5 ms·

> “It filters out 35 categories of content, including porn, adult, suicide, anorexia etc,” What? Ok, I don't agree with filtering out porn but I can at least

by daeken 14y ago

> “It filters out 35 categories of content, including porn, adult, suicide, anorexia etc,” What? Ok, I don't agree with filtering out porn but I can at least understand it. But why would you filter out sites about suicide, anorexia, "etc"? Way to increase the stigma around already difficult issues, block people from useful pieces of information, and make it harder for people to actually get help in the way they want it? I really, really dislike that.

EdiX 14y ago
I think that with 'anorexia' they are referring to pro-ana websites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-anorexia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-anorexia). Maybe websites promoting suicide also exist? I don't know.
- daeken 14y ago
  Even if they are (which is quite possible), this sort of filtering is just not that good. No matter the intention, this will limit access to valid information and almost certainly cause harm.
  - EdiX 14y ago
    Agreed.
- vilhelm_s 14y ago
  Indeed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7341024.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7341024.stm
- tomjen3 14y ago
  A simple search seems to reveal a bunch of websites which shows different methods for committing suicide, but I can't directly see any that actually advocate suicide.
DanI-S 14y ago
It's extremely poor judgement. The article also mentioned filtering content about drugs - since obviously, it's a bad idea to allow the public to educate themselves about the safe use of substances that are encountered on a daily basis in the UK. Whilst the 'slippery slope' argument is generally a weak one, it seems to be inevitable once this machinery is put into place. First porn, then drugs, then suicide and eating disorders, then sites that are used for piracy, then sites that advocate civil disobedience, then fringe political groups like Occupy Wall Street or Stop the War Coalition. You can disable it at any time, but what parent is going to remove the filter that protects their children from seeing porn? Having to 'opt in' to 'risky content' is tantamount to public shaming.

by daeken 14y ago

EdiX 14y ago

I think that with 'anorexia' they are referring to pro-ana websites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-anorexia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-anorexia). Maybe websites promoting suicide also exist? I don't know.

daeken 14y ago
Even if they are (which is quite possible), this sort of filtering is just not that good. No matter the intention, this will limit access to valid information and almost certainly cause harm.
- EdiX 14y ago
  Agreed.
vilhelm_s 14y ago
Indeed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7341024.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7341024.stm
tomjen3 14y ago
A simple search seems to reveal a bunch of websites which shows different methods for committing suicide, but I can't directly see any that actually advocate suicide.

DanI-S 14y ago

It's extremely poor judgement. The article also mentioned filtering content about drugs - since obviously, it's a bad idea to allow the public to educate themselves about the safe use of substances that are encountered on a daily basis in the UK. Whilst the 'slippery slope' argument is generally a weak one, it seems to be inevitable once this machinery is put into place. First porn, then drugs, then suicide and eating disorders, then sites that are used for piracy, then sites that advocate civil disobedience, then fringe political groups like Occupy Wall Street or Stop the War Coalition. You can disable it at any time, but what parent is going to remove the filter that protects their children from seeing porn? Having to 'opt in' to 'risky content' is tantamount to public shaming.