10 ms·

Sky to block pornography by default

82 points by GotAnyMegadeth 12y ago

peterwwillis 12y ago
Does anyone know of any studies that show that pornography harms children more than anything else, like seeing bomb victims on nightly news or ISIS beheadings on Facebook? I seem to recall seeing porn when I was a child, and i'm not intellectually or emotionally damaged, as far as I know.
- devindotcom 12y ago
  Well, you're not exactly an unbiased source on yourself ;) To be honest, I would expect many studies to have rather a moralistic bent, since it's getting into issues of right and wrong, cultural issues rather than strictly behavioral ones. That said, I do think there is something to the idea that early exposure to porn does change one's expectations when it comes to sex. Sure, you could view like a "action movie" version of the act, but all the same it could taint somewhat one's ideas of how it's done, what the opposite (or same for that matter) sex is like in or out of bed, etc. Banning it is, of course, ridiculous and impossible, so I wouldn't support it even if I thought it was morally justified (precious little is).
  - sarciszewski 12y ago
    This was a well written and insightful comment. I couldn't have said it better myself. :D From the grandparent: > like seeing bomb victims on nightly news or ISIS beheadings on Facebook That's an interesting point to bring up. Maybe if you raise hell to the members of Parliament, they'll act to ban that stuff too?
    - pyre 12y ago
      They won't ban that violence. How else can use terrorism to scare people into supporting whatever it is you want them to support?
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      > That's an interesting point to bring up. Maybe if you raise hell to the members of Parliament, they'll act to ban that stuff too? Of course they won't, wide dissemination of that stuff suits them just fine. Think of it like a partnership.
  - rimantas 12y ago
    Still baffling, that violence and murder you see on TV almost non-stop is not considered a big problem. Probably because it is not. Everyone is going to deal with sex. Only a few will have to deal with murder. Go figure.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  ... harms children more than anything else This is not a strong line of argument. We don't have to fix things only in order of harm. IF it is considerably harmful, we should do something about it. It doesn't really matter if it is the most harmful.
  - kazinator 12y ago
    Yes it does matter! It matters if we could easily spend fewer resources to fix a much greater harm, but we are focusing on some scapegoat due to moralistic reasons not having anything to do with the scale of (or even existence of) harm.
    - sliverstorm 12y ago
      It matters, sure, especially if there are great alternatives handy that really do spend much less resources for much more benefit AND working on the example at hand rules out alternatives. But without those qualifiers, it is a weak line of reasoning. It's pretty rare that we can attack a social problem only one way at a time. Is it a reasonable argument to say that the USA's carbon emissions do not need to be worried about, because the USA does not emit more carbon than anyone else? China produces about 40% more carbon than the USA.
  - ANTSANTS 12y ago
    That's assuming it's actually harmful, which we have absolutely no proof of, just "think uh duh childrens" gut feelings. Society hasn't collapsed just because kids have had access to internet porn for a few generations. A more libertarian perspective would be "unless you can prove something is causing demonstrable, serious harm, the government should not be involved in it at all, because at best you're wasting resources on something insignificant, or at worst you're unintentionally causing actual, demonstrable damage to society in pursuit of a misguided goal." Not that it really matters in this case, it's obvious that Cameron doesn't give a shit about porn and is just using this as an excuse to curb civil liberties and justify surveillance.
    - 0xdeadbeefbabe 12y ago
CountHackulus 12y ago
I remember when it wasn't going to be on by default, and also when it was going to be JUST for really revolting/violent pornography. People say that you can't argue slippery slope here, but I say otherwise. The UK government has proven that the temptation to block anything they want by default and shame others into not turning off the block is too great, and I feel that this entire filtering experiment is a step or two away from a China-style firewall.
- pavel_lishin 12y ago
  "Slippery slope" is only a fallacious argument when your opponent isn't laying out a slip'n'slide and diluting dish soap in a bucket.
- sandworm 12y ago
  China-STYLE? Take a look at who admins the UK firewall. http://www.dailydot.com/business/david-cameron-porn-firewall-china-huawei/ http://www.dailydot.com/business/david-cameron-porn-firewall...
  - ewzimm 12y ago
    So Cameron wants to ban encryption and send the whole nation's Internet activity through Chinese monitors. Maybe he's just really admires China.
