5 ms·

Becuase I don't want hard core porn like the tubes being freely and instantly accessible to my kids. 1) No I am not "abdicating" my responsibilities as a paren

• adamors 13y ago
  > I just don't want it shoved in their face, as is inevitable when it's just a click away But you're perfectly content with shoving your views down everyone else's throat, right? If you want to block porn in your house you're free to do so. If you're not able to do that, either hire someone to do it for you or just don't allow your kids near the internet. Problem solved.
  • retube 13y ago
    > But you're perfectly content with shoving your views down everyone else's throat, right? Oh I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to voice a differing opinion to the HN hivemind or your particular world view? I thought this site encouraged constructive discussion?
    • adamors 13y ago
      Quit being so defensive, I'm not talking about expressing opinions on HN! I was commenting on your arguments for a filter that limits the web for other people. Like I said, you're free to limit your internet as much as you want. The problem is when you want to do it for everyone else.
      • estel 13y ago
        Well, the filter as implemented is entirely optional - the ISPs have made it an "active choice" to enable or not - it's not something I've felt is being forced down my throat.
        • vidarh 13y ago
          No, it is not entirely optional. It is optional for the account holder, which means a substantial percentage of the population, including a substantial percentage of the population above the age of 18 is subject to the whims of the person in whose name the connection is. Many of those may not have the realistic option of voicing their preference. And many of those do not have the realistic option of moving out.
          • estel 13y ago
            Those were the people who already had no ultimate control over the restrictions on their connection. Hasn't the billpayer always had the ability to restrict their connection and set terms of use on people using it?
            • vidarh 13y ago
              Tell them, yes. But actively filtering have been substantially more effort. None of the routers I've been given from my various broadband providers in the UK have had filtering options that would have allowed this, which means said person would either have to explicitly go out of his way to lock down the provided router and put a filtering firewall in between, or lock down each computer in the household with filters. That it has been technically possible for a very small portion of the population to oppress their family members further does not strike me as a good reason for making it a one click option.
            • girvo 13y ago
              It forces conversations for some people that would never have otherwise needed to happen (but might have, in some cases). If you as a parent feel that this needs to be blocked, why not do it yourself on your own network? Everyone's happy then. Nation wide filtering seems heavy handed to me.
  • andyjohnson0 13y ago
    "But you're perfectly content with shoving your views down everyone else's throat, right?" retube simply said that he/she agreed with it in the context of their parental responsibilities. It is unlikely that they are responsible for policy/implementation of this filtering, and nobody here is telling you what to do.
  • retube 13y ago
    I can't reply to your child comment: > I was commenting on your arguments for a filter that limits the web for other people. Like I said, you're free to limit your internet as much as you want. The problem is when you want to do it for everyone else But you're free to opt-in if you want, I am not trying or arguing to limit your access.
• mhaymo 13y ago
  So install a filter on your own home connection. What's it got to do with the rest of us? And why allow the government to define what is and isn't objectionable for you?
  • retube 13y ago
    Umm the government decide what is "objectionable" in all areas of life. They enact laws against murder or fraud, they don't allow you to buy alcohool until your 18 (or 21 or whatever), they don't allow you to drive until 17. These are enacted for the overall benefit of society an I for for one am glad of this - otherwise you have anarchy. The fact is the prevelance and ease of accessibility of porn is resulting in a huge spike in sexual violence and disturbed behaviour in teens. This is not good. Whiilst I may be a responsible parent and will turn on filters; many will not.
    • mhaymo 13y ago
      > The fact is the prevelance and ease of accessibility of porn is resulting in a huge spike in sexual violence and disturbed behaviour in teens. Citation needed.
      • seabee 13y ago
        It is probably the same evidence that proves violent video games is responsible for making teenagers commit more violent crime.
        • deleted 13y ago
          [deleted]
      • retube 13y ago
        There is a lot of correlatory evidence. And whilst correlation does not imply causation many studies have observed a correlation. Interestingly enough actually proving causation is difficult and potential research would involve exposing people to a lot of porn involving ethical and potential legal issues. I am at work and would rather not go looking for porn research but am sure you know how to use Google. In the meantime: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22987051 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22987051
• seabee 13y ago
  > But access needs to be regulated. Regulated by whom? Why is it insufficient for people to install their own filters? After all, ISPs have offered (often given away) such filtering software to their customers for many years now.
• betawolf33 13y ago
  1) I've browsed the internet happily for many a year without having pornography 'shoved in my face'. If they find it, they were almost certainly looking for it. 2) If they're looking for it (see above) then an imperfect filter just means they don't find the known, safe sites. 3) Yes, it does. It is your right as a parent to decide what's appropriate for your child. It's not your right as a parent to force other people in households without children to report to a government-friendly list about their sexuality. 4) Well, such restrictions can still exist online. Paid porn sites can prevent the underage getting access. But really, why do we do this? Why is a young teenage girl or boy to be prohibited -- by law rather than parental consent -- from seeing sexual content? You say the internet should fall in line with these restrictions, but maybe those restrictions should be done away with.
  • retube 13y ago
    1) You are an adult with years of life experience behind you. It's trivial for you to avoid. Ditto myself. Nor are you subject to the playground peer pressures. But a young child who get's texted or messaged or facebooked a link, perhaps obsfuscated by an url shortener, is gonna be taken unawares. 2) Of course if you actively go out of your way to find it, you'll be able to. Just as you can work around any restriction in life. It's just about reducing the prevelence and "de-normalising" it. 3) So you support free access cos you don't want to admit you're into porn? And I am expected to support your desire for privacy even though it's at the expense of my children's safety? Not sure why ticking a box to opt-in in such a big deal anyway. It's not like your ISP isn't logging your requests and doesn't know you're visiting pron sites. Plus I thought liberals like yourself supported openness and transparency? 4) Yes, sites should be behind a paywall - hard core anyway. And they should be prohibited because much hard core is absolsutely unsuitable for young eyes. Boobs fine. But girls getting bukkaked or inserting crap up their behinds is not on.
    • adamors 13y ago
      > your desire for privacy even though it's at the expense of my children's safety > ISP doesn't know you're visiting pron sites. Plus I thought liberals like yourself supported openness and transparency? This is so nonsensical that it's actually funny. You are like those over the top Christian-conservative parents in sitcoms. I'm starting to think you are just trolling.
• dgesang 13y ago
  > 1) No I am not "abdicating" my responsibilities as a parent. Then be responsible and setup some filter at home yourself. Problem solved. Now leave the rest of the world alone.
  • retube 13y ago
    Yeah it's not just about me though. Plenty of parents won't know or won't be bothered. And I am leaving you alone. You're free to opt-out of the filter. Why is that a problem for you?
    • vidarh 13y ago
      The filter is at the account level. That leaves a whole lot of people, both kids that will miss out on access on non-pornographic sites that are wrongfully filtered, and adults living in family households that are left without a realistic choice. That makes it a problem for me. The net effect is that it realistically, given UK employment patterns, it reinforces patriarchal means of control of the family unit.
      • retube 13y ago
        > both kids that will miss out on access on non-pornographic sites that are wrongfully filtered, just cos the implementation may be buggy doesn't detract from the basic premise. > and adults living in family households that are left without a realistic choice given that it will be the adults thet are paying the bill and it's their choice to filter or not not sure there's a problem here. > it reinforces patriarchal means of control of the family unit. umm i reckon mums will be far more motivated and keen to restrict access than dads
        • vidarh 13y ago
          > just cos the implementation may be buggy doesn't detract from the basic premise. But it does mean the practical implementation creates the risk of substantial harm. And we're waiting on those citations that shows that the existence of the filter will protect against any harm. > given that it will be the adults thet are paying the bill and it's their choice to filter or not not sure there's a problem here. You miss the point: A substantial number of UK adults share households with other adult family members, with the average age for moving out having been pushed well into the 20's. Many of these adults may not be in a position where they are realistically able to ask the person in control of the internet connection to turn off the filter. You try being a 20-year old woman in a religious household and going to your dad and ask him to remove the porn filter because you want to look at those filtered sex education sites. Or a battered wife wanting to look for a support site and running into a block. > umm i reckon mums will be far more motivated and keen to restrict access than dads Meanwhile, Mumsnet, the largest social networking site for mums in the UK was forced to retract their support after a massive uproar amongst their users, who made it exceedingly clear they did not want the filter and who were extremely upset that the site operators had chosen to support it. And you are demonstrating exactly the kind of attitudes that will deprive a lot of people of the realistic ability to choose, even as adults, to get an unfiltered internet connection.
• girvo 13y ago
  That's your choice. But it certainly changes... Well, nothing. It's no more forced in their face that they can go to one URL and see it, vs using any dumb rot13 proxy and accessing it that way instead (like I used to 10 years ago). Misplaced priorities, in my opinion