6 ms·

UK e-petition: Do Not Force ISP Filtering of Pornography and Other Content

49 points by jackhoy 13y ago

motters 13y ago
Having signed a number of these in the past I can predict what the official response will be. They will say that they are not forcing anyone and that the system is entirely voluntary. They'll say it's on by default merely to help protect children from accessing inappropriate content, and they'll say that the block lists are under constant review by a panel of independent experts.
- eksith 13y ago
  That's pretty spot on. As trite as this may sound, I can't help but remember that quote from the Matrix: "Choice is an illusion, created between those with power, and those without."
- Joeboy 13y ago
  The point isn't to come up with a petition that the government is unable to think of a response to, the point is to show that censoring the internet is unpopular.
  - nextw33k 13y ago
    You missed the point, the petition asks not to create a bill for a filter. However the current filter is being put in place without ANY law being enacted. The PM is threatening the ISP's into doing this. This is not a democracy because I actually wrote to my MP about last year. He said he would vote against it. However there has been no vote in the commons.
zalzane 13y ago
The last thing this situation needs is a bit of petition-based slacktivism to calm people's nerves. Petitions do absolutely nothing. Off the top of my head, I can't recall a single petition in recent history that has done anything other than given its signers a false sense of contribution towards a cause. I'd go as far as to say that pushing petitions probably damages a cause more than aids it. If you want to change something, you get some people together and start a rally, or get people inundate your representative's inbox with mail from angry voters who don't want to see a measure pass.
- Aqueous 13y ago
  I don't think rallies really change anything either, unless they are large enough to really disrupt other media coverage and shift public opinion. Which is rare. Polls change things. Politicians pretend to care about phone calls to their office and letters, but they're really paying attention to public opinion, as represented by public opinion polls. They will never do anything unless the math adds up, unless doing so keeps them safe (or safer) in their job. They will never do anything unless you force them to do so by shifting public opinion. People get the government they deserve. Cameron is only doing this because he thinks this is what the majority of British people want, or at least wouldn't mind. Make the argument to the people, not the politicians.
  - tomelders 13y ago
    It would appear polls don't change things either. Cameron and the Tories have been consistently polling badly. As for getting the government we deserve, this is a coalition, the public voted and no one won, we didn't ask for this government. Cameron has no mandate from the electorate, he is doing this because he is a bad person. I'll tell you what really works. Riots. In my memory, the only time I can remember the UK Government bending to the will of the people was after the poll tax riots. To help illustrate the futility of trying to engage with the UK government via peaceful means: At least 750,000 people marched on London to oppose the Iraq war and the government ignored every single one of them. And the protestors were right, dead right and not one single politician involved has ever acknowledged the failure to act on the overwhelming will of the people. I personally have come to believe that There is no chance for democracy and no chance for diplomacy in this country. Our laws are drafted by the CEOs and stakeholders of private organisations who we do not vote for, and yet they have seemingly unfettered access to our MPs. When that scheming little turd of a man Lord Mandleson was against the Digital Economy Act, all it took was an invite to David Geffen's private villa and the man had a complete turn around on the issue. Come on for Christ sake, they can't even be bothered to hide their corruption anymore. Mere weeks ago a gaggle of MPs were caught taking money (or so they thought) to ask questions in the House of Commons. That is unquestionable illegal behaviour and to my knowledge not a single MP has been charged or even removed from the house. I'm pulling my hair out wondering what the hell we're going to do about it. I write to MPs all the time with questions or to have hem clarify their thinking on certain issues and I hear nothing back. They do not care. However, when I wrote to the President of the EU, I had a response within a week. An unsatisfactory response but certainly not a boiler plate. I think we've left it so long and done so little to keep our democracy healthy that we have a high price to pay if we want to fix it. But then there's an even higher price to pay if we don't, so fuck it, viva la revolucion!
DanBC 13y ago
> The government is currently trying to push a bill forcing ISPs to provide opt-out pornography filtering, however this is an issue that fails to address any real problems. My writing is lousy. It would have been nice if someone had grammar checked this before it was set up. > even though the filters are easily (even trivially) circumvented. Petitions of this type force a debate in parliament. The above line will be answered by Cameron (or similar) saying "We are confident that the filters can not be got around"; he has already said that. As well as signing this petition please write a short letter to your MP and ask them to oppose this stupid filter, with short clear examples of why it's stupid. If you only chose one thing to do write to your MP instead of signing this petition.
alexlawford 13y ago
"Bad parenting is the real problem ... not rely on filters of dubious effectiveness." I'm not sure how this is an argument against the filter? We agree that "parents need to supervise and educate their children about internet use", in the same way that parents need to supervise and educate their children about crossing the road. That doesn't mean we do away with traffic lights. The filter will surely help facilitate parents in their efforts to protect their children. If they don't want it, they can have it removed. "It also sets a poor precedent that objectionable content can be blocked ... promote education over flimsy, disruptive, and money-wasting "solutions"." This is really the same argument, reiterated. Why not promote both good parenting and "solutions"? Many people don't have the technical expertise to set up filters of this kind on their own (I would suggest that in many households, computers are used almost exclusively by the children). They might have the desire to be responsible parents in this area, but not know how to go about doing it. The only other point raised here is the "poor precedent" of blocking content. Is the argument here that it will lead to blocking of more content in the future? If so this a slippery slope fallacy. There is no evidence that this is the case. And if you really need to carry on watching porn, give your ISP a call. No one is stopping you.
- falk 13y ago
  "Is the argument here that it will lead to blocking of more content in the future? If so this a slippery slope fallacy." No it's not because U.K. ISPs have revealed that the filter will censor other content, as well. "As well as pornography, users may automatically be opted in to blocks on "violent material", "extremist related content", "anorexia and eating disorder websites" and "suicide related websites", "alcohol" and "smoking". But the list doesn't stop there. It even extends to blocking "web forums" and "esoteric material", whatever that is. "Web blocking circumvention tools" is also included, of course." [1] [1] http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/27/pornwall http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/27/pornwall The bottom line is that if you don't want your children to be exposed to content that may be questionable, don't let them get on the Internet. Set a password on your computer. Install a filtering program which don't require any technical expertise to install whatsoever. Hell, Windows has a web filter build in now a days. Don't force your preposterous views on to me. The government has no place restricting legal content. I'm tired of these bullshit "Think of the children!" arguments.
ryan14 13y ago
someone should setup a list of isps that oppose the filter and then get people to Email the isps that do NOT oppose the filter and tell them that u will cancel your service with them if they do not change their stance

