4 ms·

I think the point was that this filter is optional, but the next one may not be. This one gets people used to the idea of having a filter, and gauges public re

I think the point was that this filter is optional, but the next one may not be. This one gets people used to the idea of having a filter, and gauges public reaction / outcry.

netcan 13y ago
Optional?! You mean that it's optional for users because the can "call this number to opt in for porn and dissident information" or optional because the handful (4) of ISPs who control most people's access to the internet have the option of "making progress on this issue" or else they will have progress made for them. Do these 4 companies need the government for contracts? How about broadcast licenses? The thin veneer of optionality is (IMO, of course) the most offensive part of this. I realize I'm sounding shrill and dramatic but… optional here is just a steam vent. The proudly perverted, politically active or other fringe people will be able to access anything easily enough. They're hard to control anyway. The happy 90% will make do with approved content.
- citricsquid 13y ago
  If an ISP chooses to force people to call in to modify their filter level that's their prerogative, but the government hasn't required that and as far as I know all ISPs currently have it handled through their website(s). For example my ISP BT just has it as a clickable option in the account management panel, here's a screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/dWxORfJ.png http://i.imgur.com/dWxORfJ.png
  - netcan 13y ago
    Sorry. I updated my comment while you replied. Aren't we going in circles? If they can make it that easy to opt out, why not make it that easy to opt in? Isn't the whole premise that it's too hard and you can't expect normal people to opt in to a porn filter? Now they also have to go on a now pervert list.
  - darklajid 13y ago
    That was the most amusing (and scaring) screenshot that I've seen in a while. No popular Facebook joke/Reddit meme ever made me chuckle that hard. So .. you actually can tell your ISP that you're more into alcohol and nudity, but dislike porn? Tasteless would be nice, though? I wonder if they wouldn't be more helpful if they'd just take the list of keywords/categories from YouPorn so that you can express your preferences in a better and more specific way..
    - netcan 13y ago
      It's pretty dark
    - timje1 13y ago
      I don't mind my children knowing about DP, but I'll be damned if I let them view felching videos!
- DanBC 13y ago
  You realise that your ISP knows exactly what porn or disident material you're reading, right? Unless you're one of the few people who use privacy methods).
  - darklajid 13y ago
    It's quite a difference between saying 'I like hardcore porn' and watching it. While the ISP might certainly create a profile about you that lists you as a porn lover, that's a lot harder (for example: You might go for lesser known/_unfiltered_ porn sites anyway or tell them that you want porn because you don't understand the filter and assume that all your torrents with new 'material' won't be available otherwise). I agree with your general point, but I don't think these things should be conflated. Having to state one's stance towards any kind of content is different from someone watching over your shoulder.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      Opting out of the filter is not saying "i like hard ore porn", it is saying "i want to read sites like HN that are wrongly blocked by your shitty filters".
      - darklajid 13y ago
        Please take a look at the screenshot posted elsewhere. BT at least seems to offer you ways to do exactly that: Stating that you like porn (one category), nudity (another), alcohol/tobacco (third) or 'tasteless' content. There are more categories, but these are quite .. interesting. Sure, you _can_ opt out completely (not sure if that means that the BT site lists you as looking for all of that though, which might scare users again: "What, no I don't need tasteless material!"). Still, the UI leads you to state what you want (custom) or some predefined presets for all I can tell. That IS close enough to saying 'I like porn'. I don't argue that - disabling the filter might have other/better reasons than mature content - filtering is broken, stupid, idiotic and will never work correctly - and opting out for that reason alone is a good idea
      - elohesra 13y ago
- DanBC 13y ago
  Why is it a thin veneer? ISPs don't have to provide it and users don't have to use it. For many people it's opt out by default. It's harder to get more optional.
  - netcan 13y ago
    It's a thin veneer because ISPs have been strongly pressured into "providing" this. They did not do this freely in response to their customers' desire. This give the government some plausible deniability as well as immunity from responsibility for cockups. It's also a thin veneer because most moderate people will not want to contact their ISP and fill out a form^ requesting access to obscene and tasteless content. ^Kindly posted by itricsquid http://i.imgur.com/dWxORfJ.png http://i.imgur.com/dWxORfJ.png Honestly, I'm quite shocked how many HN readers see this as reasonable.
- whatevsbro 13y ago
  > I realize I'm sounding shrill and dramatic but… For what it's worth, I think you're sounding like someone who actually thinks about stuff. It's not a bad thing.
DanBC 13y ago
Since many people in the UK were fine with the odea of ID cards (which did have some strong opposition but oy really failed when people thought they'd have to pay £120 to get one) and many people in the UK used to volunteer to have their DNA on the national database it is a bit worrying when we rely on punlic opinion to stop this kind of stuff. In theory this is what elected representitives are supposed to prevent - the stupidity of the masses.
- blueskin_ 13y ago
  ID cards were always thoroughly unpopular and AFAIK never saw anything even near majority support (indeed, generally opposed by a significant majority). I never heard of any 'volunteering' to get your DNA added, unless you mean via getting arrested.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    People volunteer to be profiled when there are local hog profile cases. Here are some people saying that they'd never give their dna to the police along with other people saying that they're happy for the police to have their dna. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/8039149.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/8039149.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7532856.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7532856.stm this page gives more evidence that people volunteer. It also shows how large the dna database is, and how few crimes it helps solve. You are just wrong about id cards. The detica poll (2004) showed something like 80% support. The 2004 yougov poll showed 61% support. Even in 2006 support had only dropped to 53%, but opposition is only 37%. And all the way through pepple were clear about cost being very impotant to their acceptance of the scheme - when asked about id cards costing over £25 the support drops dramatically. Any support remaining for the cards collapsed when the estimated costs rose from about £40 for combined passport id card to about £120 for just the card.