  - jamesbrownuhh 12y ago
    Who admins one, optional firewall used by customers of one British Internet service provider. (And not even a very good one at that.)
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  >shame others into not turning off the block is too great // How are they shaming people who choose to remove content filters? It's entirely private is it not.
  - unprepare 12y ago
lnaie1 12y ago
protect from what?!
- alextgordon 12y ago
  Themselves, apparently.
drivingmenuts 12y ago
Awesome. Now they just have to define "pornography".
- icehawk219 12y ago
  At least in the US it seems like the definition of "pornography" has become, or is increasingly becoming, "nudity".
  - 0xdeadbeefbabe 12y ago
    The UK doesn't define it that way I bet.
  - pyre 12y ago
    Just look at all of the people up in arms about that latest Sia music video...
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Yeah, it's weird that ultra-hardcore pornography is so available yet at the same time I find myself watching PBS and they blur out anatomical details and swear words even in depictions of paintings or in films. On foreign films they even add another layer of subtitles to obscure offensive words, despite a warning at the start of the program that it contains adult subject matter or suchlike. Meanwhile, it's considered perfectly OK to depict all kinds of murderous mayhem, demonic possession, mutilations and so on even in early-evening time slots.
- AlyssaRowan 12y ago
  I know it when I see it. ;) And unfortunately - no, they don't, that's Symantec's job! :( All of the censorship management is outsourced, Sky don't have any direct control over it, they can't even log in directly to override and they barely understand it - which is going to be a big problem when it inevitably shits the bed (again). One of the biggest problems about this kind of thing is the absolutely brutal lack of transparency as a result of that sort of thing. (e.g. they've already falsely blocked the TorrentFreak news site at least once, not to mention the Wikipedia Virgin Killer incident when the IWF listed one of the pages because of the nature of the album cover, or the jQuery CDN a year ago, or…) In truth, no part of this was a good idea. A very disappointing mistake. I did warn them, loudly. I'm not sure what more I can, or ought to, say, except that the filtering infrastructure is: beyond their control; vulnerable (no further comment); and, already in a uniquely-privileged network position on all Sky broadband connections regardless of settings (operating the blocklists you can't opt out of - the Internet Watch Foundation child porn blocklist, the court order ones like the Pirate Bay block, for example - something the High Court only felt themselves able to order because the blocking infrastructure was already there! - and shortly the 'hate site' blocklist). This move is a complete U-turn from what was said at the meeting with Claire Perry MP - with whom I have some quite potent disagreements - that it would never be on by default. I wonder why that could be. Disclaimer: I work in an affected industry, and I really don't like censorship. But it's not just "pornography and adult" this blocks: they're defaulting to the "13" age rating, which also includes blocks on categories including: "dating"; "anonymizers, filesharing and hacking"; "suicide and self harm"; "drugs and criminal skills"; "weapons, violence, gore and hate"; and "phishing, malware and spyware". There was a "cyber bullying" category as well, but that's gone now and is now included in the "social networking" category (not in the default blocklist). But remember: there are two, shortly to be three, lists you can't turn off, so the system is still in-path, and still vulnerable…
ris 12y ago
Hmm I wonder if Rupert's going to block The Sun's website and all its page 3 glory. (FSVO "glory")
- smeyer 12y ago
  Didn't The Sun just decide to stop printing topless women on page 3? I thought I heard they were replacing them with regular old scantily clad women or something.
  - ghswa 12y ago
    The online version of page 3 will remain unchanged.
CraigJPerry 12y ago
Based on past performances of this company, I have a feeling this is a side show. What else are they (or their friends) up to that they're trying to distract attention from?
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  Actually I think it's part of their current marketing effort. TalkTalk, and/or others, have probably been successful with increasing sign-ups by having default filters and Sky are probably following the market.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
LukeB_UK 12y ago
The problems with these filters is that they catch things that aren't porn too. For example advice on safe sex.
- ddalex_ro 12y ago
  The problem is that they catch porn, in the first place. Who is the government to tell me what I can and can't watch, provided I don't hurt anyone directly or indirectly. Next thing you know, the government is going to tell me who to vote in and out the office.
  - zimpenfish 12y ago
    The government already tell you what you can and can't watch via the BBFC and other various legal means (e.g. downloading a film to watch because the studio hasn't given it a UK theatre/DVD release would be illegal, I think.)
    - AlyssaRowan 12y ago
      I do note that the government have already mentioned aloud the possibility of coercing ISPs to use these filters to block foreign porn sites which wouldn't get a BBFC 18R (see the ATVOD crap we've been having over here). That's a lot more sites than you might think.
      - zimpenfish 12y ago
        Oh, I don't know, I can think of loads offhand that would be caught - even more if they applied the 18R rules to static images as well as VOD. But I'm not surprised it's already on the cards - this has been coming since the early 00s (e.g. the "usenet is CHILD PORN!!!!1!!" newspaper outrages, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, etc.)
  - beeworker 12y ago
    For the sake of argument let's assume the only person you hurt by watching porn is yourself, and let's not worry yet about the degree of harm or the potential mitigation from "responsible" usage. (This applies to various drugs, too.) Why would a government that cares about its citizens not step in when there are simple counter-measures with significant gains that stop the majority from doing self-inflicted damage? Even if that majority can come up with rationalizations for the damage? (Like self-flagellation to get closer to God, or brain-cell killing substances "to take the edge off".) I'm not advocating for draconian measures to try and prevent 100% of the people from doing X, and those are impossible anyway when X is readily produced (like alcohol) but there's a middle ground between that and doing nothing while your population withers.
PuffinBlue 12y ago
Just a little perspective...I've got Sky Broadband and turning off this filter took a couple of clicks. Actually it might have even just been one, and that's it. It's been harder to access age restricted content from other providers like Three for over a decade. Access to adult content through the Three network requires you to sign up with a credit card to prove your age for example. Neither of these situations are ideal, nor are they catastrophic. Just retain a little perspective and afford these companies the courtesy of believing the intent is well meaning. Of course there are slippery slopes and changes throughout the years, but also remember we're an 800 year old democracy (almost), that's _probably_ not going to change and it's good to keep a level head about this stuff.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  Being well meaning isn't the problem - history's greatest monsters thought they were doing good by their country. There's an old saying about good intentions... Anyways, the problem with requiring affirmative consent to unblock is that the people running the filters are just a select name from subscribers where filter = false .away from getting information that could be used against people. It's best that they not have that information in the first place, and that's before we get into the question of if "protecting children" is worth all this trouble anyways.
  - imgabe 12y ago
    But they have that information anyway. If they want to know which subscribers access porn, I'm sure they can find that in the logs, filters or no. Not that I think filters are a good idea, but it doesn't really give "them" any additional information.
    - unprepare 12y ago
      a households IP requesting certain sites != account holder specifically requesting porn blocker be disabled
      - 12y ago
embro 12y ago
Problem isn't with kids but more with teens. Instead of trying to ban it, just talk about it. Banning it would only make it slightly harder to find and would make parents believe their child/teen is "safe" and will never see porn... WRONG. Kids have plenty of time to find what they want. Sex education is the only solution.
- sremani 12y ago
  I absolutely hate this myth. Porn IS NOT Sex Ed. Actually, Porn misrepresents Sex by a magnitude of 10. The fake breast implants, fake butt and make up and editing etc. etc. Its just make believe. There is mounting evidence of Porn being harmful to the mind and causing ED, anxiety etc. There is a reason reditt is filled with NoFap stuff. People, I am all for sex ed for 16 year old. But with near ubiquity of internet and kids playing with tablets and phones my worry is not about the 16 year old, its about the 4 year old.
  - unprepare 12y ago
    But parental controls are a feature that the market can easily solve without the need for government enforced internet censorship. government IS NOT your childs caretaker
    - sremani 12y ago
      Right, what is government is doing when a sexual predator has to register and not live near a school? Isn't it taking care of the children of the community. Public Policy is more complicated than bumper sticker slogans.
      - unprepare 12y ago
        Wow what an insane example. First, there a major difference between restrictions placed on convicted criminals, and restrictions placed on every citizen of an entire country. Second, one represents a danger to the physical safety of others, and the other represents something that you would prefer your child not to see - do you not see a stark difference between a child being kidnapped and raped, and a child accidentally clicking onto a pornographic website? Its not that complicated - we punish those who have committed crimes, we do not do so preemptively to entire populations.
swasheck 12y ago
To take a bit of a contrarian perspective here, pornography has been linked to human trafficking, at least in Nevada. So if we want to distance ourselves from the religious moral and ethical arguments that oppose the "we're not actually harming ourselves" perspective, there is, at least in part, the perspective that viewing pornography contributes to violations against those viewed. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0615162053?ie=UTF8&tag=prostreseaa02-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0615162053 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0615162053?ie=UTF8&tag=pros...
- walru 12y ago
  I'll combat your contrarian point with this study from UGA on states that preach abstinence as their form of teen contraception. http://news.uga.edu/releases/article/abstinence-only-education-does-not-lead-to-abstinent-behavior/ http://news.uga.edu/releases/article/abstinence-only-educati...
  - swasheck 12y ago
    How does this combat my point? Are you referencing the line "correlation does not imply causation"? If so, never once did I imply that the sole cause of human trafficking is pornography.
    - walru 12y ago
      Even if it was the slightest cause, by ending porn the world over you will not diminish the act of human trafficking or prostitution. In fact, you may, and probably will, only strengthen the practice as people look to other means to live out their urges. As has been learned by the conservatives who thought telling teenage kids they should wait, or that sex was bad, to tip the scales in their favor.
- rudolf0 12y ago
  >pornography has been linked to human trafficking Water has also been linked to human rights abuses in the form of waterboarding.
zeruch 12y ago
I wonder how long before they either reverse or otherwise make it boneheadedly easy to opt out. This strikes me as wholly to appease the gov entities and as soon as it negatively impacts the numbers...
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  Sky aren't known for high morals or anything are they? They're probably just following customer demand.
- jamesbrownuhh 12y ago
  You can already opt out now. When you sign with any major ISP the first question it asks you on connection is, basically, parental controls, yes or no. You say no and get on with your life. The single and only thing that Sky have done today, is changing that "If you don't answer, we'll assume no (filtering)" to "If you don't answer, we'll assume yes."
jason46 12y ago
I'm curious if users of this ISP have alternatives? If one wanted to view porn, and did not want to deal with getting it "enabled", would it be possible to switch to another ISP?
- AlecSchueler 12y ago
  All other large ISPs have the same blocks but they are thus far opt-in.
  - rsync 12y ago
    There used to be a single Internet, with all content and addresses treated equally. Now, depending on your location, your provider, or your device/ecosystem, you may have vastly different network landscapes from others, elsewhere in the world. In my opinion, "peak Internet" occurred sometime around 2010-2011. That is when the largest number of people had access to the most open, monolithic network.
  - jamesbrownuhh 12y ago
    I'd disagree with that - most other large ISPs have similar parental control services but they are not all exactly the same and differ widely in technology and scope.
- jason46 12y ago
  If I were in this situation in my area, I would have to go get it enabled, no broadband options here.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  Andrew and Arnold - http://www.aa.net.uk/ http://www.aa.net.uk/
  - AlyssaRowan 12y ago
    Indeed, AAISP are very strongly anti-censorship, anti-logging. They're good people, impressively low level of bullshit, and even their front-line tech support are actually techs who know one end of a DSLAM from the other and how to diagnose MTU issues, and not a bloody call centre (although they do only work working days and not weekends). Strongly recommended if you're in the UK and if they can get you a good connection (if Sky can, they definitely can).
weavie 12y ago
That's all good and well, I used to use OpenDNS to try to block porn, so I can see the idea behind what they are trying to do. Unfortunately my son worked out how to use VPN a long time ago so really the only choice I got now is to be open and talk to him. It did help him learn more about networks and general hackery, so it is all good really..
belorn 12y ago
If you do not have it by default, you create an exception list of concerned parents. If you have it on by default, you create an exception list of porn viewers. Which of the two list carries higher privacy concerns?

