Government porn filter to slow down the internet

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
It seems almost the beginning of internet freedom being taken away, whats going to be next?

Alot of things (like gun control) are tested in Australia because they have a smaller demographic and are more likely to accept these changes. I hear from many Australians that gun control was a great thing for them : but they also believe that gun control would be a great thing for Americans the whole world. It's little fish in a little pond syndrome, they are very comfortable with their society and their government and expect that other people are as well.

I mean no offense to Australians but the Illuminati is running rampant over there and it's well known that they test control mechanisms on Aussies all the time.

I'm just a normal single guy and I don't have any issues. I'm 57 years old and have no illnesses and I'm not on one medication. I'm into Ozzy and Pantera and prettry much all classic rock.I like to smoke weed and I think it should be legal. My girlfriend didn't party or go out to clubs. She never smoked or drank or had a tatoo. She was never married and never had kids. She developed tumors on her ovaries early on. To avoid a hystercertomy earlier she had something done where they injected beads that were suppose to attach themselfs to the tumors and make them smaller but it didn't work. She has four sisters that are all fat but she was very petite. Size 00 but prefectly propotioned. I treated her with respect it the same way I expect all people to act.



[edit on 1-1-2008 by Mutantalien1947]

[edit on 1-1-2008 by Mutantalien1947]

In Britain where a clean feed policy is being pursued, only between 200 and 1000 child pornography sites have been included on a blacklist.

more

This is the ugly side of pornography... I am having a hard time accepting that these sites -> up to 1000 have been blacklisted and yet not actually stopped. Perhaps it is a work in progress?

I would like to be able to surf the net or my kids without having the concern that a cookie disables my settings and various pop ups or prohibited material loads on the screen.

...why is it that I can do a search, type in stroke... (medical) What comes up??

Stroke it benny, stroke me, etc etc... if you click on one of those, the images come straight up. Even with safe search on.

Also, sex shops in AU, you can't see what is inside the shop. There is notices that state you have to be 18 years before you can see or go into the shops. But, online... if age is asked, it is just a click away. (the age warning does not come up with every site)





[edit on 1-1-2008 by Thurisaz]

Anyone that wants to spend their time viewing porn, that is your perogative. My humble and probably barf puritanistic opinion is that it sucks your soul. I remember reading a quote somewhere, I cannont remember where, "when I watch porn, the first fifteen minutes I'm horny as heck, after fifteen minutes, I never want to have sex again". It is a personal and more than likely 'mone' filled decision. I'm just glad I'm not fifteen anymore.

I dont see a problem here.

not everybody is tech savy or has the money to be spending on filtering software. Filtering software is also much easier to bypass.

Filtering at a top layer makes it harder to bypass and protects children. Lets remember a key point here, you have a choice if you want to be filtered or not. It's not enforced filtering. Sure its on by default but this is because the average joe will not know about it, or know the channels needed for switching the filtering on.

If you care about the society that you live in then you will no be phased by this. Who wants 5 year old kids looking at graphic porn???
Can a child buy porn at a shop? no
Can a child buy alcohol at a shop? no
why should it be any different online.. ? As long as adults get a choice then there is no problem here.


If it means a small inconvenience to me to call up and get the filter removed for the benefit of every child in the nation, then so be it, im not that selfish and if any of you are shame on you.

Originally posted by lazer1
not everybody is tech savy or has the money to be spending on filtering software. Filtering software is also much easier to bypass.

Give me a break. You really think that someone who can afford a computer and the internet can't dish out twenty to fifty bucks for a filter?

And no, you don't have to be "tech savvy" to do install one.

Originally posted by lazer1
Filtering at a top layer makes it harder to bypass and protects children.

No, actually, it would be easier to bypass, I'd imagine. You could use proxies and whatnot. How would the filter distinguish between a porn site and a site that has nothing you don't want your child to see? Probably a blacklist or a filter based on word usage, and you can get around those via proxy.

Do you know much about IT?

Originally posted by lazer1
Lets remember a key point here, you have a choice if you want to be filtered or not. It's not enforced filtering. Sure its on by default but this is because the average joe will not know about it, or know the channels needed for switching the filtering on.

We're not talking about whether you have a choice or not - it's that they're forced to pay the government to nanny their children for them. They can opt out, but can they opt out of taxes?

