|
UK: ISP opt-in system for pornography
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Chimney |
| quote: | | The service providers involved are BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin. Customers who do not opt in to adult content will be unableto access pornographic websites. |
So pretty much, you need to tell the government you browse .
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2...rvice-providers |
|
|
| Lira |
Or, in other words, you just need to tell them you're a bloke :p
I doubt they can block everything anyway, there's too much tittage online for a single organisation to detit the internet for anyone. They're funny though, these bloody Christian mothers: just because no one looks at them, they want to spoil the fun for everyone else... and then blame the children :p |
|
|
| dj_alfi |
| Even if they'd block all the websites with porn, you'd still have other options like torrents for your porn needs. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Or, in other words, you just need to tell them you're a bloke :p
I doubt they can block everything anyway, there's too much tittage online for a single organisation to detit the internet for anyone. They're funny though, these bloody Christian mothers: just because no one looks at them, they want to spoil the fun for everyone else... and then blame the children :p |
The real worry is over-inclusive blocking, not under-inclusive blocking. In the past, censorware has blocked sites from as widely ranged topics as gay rights and youth soccer leagues, and there was substantial evidence suggesting that at least some sites were blocked for political views expressed therein. The real issue is: who decides what's blocked, and how do they decide it? To whom are they responsible? What procedures exist for sites to challenge their categorization as "pornographic"?
As a practical matter, this kind of thing could wind up censoring a lot more than just porn. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
The real worry is over-inclusive blocking, not under-inclusive blocking. In the past, censorware has blocked sites from as widely ranged topics as gay rights and youth soccer leagues, and there was substantial evidence suggesting that at least some sites were blocked for political views expressed therein. The real issue is: who decides what's blocked, and how do they decide it? To whom are they responsible? What procedures exist for sites to challenge their categorization as "pornographic"? |
These are good questions, Juanita. It's just that, as a guy, I tend to think of breasts first, because this is what the internet was originally made for (for breasts and science, that is... but we only make sparkly things with science in order to impress you girls).
I'm not sure this would become much of a problem in the long run, at least in the UK where Christianity is becoming less and less influential. It's just a matter of time until the atheist brigade comes out and slags the Christian conservatives off for this madness.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
As a practical matter, this kind of thing could wind up censoring a lot more than just porn. |
But it's for the children's sake! You can't expose them to gayness, lest they turn gay themselves! And you can't expose them to youth soccer leagues, otherwise they'll turn into chavs!
Is this what you want them to be? Gay chavs!? If that ever happens, Burberry will overthrow the Monarchy! |
|
|
| Zharen |
| ing stupid. Might as well just bring back the entire Monarchy pre-1700's. |
|
|
| FuzzQi |
Rage
Still I would opt in |
|
|
| KilldaDJ |
in chavs
i hate chavs
lol |
|
|
|
|
