snowychap Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 i like to take things at face value, and give people the benefit of the doubt.You haven't really answered the question, have you?Let me put it another way, do you 'believe' (accept may be a better word) that conspiracies have occured, do occur and will continue to occur? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted July 23, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 23, 2013 personally i don't believe in conspiracy theories...What does this actually mean? Frankly it comes across as a nonsensical way of dismissing people's ideas about something unless they have been absolutely proven to be correct. It means some people on here think that its a government conspiracy to censor the internet (mainly because other countries have done so in the past). i like to take things at face value, and give people the benefit of the doubt. If you really do take things at face value as you say you do, then you should be seeing this censoring of your internet as ... a censoring of your internet. It stopped being a conspiracy theory when your PM went and announced it. And as for giving (in this context) your government the benefit of the doubt, well good luck with that. I think the cost of you being wrong further down the road is too high to be giving anyone the benefit of any doubt. But I think we both know where the other is coming from at this point so good luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 (edited) I can see the points made about censorship, but thats a side issue, you still need a solution to stop very disturbing images (but technically legal) being seen by kids. i'm not even sure that some of the stuff should be seen by some adults, except its their choice if they want to. Isn't this the parents' problem? There are already web filters, and ISPs already offer this sort of service. For all the good it'll do. Maybe educating people about already available tools is a better solution than opting everybody in and legislating for a pretty minor problem that there's already a solution to. Edited July 23, 2013 by Davkaus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baselayers Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Deny me my daily dose of pterodactyl porn and i will cut you Cameron! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meath_Villan Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Deny me my daily dose of pterodactyl porn and i will cut you Cameron! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baselayers Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 No matter what ye all have to say. It is the elected government of the United Kingdom bringing this law into force. So all of you should be ashamed that you let your country get to a place where the beginning of the filtering of the Internet of legal material has begun. Shame on this country. Shame. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArteSuave Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 No matter what ye all have to say. It is the elected government of the United Kingdom bringing this law into force. So all of you should be ashamed that you let your country get to a place where the beginning of the filtering of the Internet of legal material has begun. Shame on this country. Shame. Has it actually begun though? Will this even happen? On the off chance it does though it is your view that everyone (people that didn't vote for this government, people who campaign against internet restrictions, people who will demonstrate against this all included) should be ashamed? If you say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 The elected government of the time also went to war with Iraq despite millions being against it. There was nothing in the manifestos about internet censorship (or was there?) so people have a right to get angry about it, and the only people who push for it are the Daily Mail crowd dodgy Dave is desperate to please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 No matter what ye all have to say. It is the elected government of the United Kingdom bringing this law into force. So all of you should be ashamed that you let your country get to a place where the beginning of the filtering of the Internet of legal material has begun. Shame on this country. Shame. silly boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 23, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 23, 2013 No matter what ye all have to say. It is the elected government of the United Kingdom bringing this law into force. So all of you should be ashamed that you let your country get to a place where the beginning of the filtering of the Internet of legal material has begun. Shame on this country. Shame. Does the same apply to you and the decisions of the Irish government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted July 23, 2013 Administrator Share Posted July 23, 2013 However - the person displaying/selling the product is also held responsible for stopping access by children - just like the newsagent it responsible for stopping kids walking out with copies of Razzle etc. Porn should not be accessible online without any attempt to verify the age of the user,. If this is the internet's equivalent - then I can't see any grounds to object. Silly argument. Is the Royal Mail responsible for what you post through it? I'm prepared to bet that most illegal content already gets sent by post rather than the internet. This is not about illegal content. This is just a way to block legal content and as is obvious with the conflation of "porn" with "child porn" is a way for the government to introduce filtering without any oversight or accountability. It won't stop children accessing anything they want to. There is no technology that can do that, regardless of what