Does anyone know of any studies that show that pornography harms children more than anything else, like seeing bomb victims on nightly news or ISIS beheadings on Facebook? I seem to recall seeing porn when I was a child, and i'm not intellectually or emotionally damaged, as far as I know.

devindotcom 12y ago
Well, you're not exactly an unbiased source on yourself ;) To be honest, I would expect many studies to have rather a moralistic bent, since it's getting into issues of right and wrong, cultural issues rather than strictly behavioral ones. That said, I do think there is something to the idea that early exposure to porn does change one's expectations when it comes to sex. Sure, you could view like a "action movie" version of the act, but all the same it could taint somewhat one's ideas of how it's done, what the opposite (or same for that matter) sex is like in or out of bed, etc. Banning it is, of course, ridiculous and impossible, so I wouldn't support it even if I thought it was morally justified (precious little is).
- sarciszewski 12y ago
  This was a well written and insightful comment. I couldn't have said it better myself. :D From the grandparent: > like seeing bomb victims on nightly news or ISIS beheadings on Facebook That's an interesting point to bring up. Maybe if you raise hell to the members of Parliament, they'll act to ban that stuff too?
  - pyre 12y ago
    They won't ban that violence. How else can use terrorism to scare people into supporting whatever it is you want them to support?
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    > That's an interesting point to bring up. Maybe if you raise hell to the members of Parliament, they'll act to ban that stuff too? Of course they won't, wide dissemination of that stuff suits them just fine. Think of it like a partnership.
- rimantas 12y ago
  Still baffling, that violence and murder you see on TV almost non-stop is not considered a big problem. Probably because it is not. Everyone is going to deal with sex. Only a few will have to deal with murder. Go figure.
sliverstorm 12y ago
... harms children more than anything else This is not a strong line of argument. We don't have to fix things only in order of harm. IF it is considerably harmful, we should do something about it. It doesn't really matter if it is the most harmful.
- kazinator 12y ago
  Yes it does matter! It matters if we could easily spend fewer resources to fix a much greater harm, but we are focusing on some scapegoat due to moralistic reasons not having anything to do with the scale of (or even existence of) harm.
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    It matters, sure, especially if there are great alternatives handy that really do spend much less resources for much more benefit AND working on the example at hand rules out alternatives. But without those qualifiers, it is a weak line of reasoning. It's pretty rare that we can attack a social problem only one way at a time. Is it a reasonable argument to say that the USA's carbon emissions do not need to be worried about, because the USA does not emit more carbon than anyone else? China produces about 40% more carbon than the USA.
- ANTSANTS 12y ago
  That's assuming it's actually harmful, which we have absolutely no proof of, just "think uh duh childrens" gut feelings. Society hasn't collapsed just because kids have had access to internet porn for a few generations. A more libertarian perspective would be "unless you can prove something is causing demonstrable, serious harm, the government should not be involved in it at all, because at best you're wasting resources on something insignificant, or at worst you're unintentionally causing actual, demonstrable damage to society in pursuit of a misguided goal." Not that it really matters in this case, it's obvious that Cameron doesn't give a shit about porn and is just using this as an excuse to curb civil liberties and justify surveillance.
  - 0xdeadbeefbabe 12y ago

CountHackulus 12y ago

I remember when it wasn't going to be on by default, and also when it was going to be JUST for really revolting/violent pornography. People say that you can't argue slippery slope here, but I say otherwise. The UK government has proven that the temptation to block anything they want by default and shame others into not turning off the block is too great, and I feel that this entire filtering experiment is a step or two away from a China-style firewall.

pavel_lishin 12y ago
"Slippery slope" is only a fallacious argument when your opponent isn't laying out a slip'n'slide and diluting dish soap in a bucket.
sandworm 12y ago
China-STYLE? Take a look at who admins the UK firewall. http://www.dailydot.com/business/david-cameron-porn-firewall-china-huawei/ http://www.dailydot.com/business/david-cameron-porn-firewall...
- ewzimm 12y ago
  So Cameron wants to ban encryption and send the whole nation's Internet activity through Chinese monitors. Maybe he's just really admires China.
- jamesbrownuhh 12y ago
  Who admins one, optional firewall used by customers of one British Internet service provider. (And not even a very good one at that.)
pbhjpbhj 12y ago
>shame others into not turning off the block is too great // How are they shaming people who choose to remove content filters? It's entirely private is it not.
- unprepare 12y ago

lnaie1 12y ago

protect from what?!