I think the point was that this filter is optional, but the next one may not be. This one gets people used to the idea of having a filter, and gauges public reaction / outcry.

netcan 13y ago

Optional?! You mean that it's optional for users because the can "call this number to opt in for porn and dissident information" or optional because the handful (4) of ISPs who control most people's access to the internet have the option of "making progress on this issue" or else they will have progress made for them. Do these 4 companies need the government for contracts? How about broadcast licenses? The thin veneer of optionality is (IMO, of course) the most offensive part of this. I realize I'm sounding shrill and dramatic but… optional here is just a steam vent. The proudly perverted, politically active or other fringe people will be able to access anything easily enough. They're hard to control anyway. The happy 90% will make do with approved content.

citricsquid 13y ago
If an ISP chooses to force people to call in to modify their filter level that's their prerogative, but the government hasn't required that and as far as I know all ISPs currently have it handled through their website(s). For example my ISP BT just has it as a clickable option in the account management panel, here's a screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/dWxORfJ.png http://i.imgur.com/dWxORfJ.png
- netcan 13y ago
  Sorry. I updated my comment while you replied. Aren't we going in circles? If they can make it that easy to opt out, why not make it that easy to opt in? Isn't the whole premise that it's too hard and you can't expect normal people to opt in to a porn filter? Now they also have to go on a now pervert list.
- darklajid 13y ago
  That was the most amusing (and scaring) screenshot that I've seen in a while. No popular Facebook joke/Reddit meme ever made me chuckle that hard. So .. you actually can tell your ISP that you're more into alcohol and nudity, but dislike porn? Tasteless would be nice, though? I wonder if they wouldn't be more helpful if they'd just take the list of keywords/categories from YouPorn so that you can express your preferences in a better and more specific way..
  - netcan 13y ago
    It's pretty dark
  - timje1 13y ago
    I don't mind my children knowing about DP, but I'll be damned if I let them view felching videos!
DanBC 13y ago
You realise that your ISP knows exactly what porn or disident material you're reading, right? Unless you're one of the few people who use privacy methods).
- darklajid 13y ago
  It's quite a difference between saying 'I like hardcore porn' and watching it. While the ISP might certainly create a profile about you that lists you as a porn lover, that's a lot harder (for example: You might go for lesser known/_unfiltered_ porn sites anyway or tell them that you want porn because you don't understand the filter and assume that all your torrents with new 'material' won't be available otherwise). I agree with your general point, but I don't think these things should be conflated. Having to state one's stance towards any kind of content is different from someone watching over your shoulder.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    Opting out of the filter is not saying "i like hard ore porn", it is saying "i want to read sites like HN that are wrongly blocked by your shitty filters".
    - darklajid 13y ago
      Please take a look at the screenshot posted elsewhere. BT at least seems to offer you ways to do exactly that: Stating that you like porn (one category), nudity (another), alcohol/tobacco (third) or 'tasteless' content. There are more categories, but these are quite .. interesting. Sure, you _can_ opt out completely (not sure if that means that the BT site lists you as looking for all of that though, which might scare users again: "What, no I don't need tasteless material!"). Still, the UI leads you to state what you want (custom) or some predefined presets for all I can tell. That IS close enough to saying 'I like porn'. I don't argue that - disabling the filter might have other/better reasons than mature content - filtering is broken, stupid, idiotic and will never work correctly - and opting out for that reason alone is a good idea
    - elohesra 13y ago
DanBC 13y ago
Why is it a thin veneer? ISPs don't have to provide it and users don't have to use it. For many people it's opt out by default. It's harder to get more optional.
- netcan 13y ago
  It's a thin veneer because ISPs have been strongly pressured into "providing" this. They did not do this freely in response to their customers' desire. This give the government some plausible deniability as well as immunity from responsibility for cockups. It's also a thin veneer because most moderate people will not want to contact their ISP and fill out a form^ requesting access to obscene and tasteless content. ^Kindly posted by itricsquid http://i.imgur.com/dWxORfJ.png http://i.imgur.com/dWxORfJ.png Honestly, I'm quite shocked how many HN readers see this as reasonable.
whatevsbro 13y ago
> I realize I'm sounding shrill and dramatic but… For what it's worth, I think you're sounding like someone who actually thinks about stuff. It's not a bad thing.

DanBC 13y ago

Since many people in the UK were fine with the odea of ID cards (which did have some strong opposition but oy really failed when people thought they'd have to pay £120 to get one) and many people in the UK used to volunteer to have their DNA on the national database it is a bit worrying when we rely on punlic opinion to stop this kind of stuff. In theory this is what elected representitives are supposed to prevent - the stupidity of the masses.

blueskin_ 13y ago
ID cards were always thoroughly unpopular and AFAIK never saw anything even near majority support (indeed, generally opposed by a significant majority). I never heard of any 'volunteering' to get your DNA added, unless you mean via getting arrested.
- DanBC 13y ago
  People volunteer to be profiled when there are local hog profile cases. Here are some people saying that they'd never give their dna to the police along with other people saying that they're happy for the police to have their dna. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/8039149.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/8039149.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7532856.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7532856.stm this page gives more evidence that people volunteer. It also shows how large the dna database is, and how few crimes it helps solve. You are just wrong about id cards. The detica poll (2004) showed something like 80% support. The 2004 yougov poll showed 61% support. Even in 2006 support had only dropped to 53%, but opposition is only 37%. And all the way through pepple were clear about cost being very impotant to their acceptance of the scheme - when asked about id cards costing over £25 the support drops dramatically. Any support remaining for the cards collapsed when the estimated costs rose from about £40 for combined passport id card to about £120 for just the card.