4 ms·

A - Nonsense. It's not hard. You can take your computer to any "computer repair" shop and get it installed. You can install something yourself or you can call y

by netcan 13y ago

A - Nonsense. It's not hard. You can take your computer to any "computer repair" shop and get it installed. You can install something yourself or you can call your ISP and ask them to install it. You can get help from your kids' school or you can get help from whoever it is that helps you set up your email or home wifi network. It may not be absolutely trivial, but it is a solvable problem for an adult willing to invest an hour or two and/or a little bit of money. I just hate this "people are dumb, this is hard for them" argument. People are capable if they are interested. B - You can use legislation to make it easier while preserving freedom. I don't like this option, but it's much better than mandatory. Make it mandatory for ISPs to offer free filtering. This is a case of not trusting people to manage their own families' affairs.

mattlutze 13y ago
The argument is an extension of the reason we don't let stores sell porno mags to 13 year old's -- it is ridiculous to assume the parents will always be with their child to make the decision for them. I've no measured and thought-out opinion on porn filtering or censoring at ISPs one way or another. But a lot of recent research on the subject of youth and lewd material consumption suggests the current free and unfettered access to pornographic material is unhealthy. Is there a "slippery slope" to cry out with where this line of thought goes? Sure. But in societies that decide their federal system should be arbiter of its health care system, it makes no sense to argue when that government takes measures to act on information regarding the health of its citizens.
- Eclyps 13y ago
  The big difference here is that purchasing a porno magazine requires interacting with a clerk who will then verify your age and send you on your way. A better comparison would be banning the sale of all porno magazines unless the buyer registers for a porno card for his/her family (which would then provide unlimited access regardless of age). I tend to agree that unfiltered access to all sorts of things can have an unhealthy impact on the minds of kids, but this is still the wrong way to handle it.
- netcan 13y ago
  in societies that decide their federal system should be arbiter of its health care system, it makes no sense to argue when that government takes measures to act on information regarding the health of its citizens. I really hate that argument. It's extremist and righteous.
  - timje1 13y ago
    Seconding your objection. "in societies that decide their federal system should be arbiter of its health care system..." To most of the world this reads as: "in first world nations..."
    - netcan 13y ago
      I don't even see it as a nonsensical statement. Public healthcare does create a public interest in public health and a minor conflict with free society. But to extrapolate from that places with public health are slave societies where everything goes so stop complaining about freedom is the most annoying kind of extremist logic. It's like listening to mullahs and rabbis talk about how since you are all a debaucherous bunch anyway with your shorts and music videos, surly you shouldn't be complaining about child molesters.
    - mattlutze 13y ago
      I can't reply to netcan unfortunately -- this isn't a conclusion that the British people are a "slave society", that's a distraction. I'm saying that, if a government has the power to make decisions that affect the heath of its population, it's probably going to make decisions under the guise of that power. I'm not saying that I think it's a good decision - I feel quite in line with the majority voice here that it's a Bad Idea.
      - netcan 13y ago
        Sorry to pull the conversation in an uncivil direction. If you do think this is a bad idea why would you voice that opinion. If I can restate it in a less divisive way it's that as the UK Government is responsible for health, they need to have a say on (all?) things which potentially affect the mental health of UK citizens. You are (I assume based on your rhetoric) against public health services on those grounds - the loss of freedom. That frames the whole discussion in an extremist way: IE that those of us rejecting censorship are extremists and we see a choice between welfare societies (which are what the public want in most of Europe) with benefits like public schooling & healthcare or a free society without censorship. That's what I mean by extremist. I also think it's a false choice. We can have healthcare and a free internet. The connection between those two things would be difficult to explain to someone without a fundamentalist mindset to begin with. I can't even imagine a pro-censorship person making it though I can see them making a utilitarian mental health argument (Porn causes mental health issues and that is bad). In any practical sense there is no connection.
- hoggle 13y ago
  This is as recent as 2010 - not much of what you are claiming here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19731132 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19731132 "Most of the participants had acquired the necessary skills of how to deal with the exposure to pornography in a sensible and reflective manner."
- whatevsbro 13y ago
  > But in societies that decide their federal system should be arbiter of its health care system, it makes no sense to argue when that government takes measures to act on information regarding the health of its citizens. 1) How did "society" decide that? 2) Why should the "federal system" be an arbiter of health care? 3) Why would it not make sense to discuss whatever the government is doing?
- Houshalter 13y ago
  I'm not aware of this research but lets just say it's true. The purpose of the laws isn't about any concern for children's health (otherwise they would be outlawing fast food, or caffeine or sharp objects other "dangerous" things kids could get exposed to.) It's because of social taboos against porn and viewing it as obscene or immoral. In any case it should be up to the parents and should not at all be necessary for the government to force people into it. ISPs are not selling internet access to 13 year olds in the first place, and if they were, under the current law they can easily opt-out.
DanBC 13y ago
Your point B males no sense in context. The filters are voluntary - ISPs do not need to provide them. They are free and optional for customers to use. Some people need to opt put, some people need to opt in. The actual situation is freer than your proposed situation.
goggles99 13y ago
What about for your kid's smart phone? What about in library computers, or the your kid's friends computer? Internet devices are ubiquitous. Most kids today probably surf the web as much if not more outside the house than in it. Most kids are more tech savvy than their parents and can easily get around software installed on the PC with a Ubuntu live boot disk or by other means. Many of these filtering softwares have less than current definitions, or need constant updating. Others have terrible fuzzy logic engines. PC web filtering software has been around for at least 20 years and are not the answer to the porn industry targeting children.