Microsoft et al have whispered in the politicians ears. This is a way for the government to block sites they don't like, almost certainly in secret and without appeal. However, it only applies to large ISPs. Support your small, independent ISP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArteSuave Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 (edited) No matter what ye all have to say. It is the elected government of the United Kingdom bringing this law into force. So all of you should be ashamed that you let your country get to a place where the beginning of the filtering of the Internet of legal material has begun. Shame on this country. Shame. Does the same apply to you and the decisions of the Irish government? Did someone say abortion? Edited July 23, 2013 by bickster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Will they continue to allow unhindered access to jihadist websites? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 23, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 23, 2013 Will they continue to allow unhindered access to jihadist websites?First they came for the rocket polishers...Next they came for the MuslimsId Imagine that would be target number 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 No matter what ye all have to say. It is the elected government of the United Kingdom bringing this law into force. So all of you should be ashamed that you let your country get to a place where the beginning of the filtering of the Internet of legal material has begun. Shame on this country. Shame. We should round up everyone who voted Tory and shave their heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meath_Villan Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 (edited) Did someone say abortion? No Edited July 23, 2013 by Meath_Villan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 What I think would make everyone happy, and would accomplish the exact same goal that Cameron is claiming they want: Force ISPs to offer this network level blocking using the government's block lists, but make it opt-in. It's the exact same thing, the government get to protect the kids all they want, no-one has to put themselves on a kinky list, and there's no opportunity for forced censorship creep. Obviously that's what Dave meant and is kicking himself for accidentally making it sound like all UK porn-watching adults were child molesters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 23, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 23, 2013 What I think would make everyone happy, and would accomplish the exact same goal that Cameron is claiming they want: Force ISPs to offer this network level blocking using the government's block lists, but make it opt-in. It's the exact same thing, the government get to protect the kids all they want, no-one has to put themselves on a kinky list, and there's no opportunity for forced censorship creep. Obviously that's what Dave meant and is kicking himself for accidentally making it sound like all UK porn-watching adults were child molesters. But there'd be no need for legislation then as many ISPs already offer this 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post peterms Posted July 23, 2013 Popular Post Share Posted July 23, 2013 What I think would make everyone happy, and would accomplish the exact same goal that Cameron is claiming they want: Force ISPs to offer this network level blocking using the government's block lists, but make it opt-in. It's the exact same thing, the government get to protect the kids all they want, no-one has to put themselves on a kinky list, and there's no opportunity for forced censorship creep. Obviously that's what Dave meant and is kicking himself for accidentally making it sound like all UK porn-watching adults were child molesters. One disadvantage is that it gives credibility to Dave's notion that it makes kids safer. That's a problem if it takes effort and attention away from things which actually work, and creates a sense of complacency. He must have been advised that these measures will do nothing to prevent paedophiles from accessing the stuff they want, or people abusing kids to supply what they are looking for. It is plainly being done for momentary electoral advantage, or else smuggling in provisions which will be used against things totally unrelated to paedophile stuff. Both are unacceptable. The other line of attack is that seeing scenes falling under the definition of pornography create an increased likelihood that people will seek to carry out such acts. It's a serious issue, which is not being addressed in a serious manner. If there is this chain of causality, does it only operate in the sexual sphere? Should we conclude that people who commit murder after seeing films about murderers have been led into it by the stuff they've seen, and ban about half the output of the tv and film industry? I don't imagine that's on the agenda, oddly. If Cameron were serious about this, he would initiate a debate led by people who know what they're talking about (Daily Mail need not apply), give plenty of time to turn over any tentative conclusions, ponder a way forward, and act once there was general consensus that the best available course of action had been found. But no. And if he were at all serious about tackling child abuse, he might want to require some clear answers to a couple of things, like what happened to the dossier on paedophiles which was complied by Geoffrey Dickins MP and handed to Leon Brittan as Home Secretary, but then "lost". Or following up the guest list for the events at the Elm House guesthouse in SW London, a meeting place for rent boys and wealthy predators. There doesn't seem to have been much action on those things in the last, oooh, 20 years. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts