3 ms·
I would go with that if it were opt in. But deliberately, its not. Have to ask why, and what that implies. The whole point is to humiliate people who want acces
by alan_cx 13y ago
I would go with that if it were opt in. But deliberately, its not. Have to ask why, and what that implies. The whole point is to humiliate people who want access to porn. It has nothing what so ever to do with protecting children. The UK gov is enforcing a morality on the UK people which frankly its rarely applies to its self.
Also, BT are going to or are blocking proxy and proxy info sites. Why would any one want to opt in to that? Clearly this the beginnings of mass censorship, which I see no logical end to.
All this coming from the party which claims to be about personal choice and responsibility.
- nly 13y agoExactly. In an opt-in system, enabled means "they displayed a preference against incidental access to porn" and disabled means "they've never bothered to change it". In an opt-out system enabled means "they've never bothered to change it" and disabled means "this guy irresponsibly exposes his kids to sleaze, and spends his free time downloading demeaning hardcore pornography". We all know that, at some point, the status of some poor schmucks ISP filter is going to be used as supporting evidence of their lifestyle against him or her in court.
- hahainternet 13y agoThe slippery slopes being written out in this thread are beyond comedy into absolute absurdity.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago>Why would any one want to opt in to that? // Come on, seriously are you saying you can't imagine why? If you don't block proxies then you may as well not block anything. Regardless of whether you think not blocking anything is the better way - surely you can see why people would want to block porn on their internet connections?