4 ms·
Of course, when they first started censoring CP, plenty went, "Well, yes, it's abhorrent, but what about the slippery slope?", and got shouted down by our gover
by madaxe 14y ago
Of course, when they first started censoring CP, plenty went, "Well, yes, it's abhorrent, but what about the slippery slope?", and got shouted down by our government, the press, and peers, who all said words to the effect of "Don't be ridiculous, you're hysterical, what are you, a pedophile?".
Even now, as we gracelessly tumble down the well-greased-incline, they will merrily argue that there is no slippery slope.
As to regulation, there already is, and it actively encourages ISPs to censor.
http://www.mobilebroadbandgroup.com/content-code.pdf http://www.mobilebroadbandgroup.com/content-code.pdf
- DanBC2 14y agoYou know these filters are optional, right? Comparing these to the filters for images of child sexual abuse is bizarre - they're operated in very different ways.
- madaxe 14y agoCensorship is censorship.
- belorn 14y agoAre filters for images of child sexual abuse written into law? It is a industry standard in Europe, but I never heard that UK actually made a law to force ISPs to use it. as for the linked content-code, it is true that its is not a industry regulation but a rather a industry practice code written by large ISP themselves.
- DanBC2 14y agoI don't know if it's a law, but it's done differently to the normal filters. The Internet Watch Foundation provides a list of sites that are involved in images of child sexual abuse. While they're an industry group, they are a bit more serious about their mission than other filter providers. (http://www.iwf.org.uk/about-iwf http://www.iwf.org.uk/about-iwf) I guess they were formed to avoid the need for legally mandated filters.