4 ms·
Awesome. Now they just have to define "pornography".
by drivingmenuts 12y ago
Awesome. Now they just have to define "pornography".
- icehawk219 12y agoAt least in the US it seems like the definition of "pornography" has become, or is increasingly becoming, "nudity".
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 12y agoThe UK doesn't define it that way I bet.
- pyre 12y agoJust look at all of the people up in arms about that latest Sia music video...
- anigbrowl 12y agoYeah, 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 agoI 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…