by netcan 13y ago

mattlutze 13y ago

The argument is an extension of the reason we don't let stores sell porno mags to 13 year old's -- it is ridiculous to assume the parents will always be with their child to make the decision for them. I've no measured and thought-out opinion on porn filtering or censoring at ISPs one way or another. But a lot of recent research on the subject of youth and lewd material consumption suggests the current free and unfettered access to pornographic material is unhealthy. Is there a "slippery slope" to cry out with where this line of thought goes? Sure. But in societies that decide their federal system should be arbiter of its health care system, it makes no sense to argue when that government takes measures to act on information regarding the health of its citizens.

Eclyps 13y ago
The big difference here is that purchasing a porno magazine requires interacting with a clerk who will then verify your age and send you on your way. A better comparison would be banning the sale of all porno magazines unless the buyer registers for a porno card for his/her family (which would then provide unlimited access regardless of age). I tend to agree that unfiltered access to all sorts of things can have an unhealthy impact on the minds of kids, but this is still the wrong way to handle it.
netcan 13y ago
in societies that decide their federal system should be arbiter of its health care system, it makes no sense to argue when that government takes measures to act on information regarding the health of its citizens. I really hate that argument. It's extremist and righteous.
- timje1 13y ago
  Seconding your objection. "in societies that decide their federal system should be arbiter of its health care system..." To most of the world this reads as: "in first world nations..."
  - netcan 13y ago
    I don't even see it as a nonsensical statement. Public healthcare does create a public interest in public health and a minor conflict with free society. But to extrapolate from that places with public health are slave societies where everything goes so stop complaining about freedom is the most annoying kind of extremist logic. It's like listening to mullahs and rabbis talk about how since you are all a debaucherous bunch anyway with your shorts and music videos, surly you shouldn't be complaining about child molesters.
  - mattlutze 13y ago
    I can't reply to netcan unfortunately -- this isn't a conclusion that the British people are a "slave society", that's a distraction. I'm saying that, if a government has the power to make decisions that affect the heath of its population, it's probably going to make decisions under the guise of that power. I'm not saying that I think it's a good decision - I feel quite in line with the majority voice here that it's a Bad Idea.
    - netcan 13y ago
      Sorry to pull the conversation in an uncivil direction. If you do think this is a bad idea why would you voice that opinion. If I can restate it in a less divisive way it's that as the UK Government is responsible for health, they need to have a say on (all?) things which potentially affect the mental health of UK citizens. You are (I assume based on your rhetoric) against public health services on those grounds - the loss of freedom. That frames the whole discussion in an extremist way: IE that those of us rejecting censorship are extremists and we see a choice between welfare societies (which are what the public want in most of Europe) with benefits like public schooling & healthcare or a free society without censorship. That's what I mean by extremist. I also think it's a false choice. We can have healthcare and a free internet. The connection between those two things would be difficult to explain to someone without a fundamentalist mindset to begin with. I can't even imagine a pro-censorship person making it though I can see them making a utilitarian mental health argument (Porn causes mental health issues and that is bad). In any practical sense there is no connection.
hoggle 13y ago
This is as recent as 2010 - not much of what you are claiming here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19731132 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19731132 "Most of the participants had acquired the necessary skills of how to deal with the exposure to pornography in a sensible and reflective manner."
whatevsbro 13y ago
> But in societies that decide their federal system should be arbiter of its health care system, it makes no sense to argue when that government takes measures to act on information regarding the health of its citizens. 1) How did "society" decide that? 2) Why should the "federal system" be an arbiter of health care? 3) Why would it not make sense to discuss whatever the government is doing?
Houshalter 13y ago
I'm not aware of this research but lets just say it's true. The purpose of the laws isn't about any concern for children's health (otherwise they would be outlawing fast food, or caffeine or sharp objects other "dangerous" things kids could get exposed to.) It's because of social taboos against porn and viewing it as obscene or immoral. In any case it should be up to the parents and should not at all be necessary for the government to force people into it. ISPs are not selling internet access to 13 year olds in the first place, and if they were, under the current law they can easily opt-out.

DanBC 13y ago

Your point B males no sense in context. The filters are voluntary - ISPs do not need to provide them. They are free and optional for customers to use. Some people need to opt put, some people need to opt in. The actual situation is freer than your proposed situation.

goggles99 13y ago

What about for your kid's smart phone? What about in library computers, or the your kid's friends computer? Internet devices are ubiquitous. Most kids today probably surf the web as much if not more outside the house than in it. Most kids are more tech savvy than their parents and can easily get around software installed on the PC with a Ubuntu live boot disk or by other means. Many of these filtering softwares have less than current definitions, or need constant updating. Others have terrible fuzzy logic engines. PC web filtering software has been around for at least 20 years and are not the answer to the porn industry targeting children.