alextgordon 12y ago
Themselves, apparently.

drivingmenuts 12y ago

Awesome. Now they just have to define "pornography".

icehawk219 12y ago
At least in the US it seems like the definition of "pornography" has become, or is increasingly becoming, "nudity".
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 12y ago
  The UK doesn't define it that way I bet.
- pyre 12y ago
  Just look at all of the people up in arms about that latest Sia music video...
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Yeah, it's weird that ultra-hardcore pornography is so available yet at the same time I find myself watching PBS and they blur out anatomical details and swear words even in depictions of paintings or in films. On foreign films they even add another layer of subtitles to obscure offensive words, despite a warning at the start of the program that it contains adult subject matter or suchlike. Meanwhile, it's considered perfectly OK to depict all kinds of murderous mayhem, demonic possession, mutilations and so on even in early-evening time slots.
AlyssaRowan 12y ago
I know it when I see it. ;) And unfortunately - no, they don't, that's Symantec's job! :( All of the censorship management is outsourced, Sky don't have any direct control over it, they can't even log in directly to override and they barely understand it - which is going to be a big problem when it inevitably shits the bed (again). One of the biggest problems about this kind of thing is the absolutely brutal lack of transparency as a result of that sort of thing. (e.g. they've already falsely blocked the TorrentFreak news site at least once, not to mention the Wikipedia Virgin Killer incident when the IWF listed one of the pages because of the nature of the album cover, or the jQuery CDN a year ago, or…) In truth, no part of this was a good idea. A very disappointing mistake. I did warn them, loudly. I'm not sure what more I can, or ought to, say, except that the filtering infrastructure is: beyond their control; vulnerable (no further comment); and, already in a uniquely-privileged network position on all Sky broadband connections regardless of settings (operating the blocklists you can't opt out of - the Internet Watch Foundation child porn blocklist, the court order ones like the Pirate Bay block, for example - something the High Court only felt themselves able to order because the blocking infrastructure was already there! - and shortly the 'hate site' blocklist). This move is a complete U-turn from what was said at the meeting with Claire Perry MP - with whom I have some quite potent disagreements - that it would never be on by default. I wonder why that could be. Disclaimer: I work in an affected industry, and I really don't like censorship. But it's not just "pornography and adult" this blocks: they're defaulting to the "13" age rating, which also includes blocks on categories including: "dating"; "anonymizers, filesharing and hacking"; "suicide and self harm"; "drugs and criminal skills"; "weapons, violence, gore and hate"; and "phishing, malware and spyware". There was a "cyber bullying" category as well, but that's gone now and is now included in the "social networking" category (not in the default blocklist). But remember: there are two, shortly to be three, lists you can't turn off, so the system is still in-path, and still vulnerable…

ris 12y ago

Hmm I wonder if Rupert's going to block The Sun's website and all its page 3 glory. (FSVO "glory")

smeyer 12y ago
Didn't The Sun just decide to stop printing topless women on page 3? I thought I heard they were replacing them with regular old scantily clad women or something.
- ghswa 12y ago
  The online version of page 3 will remain unchanged.

CraigJPerry 12y ago

Based on past performances of this company, I have a feeling this is a side show. What else are they (or their friends) up to that they're trying to distract attention from?

pbhjpbhj 12y ago
Actually I think it's part of their current marketing effort. TalkTalk, and/or others, have probably been successful with increasing sign-ups by having default filters and Sky are probably following the market.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

LukeB_UK 12y ago

The problems with these filters is that they catch things that aren't porn too. For example advice on safe sex.

