5 ms·

Wikipedia founder brands PM's porn filters plan 'ridiculous'

83 points by Libertatea 13y ago

jasonjei 13y ago
In truth, some of the content on Wikipedia is sensitive and would brand the site in more than one of the blocked categories. While not strictly pornographic, Wikipedia does get quite explicit, including entries and descriptions for things like fellatio, etc.
- corin_ 13y ago
  Fingers crossed they also ban dictionaries so that children can't find any words like "fellatio" in them either.
- mjn 13y ago
  Some of the images could count as pornographic as well. Back years ago there was an extremely long debate about whether the entry on autofellatio [1] should include a photograph of someone performing fellatio on themselves at the top, or whether something like a diagram was more informational and better suited to an encyclopedia. Looks like the photograph won out. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofellatio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofellatio
geekam 13y ago
It will be very interesting to see the criteria for a site to be labeled as porn. Is http://500px.com http://500px.com going to be deemed a porn site because it has a "nude" section?
- 1337biz 13y ago
  Sure. And hn as well. Because the "naked exposure" here is just unbearable for the UK government.
- cs02rm0 13y ago
  I suspect there will be different criteria at each ISP, kept secret in the name of protecting children without anyone taking responsibly for that list when it inevitably gets abused. Secret until leaked that is.
corin_ 13y ago
> "Additionally when we use cases of a paedophile who's been addicted to child porn videos online, you realise all that Cameron's rules would require him to do is opt in and say, 'Yes, I would like porn please'." Am I missing something? Or have people genuinely made the argument that this filter will help prevent child pornography? Surely the existing laws already block these sites?
- davidgerard 13y ago
  They've genuinely made the argument that that justifies this, yes. No, they can't work computers, but neither can the people whose votes they hope this will net.
diminoten 13y ago
This is my problem with the vitriolic nature of politics in general - when a truly, profoundly stupefying idea comes along, we've run out of proper words we can use to aptly convey how utterly incomprehensible and devoid of rationality the idea is. Our outrage can be reasonably seen as just another political discussion when in fact it's composed of literal and unbridled flabergastery the likes of which have not thusfar been witnessed by mankind.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
WizzleKake 13y ago
Of course it's ridiculous. Why does it take Jimmy Fucking Wales saying this for BBC to run a story saying that? Either David Cameron is an abject moron or he (and his cronies) don't understand this whole internet thing. It's probably the latter. AFAIK, everyone who didn't grow up online doesn't seem to "get" it.
- electromagnetic 13y ago
  I think it's for the average john smith. "Hey look, we have an internet information expert saying this is stupid" is much more effective than "Hey look, we have a greasy 17 year old neckbeard complaining he won't be able to look at porn". While both are arguing the same points, it's the former that is more worthy of listening to. It's one of the whole reasons I hate how journalists go talk to people on the street. I honestly don't give a crap about the opinion of some chick down the street from a house fire/arson that stood around for 3 hours before media interviewed her. Put the damn Fire Marshal on so he can tell me what's important. The media just makes me want to go troglodyte.
  - s-phi-nl 13y ago
    On your second paragraph, see http://xkcd.com/756/ http://xkcd.com/756/.
- gaius 13y ago
  No, I'm afraid you don't understand it. What Cameron proposes is perfectly do-able if you have a) billions of pounds b) physical access to the submarine cables and c) buy your computing power by the acre. GCHQ ticks all those boxes. The people saying "haha I'll use a VPN" are the ones who don't "get" it.
  - WizzleKake 13y ago
    From a technical standpoint, it's do-able. The extent to which it would be effective is certainly debatable. My point is that it's a stupid idea that reflects a profound naïveté about the internet as a social phenomenon.
justincormack 13y ago
Jimmy did once own a porn site of course, which they might mention. Not that I disagree with him.
- cupcake-unicorn 13y ago
  Yeah, I was just going to add the very same thing, since it doesn't exactly make him the most neutral and unbiased person to talk about the subject. I think he's even tried to get his own Wiki page edited to remove or tone down that fact. But like pretty much everyone in comments, yes, of course it's a stupid idea. I'm not sure why Jimmy is somehow an "authority" on this though.