49 points by jackhoy 13y ago

Having signed a number of these in the past I can predict what the official response will be. They will say that they are not forcing anyone and that the system is entirely voluntary. They'll say it's on by default merely to help protect children from accessing inappropriate content, and they'll say that the block lists are under constant review by a panel of independent experts.

eksith 13y ago
That's pretty spot on. As trite as this may sound, I can't help but remember that quote from the Matrix: "Choice is an illusion, created between those with power, and those without."
Joeboy 13y ago
The point isn't to come up with a petition that the government is unable to think of a response to, the point is to show that censoring the internet is unpopular.
- nextw33k 13y ago
  You missed the point, the petition asks not to create a bill for a filter. However the current filter is being put in place without ANY law being enacted. The PM is threatening the ISP's into doing this. This is not a democracy because I actually wrote to my MP about last year. He said he would vote against it. However there has been no vote in the commons.

zalzane 13y ago

The last thing this situation needs is a bit of petition-based slacktivism to calm people's nerves. Petitions do absolutely nothing. Off the top of my head, I can't recall a single petition in recent history that has done anything other than given its signers a false sense of contribution towards a cause. I'd go as far as to say that pushing petitions probably damages a cause more than aids it. If you want to change something, you get some people together and start a rally, or get people inundate your representative's inbox with mail from angry voters who don't want to see a measure pass.