ddalex_ro 12y ago
The problem is that they catch porn, in the first place. Who is the government to tell me what I can and can't watch, provided I don't hurt anyone directly or indirectly. Next thing you know, the government is going to tell me who to vote in and out the office.
- zimpenfish 12y ago
  The government already tell you what you can and can't watch via the BBFC and other various legal means (e.g. downloading a film to watch because the studio hasn't given it a UK theatre/DVD release would be illegal, I think.)
  - AlyssaRowan 12y ago
    I do note that the government have already mentioned aloud the possibility of coercing ISPs to use these filters to block foreign porn sites which wouldn't get a BBFC 18R (see the ATVOD crap we've been having over here). That's a lot more sites than you might think.
    - zimpenfish 12y ago
      Oh, I don't know, I can think of loads offhand that would be caught - even more if they applied the 18R rules to static images as well as VOD. But I'm not surprised it's already on the cards - this has been coming since the early 00s (e.g. the "usenet is CHILD PORN!!!!1!!" newspaper outrages, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, etc.)
- beeworker 12y ago
  For the sake of argument let's assume the only person you hurt by watching porn is yourself, and let's not worry yet about the degree of harm or the potential mitigation from "responsible" usage. (This applies to various drugs, too.) Why would a government that cares about its citizens not step in when there are simple counter-measures with significant gains that stop the majority from doing self-inflicted damage? Even if that majority can come up with rationalizations for the damage? (Like self-flagellation to get closer to God, or brain-cell killing substances "to take the edge off".) I'm not advocating for draconian measures to try and prevent 100% of the people from doing X, and those are impossible anyway when X is readily produced (like alcohol) but there's a middle ground between that and doing nothing while your population withers.

PuffinBlue 12y ago

Just a little perspective...I've got Sky Broadband and turning off this filter took a couple of clicks. Actually it might have even just been one, and that's it. It's been harder to access age restricted content from other providers like Three for over a decade. Access to adult content through the Three network requires you to sign up with a credit card to prove your age for example. Neither of these situations are ideal, nor are they catastrophic. Just retain a little perspective and afford these companies the courtesy of believing the intent is well meaning. Of course there are slippery slopes and changes throughout the years, but also remember we're an 800 year old democracy (almost), that's _probably_ not going to change and it's good to keep a level head about this stuff.

Karunamon 12y ago
Being well meaning isn't the problem - history's greatest monsters thought they were doing good by their country. There's an old saying about good intentions... Anyways, the problem with requiring affirmative consent to unblock is that the people running the filters are just a select name from subscribers where filter = false .away from getting information that could be used against people. It's best that they not have that information in the first place, and that's before we get into the question of if "protecting children" is worth all this trouble anyways.
- imgabe 12y ago
  But they have that information anyway. If they want to know which subscribers access porn, I'm sure they can find that in the logs, filters or no. Not that I think filters are a good idea, but it doesn't really give "them" any additional information.
  - unprepare 12y ago
    a households IP requesting certain sites != account holder specifically requesting porn blocker be disabled
    - 12y ago

embro 12y ago

Problem isn't with kids but more with teens. Instead of trying to ban it, just talk about it. Banning it would only make it slightly harder to find and would make parents believe their child/teen is "safe" and will never see porn... WRONG. Kids have plenty of time to find what they want. Sex education is the only solution.

sremani 12y ago
I absolutely hate this myth. Porn IS NOT Sex Ed. Actually, Porn misrepresents Sex by a magnitude of 10. The fake breast implants, fake butt and make up and editing etc. etc. Its just make believe. There is mounting evidence of Porn being harmful to the mind and causing ED, anxiety etc. There is a reason reditt is filled with NoFap stuff. People, I am all for sex ed for 16 year old. But with near ubiquity of internet and kids playing with tablets and phones my worry is not about the 16 year old, its about the 4 year old.
- unprepare 12y ago
  But parental controls are a feature that the market can easily solve without the need for government enforced internet censorship. government IS NOT your childs caretaker
  - sremani 12y ago
    Right, what is government is doing when a sexual predator has to register and not live near a school? Isn't it taking care of the children of the community. Public Policy is more complicated than bumper sticker slogans.
    - unprepare 12y ago
      Wow what an insane example. First, there a major difference between restrictions placed on convicted criminals, and restrictions placed on every citizen of an entire country. Second, one represents a danger to the physical safety of others, and the other represents something that you would prefer your child not to see - do you not see a stark difference between a child being kidnapped and raped, and a child accidentally clicking onto a pornographic website? Its not that complicated - we punish those who have committed crimes, we do not do so preemptively to entire populations.

