ScotsAlan Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I found this story rather worrying. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076 Given that I live in one of the most censored countries in the world, it seems a bit strange that Cameron seems to have decided to join them rather than fight them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 To be honest, when I saw the BBC online link to it 'Cameron to Unveil Online Porn Curb,' something made me read 'Curb' as 'Club' - maybe because it seemed to make more sense that way? I had visions of it being something - by invitation only, of course - like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted July 22, 2013 Author Share Posted July 22, 2013 Yup yup Lonan3. Amazing when you think about it. The biggest loudest richest bully runs the country. And he want to stop wee Jimmy having a wank over Pam Anderson. No matter that wee Jimmy is 65 years old and is too shy to have ever talked to a real woman. I predict this will be big. He wants to censor the internet in the free world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prism10 Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I am sure this will not affect the IOM. Interestingly, Cameron is backing page 3 though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I understand the concerns that you have ScotsAlan and I certainly believe that this cannot be the thin edge of a wedge. That said I see nothing wrong with making online porn an opt-in decision. It is not a total block but will hopefully mean that Children and some adults will be protected from seeing sexual images. In that way it is no different from the current blocks used on mobile phone networks or adult TV channels. As it stands at the moment I think this is a good idea. If 65 year old Jimmy wants a wank over Pam Anderson then he just needs to call up his ISP and tell them that, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 More seriously, though, he wants to set a dangerous precedent. Today it's pornography - with lots of emotive buttons pressed about ruined childhoods etc that make it difficult for any politician to oppose if they want to remain in politics beyond the next election. One might question the idea that any of it's truly necessary, given the amount of snooping being done already but, hey! Think about the children! But next time it'll be "a necessary step to impose these restrictions in order to guard against terrorism." And then it's only a very small further step to the free exchange of information being controlled and censored. Personally, I do think that access to material showing or depicting violent sex or criminal activities with young children needs to be closed down, but it's been my impression that searches on things like Google would have already filtered out the worst excesses? And if that's the case, then it ends as being Cameron playing politics in a desperate attempt to regain some modicum of popularity - what a surprise! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I can still opt in to watch my porn though, so it's fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I am sure this will not affect the IOM. Interestingly, Cameron is backing page 3 though! They told him there's always a pair of tits on it. From now on he'll be expecting to see portraits of himself and Osborne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 It'll be a dilemma for the wife - will she be able to closely monitor my browsing history without opting in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Just add gambling and ordering booze online to the block list....and you have prohibition. I think it is right to have an opt-out available, as all too many adults these days still do not know how to apply browsing safeguards. I think I would prefer an opt-out rather than an opt-in default though, as that puts the choice directly on the consumer, whereas an automatic opt-out is the government making a personal default decision for you. That is a form of prohibition in itself. I expect there will be some interesting husband/wife, partner/partner debates on this in many a household in the future. ` Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prism10 Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 My little lad has already told me that this is disgraceful move by the government, he is still too short to reach the top shelf! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted July 22, 2013 Author Share Posted July 22, 2013 I can still opt in to watch my porn though, so it's fine. Yeah. But this is a big thing. Because your name will be on a list somewhere that says you watch Xhamster or whatever. It all depends on how they define adult content. Should nine year olds be looking at the BNP website? The Chinese Government have heavy consorship of the Government. But in the main it seems to be well managed. They seem to work on a give and take system. But in China, Google is stopped on a regular basis. No Google mail or maps or even google translate. We tend to know if there is an anti Chinese Government news story on the BBC before we ever get to see it. Censorship here is very strict. Make a wrong post on a social site and it will be removed. You just might be removed too. I live in this society. By Choice. The society that the International community demanded should be gaurenteed freedom of speech during the Olympics. But now the free world seems to want to blow up a whirlwind of hatred against yet another apparently invisible enemy in order to spy upon it's people. The UK Government know who the kiddie fiddlers are. They have tens of thousands of cases on their books yet to be investigated. I think I read somewhere they had 40k leads but had only followed up 2k in the last year. If the UK Government really do want to protect the kids, they should put their resourses into hunting down the bad guys. they already have the credit card numbers and the IP adresses. This proposed law changes things. It makes you guilty untill you prove yourself innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted July 22, 2013 Author Share Posted July 22, 2013 Interesting that the PM's pre announcement annuncement should be at the same time a company is being investigated. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22803510 Many UK people think internet blocks can be avoided. If the UK Gov are allowed to censor the net it will be a lot more than Porn. China has a complex history and social structure that warrents Government control to ensure social stability. They also have good product to sell to the so called free world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted July 22, 2013 Author Share Posted July 22, 2013 Wow. Seems you will have censored internet in the British Isles. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076 Such a shame. Cameron has just spat on the graves of millions who died in the name of freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbert Hickmann Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 But not the kind of freedom they would like to have seen ...I'm all for this, about feckin' time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.