Aqueous 13y ago
I don't think rallies really change anything either, unless they are large enough to really disrupt other media coverage and shift public opinion. Which is rare. Polls change things. Politicians pretend to care about phone calls to their office and letters, but they're really paying attention to public opinion, as represented by public opinion polls. They will never do anything unless the math adds up, unless doing so keeps them safe (or safer) in their job. They will never do anything unless you force them to do so by shifting public opinion. People get the government they deserve. Cameron is only doing this because he thinks this is what the majority of British people want, or at least wouldn't mind. Make the argument to the people, not the politicians.
- tomelders 13y ago
  It would appear polls don't change things either. Cameron and the Tories have been consistently polling badly. As for getting the government we deserve, this is a coalition, the public voted and no one won, we didn't ask for this government. Cameron has no mandate from the electorate, he is doing this because he is a bad person. I'll tell you what really works. Riots. In my memory, the only time I can remember the UK Government bending to the will of the people was after the poll tax riots. To help illustrate the futility of trying to engage with the UK government via peaceful means: At least 750,000 people marched on London to oppose the Iraq war and the government ignored every single one of them. And the protestors were right, dead right and not one single politician involved has ever acknowledged the failure to act on the overwhelming will of the people. I personally have come to believe that There is no chance for democracy and no chance for diplomacy in this country. Our laws are drafted by the CEOs and stakeholders of private organisations who we do not vote for, and yet they have seemingly unfettered access to our MPs. When that scheming little turd of a man Lord Mandleson was against the Digital Economy Act, all it took was an invite to David Geffen's private villa and the man had a complete turn around on the issue. Come on for Christ sake, they can't even be bothered to hide their corruption anymore. Mere weeks ago a gaggle of MPs were caught taking money (or so they thought) to ask questions in the House of Commons. That is unquestionable illegal behaviour and to my knowledge not a single MP has been charged or even removed from the house. I'm pulling my hair out wondering what the hell we're going to do about it. I write to MPs all the time with questions or to have hem clarify their thinking on certain issues and I hear nothing back. They do not care. However, when I wrote to the President of the EU, I had a response within a week. An unsatisfactory response but certainly not a boiler plate. I think we've left it so long and done so little to keep our democracy healthy that we have a high price to pay if we want to fix it. But then there's an even higher price to pay if we don't, so fuck it, viva la revolucion!

DanBC 13y ago

> The government is currently trying to push a bill forcing ISPs to provide opt-out pornography filtering, however this is an issue that fails to address any real problems. My writing is lousy. It would have been nice if someone had grammar checked this before it was set up. > even though the filters are easily (even trivially) circumvented. Petitions of this type force a debate in parliament. The above line will be answered by Cameron (or similar) saying "We are confident that the filters can not be got around"; he has already said that. As well as signing this petition please write a short letter to your MP and ask them to oppose this stupid filter, with short clear examples of why it's stupid. If you only chose one thing to do write to your MP instead of signing this petition.

alexlawford 13y ago

"Bad parenting is the real problem ... not rely on filters of dubious effectiveness." I'm not sure how this is an argument against the filter? We agree that "parents need to supervise and educate their children about internet use", in the same way that parents need to supervise and educate their children about crossing the road. That doesn't mean we do away with traffic lights. The filter will surely help facilitate parents in their efforts to protect their children. If they don't want it, they can have it removed. "It also sets a poor precedent that objectionable content can be blocked ... promote education over flimsy, disruptive, and money-wasting "solutions"." This is really the same argument, reiterated. Why not promote both good parenting and "solutions"? Many people don't have the technical expertise to set up filters of this kind on their own (I would suggest that in many households, computers are used almost exclusively by the children). They might have the desire to be responsible parents in this area, but not know how to go about doing it. The only other point raised here is the "poor precedent" of blocking content. Is the argument here that it will lead to blocking of more content in the future? If so this a slippery slope fallacy. There is no evidence that this is the case. And if you really need to carry on watching porn, give your ISP a call. No one is stopping you.

falk 13y ago
"Is the argument here that it will lead to blocking of more content in the future? If so this a slippery slope fallacy." No it's not because U.K. ISPs have revealed that the filter will censor other content, as well. "As well as pornography, users may automatically be opted in to blocks on "violent material", "extremist related content", "anorexia and eating disorder websites" and "suicide related websites", "alcohol" and "smoking". But the list doesn't stop there. It even extends to blocking "web forums" and "esoteric material", whatever that is. "Web blocking circumvention tools" is also included, of course." [1] [1] http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/27/pornwall http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/27/pornwall The bottom line is that if you don't want your children to be exposed to content that may be questionable, don't let them get on the Internet. Set a password on your computer. Install a filtering program which don't require any technical expertise to install whatsoever. Hell, Windows has a web filter build in now a days. Don't force your preposterous views on to me. The government has no place restricting legal content. I'm tired of these bullshit "Think of the children!" arguments.

ryan14 13y ago

someone should setup a list of isps that oppose the filter and then get people to Email the isps that do NOT oppose the filter and tell them that u will cancel your service with them if they do not change their stance