David Cameron porn
- Started
- Last post
- 41 Responses
- ukit20
Cameron's proposed filters extend to more than just porn
The British prime minister's internet filters will be about more than just hardcore pornography, according to information obtained by the Open Rights Group.
The organisation, which campaigns for digital freedoms, has spoken to some of the Internet Service Providers that will be constructing Cameron's content filters. They discovered that a host of other categories of supposedly-objectionable material may be on the block-list.
As well as pornography, users may automatically be opted in to blocks on "violent material", "extremist related content", "anorexia and eating disorder websites" and "suicide related websites", "alcohol" and "smoking". But the list doesn't stop there. It even extends to blocking "web forums" and "esoteric material", whatever that is. "Web blocking circumvention tools" is also included, of course.
The ORG's Jim Killock says: "What's clear here is that David Cameron wants people to sleepwalk into censorship. We know that people stick with defaults: this is part of the idea behind 'nudge theory' and 'choice architecture' that is popular with Cameron."
- albums0
http://www.opendns.com/parental-…
Problem solved. next?
Oh yeah, this still requires effort on behalf of the parents / guardians.
- boobs0
Is there a specific danger to children seeing porn?
It seems to me adults are uncomfortable with the idea of children seeing porn. And it seems to be accepted without question that it's bad for children to see porn.
But is there a specific danger to children seeing porn? Is there some way that it will damage them?
Or are we adults just uncomfortable with the idea?
- As a parent you try and preserve this magical, innocent and beautiful time in kids lives._niko
- talking about sex and the nude human body isn't a bad thing, it's just that porn can be extreme and horrifying at times._niko
- let kids be kids, they'll have the rest of their lives to enjoy debauchery._niko
- I am a parent. And I am uncomfortable with the thought of my child seeing porn. But is there real harm in it?boobs
- Xopher0
Everyone here has failed to appreciate that children being exposed to porn early on is bound to give them an unrealistic and unhealthy view of sex.
Girls might believe they're supposed to be 'sexy', humiliated and do stupid positions that are only good on camera. Boys might think they're supposed to be dominant, and have little respect for women.
If you're that bothered about seeing this material, you can opt in. It's not like its blocked for good.
- fooler0
I thought it was Kirk Cameron Porn
- ukit20
The problem is, if you are concerned about kids being exposed to sex, porn is the least of your concerns. What about Lady Gaga dancing around half naked in videos? Isn't she hugely popular among young girls? What about clothing companies marketing "sexy" clothes to pre-teens? Or shows like True Blood and Game of Thrones, pretty sure kids are watching those too. Should we ban all of these too? What do we need to do to become the kind of puritanical societies David Cameron and other conservatives demand?
- not sex or sexuality, it's a normal part of humanity, it's the extreme versions of porn that are readily available._niko
- and as a parent you shouldn't let kids watch sexy videos or true blood if they are too young._niko
- Pretty sure if you ran the numbers, you would find most porn is not extreme.ukit2
- Probably a good 90-95% is just pictures of naked women or normal, boring sex between two peopleukit2
- After all porn just reflects peoples' tastes, and most people are pretty boring, they aren't evil closeted psychopaths:)ukit2
- violent psychopaths. Sure there's bad people out there, but they are a tiny minority.ukit2
- if you take a site like pornhub, I'd say its a good mix of everything, but only 20-30% normal sex between 2 people._niko
- ********0
US is crazier.
- how is that crazier? taking your tits out in public being taboo in one state is way better than banning that whole list of stuff in the entire UKscarabin
- the entire UKscarabin
- Criminal though?********
- at least in the US we can look at photos of tits.scarabin
- It's not being banned... It's that we may have to click yes or no in the future.goldieboy
- animatedgif0
@Xopher
Doesn't matter, it's still the parents responsibility and not the governments.
Not responsible to look after your kids? Don't fucking have them then.
- goldieboy0
Them: "Hello, would you like to have the option to see 'all' sites?"
Me: "Yes please"
Them: "Sorted"
Me: "Thanks"No biggie really. But, I don't have kids. If I did I would consider it my responsibility to protect them from the hardcore or Police what they're watching etc using similar software to what albums posted above.
- GeorgesIV0
for fucks sakes people,
they don't give a fuck about the children,
they never did and never will,
you don't drone, schools, weddings, funerals and expect me to believe you care about the childrens at home.why can't the proles see the blatant hypocrisy at play here,
- No one's expecting you to believe anything G. You always seem to turn everything into the west attacking argument...goldieboy
- no, you seems to do not understand that those people do not give a fuck about the children,GeorgesIV
- I wonder what kind of mental gymnastic someone has to go through to think cameron really care about the children, seriouslyGeorgesIV
- Maybe, maybe not. But this is about keeping certain parties and groups happy and getting their vote.goldieboy
- it's religious based, and targeting the children is a way to control future generations.doesnotexist
- ukit20
I wonder if QBN will be blocked.
Did all of you who are so enthusiastic about this think about that?? :)
This thread itself would be censored.
- oh no, COTD will be gone, no more objectifying & degrading women, aw shucksalbums
- good riddancealbums
- I think it's done on a site by site basis right? So the whole site would be gone, not just COTDukit2
- I understood you, I just feel that thread is one of QBN's lowest pointsalbums
- certain posts within that thread are, but not alldoesnotexist
- Chimp0
If tuition fees are anything to go by this is just the start of censorship.
- ********0
- True********
- Absolutely, this is just about setting precedent for government control over internet acessmrrgl
- True
- ukit20
Looks like this is really happening. Not that I will be affected but bad precedent for the rest of the Western world.
- doesnotexist0
think of the children argument is used by the faithful and is morally contemptible. only a 'man of god' would use it as such.
- and amounts to totalitarianism if they begin to creep on thought crime.doesnotexist
- was gonna write a retort about how much BS it is that atheist bring religion in everything, then I remembered it Christmas, so merry xmasGeorgesIV
- scarabin0
how about you just educate your damn children instead of allowing the internet to do it for you
- <Knuckleberry
- but that means i have to think! noooooooodoesnotexist
