4 ms·

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

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
    - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
      Logically not equivalent, for sure. Practically, in most cases they would both say the same thing. We're not just talking about household though, surely some individuals have Sky accounts too and looking past that particular ISP if you're asking for unblocking from your mobile then there's a good chance that you're viewing porn - it's probably an equally veritable indicator as that your mobile visited a porn site. I'm going to go with 99.9% accuracy as my first guess.
    - imgabe 12y ago
      No, requesting that porn be unblocked does not necessarily imply anyone actually looked at it. An IP requesting it does.
      - unprepare 12y ago
        No but it necessarily means that the account holder took action towards accessing porn. An IP requesting access to a porn site does not - ads can easily contain pornography, malware can use computers to access anything, and anyone who can connect to the network can be the one requesting the porn site. There is very little you can determine in the real world from a public IP requesting a porn site
    - Tombone5 12y ago
      No, but IP requesting certain porn sites \approx user wants to see porn => account holder specifically requesting porn blocker be disabled. The equivalence can be expected to almost always hold, because its simply the easiest way to account for the behavior. Thus the inital objection stands.
      - unprepare 12y ago
        So the account holder is most likely to be responsible for ALL internet traffic on the account? That's clearly not the case
        imgabe 12y ago
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    And search engines and social networks already have that information too. And even if there wasn't a db to search one could surely equally query which domains they'd accessed either from their ISP or DNS provider or GCHQ.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - jen729w 12y ago
    "Darling, I just logged on to our Sky broadband account and it says here that our porn filter is off. Do you know anything about that?"
akersten 12y ago
> Neither of these situations are ideal, nor are they catastrophic No, no, this is actually quite catastrophic. Someone else is deciding what is and isn't acceptable for you to consume by default. Establishing the precedent that someone else knows better than you, what content is acceptable for you to view. That's absurd. Christopher Hitchens had a very poignant[1] part about why the path to hell is paved with censorship, and I think it's worth a watch. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIyBZNGH0TY&feature=youtu.be&t=20m15s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIyBZNGH0TY&feature=youtu.be...
- zimpenfish 12y ago
  > Establishing the precedent that someone else knows better than you, what content is acceptable for you to view. That precedent was set many years ago with the BBFC. Also with governmental meddling in the BBC, C4, etc.
- Tombone5 12y ago
  From those categorical statements I guess you are one of those that objects to sites defaulting to a language guessed from your ip location, or google trying to <strike>auto complete your search</strike> putting words in your mouth.
  - akersten 12y ago
    > From those categorical statements I guess you are one of those that objects to sites defaulting to a language guessed from your ip location, or google trying to [auto complete your search] I think it's a stretch to compare using geolocation to make a good assumption about linguistics or using natural language processing to make a good assumption about a search completion, to using political rhetoric to make an objectively regressive default. I suppose if you considered the filter being on by default a "suggestion" (in the way that a language is suggested or a search term is suggested) then I could see the comparison, but that's a policy decision, and you as well as every other adult on the planet should be capable of self-policing.
cs02rm0 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. Oh goody. Glad to hear it's easy to get your name on a list of filthy perverts. What's the worst that could happen?!
- nikolak 12y ago
  What is the worst that could happen due to this change? Watching adult content isn't really something that "filthy perverts" do, nor is it considered as such thing. If someone with access to that data (IPS, government, etc) wanted to know whether you watch porn or not they could just look at your web history.
pbhjpbhj 12y ago
>* Access to adult content through the Three network requires you to sign up with a credit card to prove your age for example.* // Or just type the name of a sex-act in to Google on your phone. At least that worked for me, on Three, when I tried it just now.

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
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    Logically not equivalent, for sure. Practically, in most cases they would both say the same thing. We're not just talking about household though, surely some individuals have Sky accounts too and looking past that particular ISP if you're asking for unblocking from your mobile then there's a good chance that you're viewing porn - it's probably an equally veritable indicator as that your mobile visited a porn site. I'm going to go with 99.9% accuracy as my first guess.
  - imgabe 12y ago
    No, requesting that porn be unblocked does not necessarily imply anyone actually looked at it. An IP requesting it does.
    - unprepare 12y ago
      No but it necessarily means that the account holder took action towards accessing porn. An IP requesting access to a porn site does not - ads can easily contain pornography, malware can use computers to access anything, and anyone who can connect to the network can be the one requesting the porn site. There is very little you can determine in the real world from a public IP requesting a porn site
  - Tombone5 12y ago
    No, but IP requesting certain porn sites \approx user wants to see porn => account holder specifically requesting porn blocker be disabled. The equivalence can be expected to almost always hold, because its simply the easiest way to account for the behavior. Thus the inital objection stands.
    - unprepare 12y ago
      So the account holder is most likely to be responsible for ALL internet traffic on the account? That's clearly not the case
      - imgabe 12y ago
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  And search engines and social networks already have that information too. And even if there wasn't a db to search one could surely equally query which domains they'd accessed either from their ISP or DNS provider or GCHQ.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- jen729w 12y ago
  "Darling, I just logged on to our Sky broadband account and it says here that our porn filter is off. Do you know anything about that?"

akersten 12y ago

> Neither of these situations are ideal, nor are they catastrophic No, no, this is actually quite catastrophic. Someone else is deciding what is and isn't acceptable for you to consume by default. Establishing the precedent that someone else knows better than you, what content is acceptable for you to view. That's absurd. Christopher Hitchens had a very poignant[1] part about why the path to hell is paved with censorship, and I think it's worth a watch. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIyBZNGH0TY&feature=youtu.be&t=20m15s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIyBZNGH0TY&feature=youtu.be...

zimpenfish 12y ago
> Establishing the precedent that someone else knows better than you, what content is acceptable for you to view. That precedent was set many years ago with the BBFC. Also with governmental meddling in the BBC, C4, etc.
Tombone5 12y ago
From those categorical statements I guess you are one of those that objects to sites defaulting to a language guessed from your ip location, or google trying to <strike>auto complete your search</strike> putting words in your mouth.
- akersten 12y ago
  > From those categorical statements I guess you are one of those that objects to sites defaulting to a language guessed from your ip location, or google trying to [auto complete your search] I think it's a stretch to compare using geolocation to make a good assumption about linguistics or using natural language processing to make a good assumption about a search completion, to using political rhetoric to make an objectively regressive default. I suppose if you considered the filter being on by default a "suggestion" (in the way that a language is suggested or a search term is suggested) then I could see the comparison, but that's a policy decision, and you as well as every other adult on the planet should be capable of self-policing.

cs02rm0 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. Oh goody. Glad to hear it's easy to get your name on a list of filthy perverts. What's the worst that could happen?!

nikolak 12y ago
What is the worst that could happen due to this change? Watching adult content isn't really something that "filthy perverts" do, nor is it considered as such thing. If someone with access to that data (IPS, government, etc) wanted to know whether you watch porn or not they could just look at your web history.

pbhjpbhj 12y ago

>* Access to adult content through the Three network requires you to sign up with a credit card to prove your age for example.* // Or just type the name of a sex-act in to Google on your phone. At least that worked for me, on Three, when I tried it just now.