3 ms·
Personally, not particularly. Sure they're different, but it's not for the government to decide that they should be blocked, especially if it's legal for a port
by dkuntz2 13y ago
Personally, not particularly. Sure they're different, but it's not for the government to decide that they should be blocked, especially if it's legal for a portion of the populace to view them.
If a parent doesn't want a child to view material of that nature (or any nature) it should be up to the parent, not the state, to make sure their child doesn't view it or have access to it. There's commercially available software out there that can make the same blocks, but it's opt-in.
The issue isn't that "kids should be able to see what kids want to see", it's "the state shouldn't dictate people can or can't see in the privacy of their home".
- DanBC 13y agoYou realise that the state isn't dictating what people can or can't see - these filters are optional? And that for existing customers they default to opt-in? It's frustrating that the reason the government forced ISP filtering is because i) no-one uses parental filtering and ii) parental filtering is hopeless.
- summerdown2 13y agoThe filters aren't optional. Setting them to "on" or "off" is currently optional, but the traffic of everyone in the country will soon pass through these filtering machines.