercial benefits.

Quote:

Furthermore, how do you classify something like Wikipedia? They do have some pretty adult content... Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock_an...exual_practice) ... With photos! to top it all...

I don't even want to know why you're looking that up on Wikipedia...

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

Right. And most adult-theme sites (certainly all of those that I have ever seen) have a "Are you above 18/legal age"? and Enter/Leave buttons...

Sure, so, the proposition isn't all that weird at all.

It probably isn't, in specifics, practical, becuase Vaizey, as we already know, knows fuck-all about the internet despite being Communications Minister. But similarly, the default seatch standard for google applies a "search safe" filter. So once again, the general idea is not that radical, and really can't be construed as censorship.

Quote:

Furthermore, how do you classify something like Wikipedia? They do have some pretty adult content... Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock_an...exual_practice) ... With photos! to top it all...

I doubt that would be a serious problem. No doubt there will be some degree of dispute about whether this or that should be subject to the opt-in, but that's hardly a major issue IMO.

Quote:

Finally, someone was pointing out that, by buying a internet connection, I am buying access to the entire free web, not just a part thereof...

Hmm, well we'll see about that; with the decline in net neutrality, you may soon be in much the same situation as a subscriber to a TV service, receiving the content the service provider makes available. But even so, the argument that there should be an opt-in does imply a functional restriction of your access in practice. That an over-reaction to the actual proposition, which is really just specifying a default filter setting.

Originally Posted by Zichao

I don't even want to know why you're looking that up on Wikipedia...

For making my point in as illustrative a fashion as I can... TBH, I did not think they'd go and put pictures of actual CBT on Wiki! That's... ballsy!

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Zichao

A better metaphor would be that you'd have to sign on to a government register in order to be permitted to buy newspapers.

Well not at all, becuase such an opt-in would a) have nothing to do with the government, and b) probably won't even be necessaarily localisable to the bill payer.

Quote:

Last I read the pron industry was opposed to it because it would make government censorship far easier and bring no commercial benefits.

Certainly, views are split; I didn;t say it had universal support, but my impression, not that I have followed the issue diligently, is that at least the big studious are basically in favour. I mean they are legal industry, they don't have any real need to fear further censorship in the US, and being located on a specific domain wouldn't make that any easier even if it were introduced. Wehn you;re a registered company with branding on your products you're not exactly hard to find as it is.