swasheck 12y ago

To take a bit of a contrarian perspective here, pornography has been linked to human trafficking, at least in Nevada. So if we want to distance ourselves from the religious moral and ethical arguments that oppose the "we're not actually harming ourselves" perspective, there is, at least in part, the perspective that viewing pornography contributes to violations against those viewed. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0615162053?ie=UTF8&tag=prostreseaa02-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0615162053 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0615162053?ie=UTF8&tag=pros...

walru 12y ago
I'll combat your contrarian point with this study from UGA on states that preach abstinence as their form of teen contraception. http://news.uga.edu/releases/article/abstinence-only-education-does-not-lead-to-abstinent-behavior/ http://news.uga.edu/releases/article/abstinence-only-educati...
- swasheck 12y ago
  How does this combat my point? Are you referencing the line "correlation does not imply causation"? If so, never once did I imply that the sole cause of human trafficking is pornography.
  - walru 12y ago
    Even if it was the slightest cause, by ending porn the world over you will not diminish the act of human trafficking or prostitution. In fact, you may, and probably will, only strengthen the practice as people look to other means to live out their urges. As has been learned by the conservatives who thought telling teenage kids they should wait, or that sex was bad, to tip the scales in their favor.
rudolf0 12y ago
>pornography has been linked to human trafficking Water has also been linked to human rights abuses in the form of waterboarding.

zeruch 12y ago

I wonder how long before they either reverse or otherwise make it boneheadedly easy to opt out. This strikes me as wholly to appease the gov entities and as soon as it negatively impacts the numbers...

pbhjpbhj 12y ago
Sky aren't known for high morals or anything are they? They're probably just following customer demand.
jamesbrownuhh 12y ago
You can already opt out now. When you sign with any major ISP the first question it asks you on connection is, basically, parental controls, yes or no. You say no and get on with your life. The single and only thing that Sky have done today, is changing that "If you don't answer, we'll assume no (filtering)" to "If you don't answer, we'll assume yes."

jason46 12y ago

I'm curious if users of this ISP have alternatives? If one wanted to view porn, and did not want to deal with getting it "enabled", would it be possible to switch to another ISP?

AlecSchueler 12y ago
All other large ISPs have the same blocks but they are thus far opt-in.
- rsync 12y ago
  There used to be a single Internet, with all content and addresses treated equally. Now, depending on your location, your provider, or your device/ecosystem, you may have vastly different network landscapes from others, elsewhere in the world. In my opinion, "peak Internet" occurred sometime around 2010-2011. That is when the largest number of people had access to the most open, monolithic network.
- jamesbrownuhh 12y ago
  I'd disagree with that - most other large ISPs have similar parental control services but they are not all exactly the same and differ widely in technology and scope.
jason46 12y ago
If I were in this situation in my area, I would have to go get it enabled, no broadband options here.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
Andrew and Arnold - http://www.aa.net.uk/ http://www.aa.net.uk/
- AlyssaRowan 12y ago
  Indeed, AAISP are very strongly anti-censorship, anti-logging. They're good people, impressively low level of bullshit, and even their front-line tech support are actually techs who know one end of a DSLAM from the other and how to diagnose MTU issues, and not a bloody call centre (although they do only work working days and not weekends). Strongly recommended if you're in the UK and if they can get you a good connection (if Sky can, they definitely can).

weavie 12y ago

That's all good and well, I used to use OpenDNS to try to block porn, so I can see the idea behind what they are trying to do. Unfortunately my son worked out how to use VPN a long time ago so really the only choice I got now is to be open and talk to him. It did help him learn more about networks and general hackery, so it is all good really..

belorn 12y ago

If you do not have it by default, you create an exception list of concerned parents. If you have it on by default, you create an exception list of porn viewers. Which of the two list carries higher privacy concerns?