83 points by Libertatea 13y ago

In truth, some of the content on Wikipedia is sensitive and would brand the site in more than one of the blocked categories. While not strictly pornographic, Wikipedia does get quite explicit, including entries and descriptions for things like fellatio, etc.

corin_ 13y ago
Fingers crossed they also ban dictionaries so that children can't find any words like "fellatio" in them either.
mjn 13y ago
Some of the images could count as pornographic as well. Back years ago there was an extremely long debate about whether the entry on autofellatio [1] should include a photograph of someone performing fellatio on themselves at the top, or whether something like a diagram was more informational and better suited to an encyclopedia. Looks like the photograph won out. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofellatio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofellatio

geekam 13y ago

It will be very interesting to see the criteria for a site to be labeled as porn. Is http://500px.com http://500px.com going to be deemed a porn site because it has a "nude" section?

1337biz 13y ago
Sure. And hn as well. Because the "naked exposure" here is just unbearable for the UK government.
cs02rm0 13y ago
I suspect there will be different criteria at each ISP, kept secret in the name of protecting children without anyone taking responsibly for that list when it inevitably gets abused. Secret until leaked that is.

corin_ 13y ago

> "Additionally when we use cases of a paedophile who's been addicted to child porn videos online, you realise all that Cameron's rules would require him to do is opt in and say, 'Yes, I would like porn please'." Am I missing something? Or have people genuinely made the argument that this filter will help prevent child pornography? Surely the existing laws already block these sites?

davidgerard 13y ago
They've genuinely made the argument that that justifies this, yes. No, they can't work computers, but neither can the people whose votes they hope this will net.

diminoten 13y ago

This is my problem with the vitriolic nature of politics in general - when a truly, profoundly stupefying idea comes along, we've run out of proper words we can use to aptly convey how utterly incomprehensible and devoid of rationality the idea is. Our outrage can be reasonably seen as just another political discussion when in fact it's composed of literal and unbridled flabergastery the likes of which have not thusfar been witnessed by mankind.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

WizzleKake 13y ago

Of course it's ridiculous. Why does it take Jimmy Fucking Wales saying this for BBC to run a story saying that? Either David Cameron is an abject moron or he (and his cronies) don't understand this whole internet thing. It's probably the latter. AFAIK, everyone who didn't grow up online doesn't seem to "get" it.

electromagnetic 13y ago
I think it's for the average john smith. "Hey look, we have an internet information expert saying this is stupid" is much more effective than "Hey look, we have a greasy 17 year old neckbeard complaining he won't be able to look at porn". While both are arguing the same points, it's the former that is more worthy of listening to. It's one of the whole reasons I hate how journalists go talk to people on the street. I honestly don't give a crap about the opinion of some chick down the street from a house fire/arson that stood around for 3 hours before media interviewed her. Put the damn Fire Marshal on so he can tell me what's important. The media just makes me want to go troglodyte.
- s-phi-nl 13y ago
  On your second paragraph, see http://xkcd.com/756/ http://xkcd.com/756/.
gaius 13y ago
No, I'm afraid you don't understand it. What Cameron proposes is perfectly do-able if you have a) billions of pounds b) physical access to the submarine cables and c) buy your computing power by the acre. GCHQ ticks all those boxes. The people saying "haha I'll use a VPN" are the ones who don't "get" it.
- WizzleKake 13y ago
  From a technical standpoint, it's do-able. The extent to which it would be effective is certainly debatable. My point is that it's a stupid idea that reflects a profound naïveté about the internet as a social phenomenon.

justincormack 13y ago

Jimmy did once own a porn site of course, which they might mention. Not that I disagree with him.

cupcake-unicorn 13y ago
Yeah, I was just going to add the very same thing, since it doesn't exactly make him the most neutral and unbiased person to talk about the subject. I think he's even tried to get his own Wiki page edited to remove or tone down that fact. But like pretty much everyone in comments, yes, of course it's a stupid idea. I'm not sure why Jimmy is somehow an "authority" on this though.