Thought not.

To do this, the government would have to either set up their own filtering infrastructure, which would be very costly and cumbersome, or they would have to force the companies to do it for them. It's none of the state's business - I want to raise my own kids, thank you.

Originally posted by lazer1
If you care about the society that you live in then you will no be phased by this.

You just used the no true Scotsman logical fallacy, and a sort of false dilemma. You made an idiotic assertion.

I don't accept this sort of state intervention because I do care about the society I live in. Do not attack me with your moronic rhetoric again.

Originally posted by lazer1
Who wants 5 year old kids looking at graphic porn???

False dilemma. You're assuming that if the government doesn't nanny the kids, they'll all be looking at porn. You've completely failed to recognize that parents can monitor and filter their own kids' web browsing.

Originally posted by lazer1
Can a child buy porn at a shop? no
Can a child buy alcohol at a shop? no
why should it be any different online.. ? As long as adults get a choice then there is no problem here.

False dilemma and a straw man. I don't advocate letting kids buy porn online - it's already illegal for them to do so. We're concerned with sources of free porn - and parents can filter them in a way that is cheaper, more efficient, and easier to regulate than the government can. The parent can choose what the child can and can't see in a more exclusive way.

Originally posted by lazer1
If it means a small inconvenience to me to call up and get the filter removed for the benefit of every child in the nation, then so be it, im not that selfish and if any of you are shame on you.

Another idiotic straw man fallacy. Are you doing it on purpose to mislead us, or are you just incapable of holding an argument?

Johnmike


Just because you can install a software filter does not mean everyone can, does not mean everyone knows about them does not mean people can afford to pay for one. $50+ dollars can be alot for somebody who is down to his last dollar each pay packet. A filter starts to become a want rather than a need and slowly starts to become forgotten overtime.


They are also much easier to bypass as you have pyhsical access to the box the software is installed on.

Under an ISP solution the filter is managed by them. This is much harder to bypass as you do not have physical access or any access to override the settings. Sure there maybe some workarounds, nothing will be perfect but it is a start.

I do happen to work in IT so dont try that one on me.

The only reason you are attacking this type of plan is because it takes away some of YOUR freedom. You dont see the benefit, you think its a waste of money, you think everyone should be able to manage this situation themselves.. Do you notice the word YOU alot in this paragraph?


Parents dont have time to monitor their children 24x7, some parents are better than others.. This is why laws exist in our society that ban children from buying porn, or buying alcohol..

You dont require a license to raise children and its fact that some parents are better than others. Because many parents do not understand technology it is important that the government offer some type of solution.


Its distrubing to read in papers that now days 9 year old kids sexually abuse their classmates.. This is a new trend and do u have any idea why? Yes access to these images/videos from the internet corrupt young minds. These same parents by your argument should have had a filter installed on their pc etc. They didnt and look what happend?

So stop .. Laws are in place for good reasons, this is just another form of law which is long overdue. Just so long as the filtering is not abused by the government then i am all for it.





[Mod Edit: Insults removed. Please see Civility and Decorum are Required. Thank you - Jak]



[edit on 2/1/08 by JAK]

I don't believe any of this for one second. The government loves porn sites and that's why there are more porn sites than anything else on the internet. What a powerful and excellent and constant distraction for the sheeple from exercising their higher powers of intelligence.

The thing you have to remember about filters is that they are not perfect. They can take away something that was actually "OK." Computers have come a long way, but they still lack the conscious abilities of humans. I doubt computers will ever replicate "real" consciousness.

The thing with AOL for example, is that it tries to think for me. I could have read e-mail after e-mail from someone, but AOL's filter sometimes decides that it's not something I need to read, and the message ends up sitting over in the SPAM folder. And I never marked it as SPAM.

When you are talking about something like "clean feed" I'm wondering if you even get an option of letting a site or e-mail in, that actually is acceptable, but marked as "not ok" by your ISP? Think about what you are agreeing to. Then it would be, "too bad, you wanted clean feed." The controls seem to be out of your hands, if this filter is on. Unless, they would allow "user" access to this filter, to customize their own experience. But that would be quite complex at the ISP level, because you are talking about potentially thousands upon thousands of users.

In the future, you may not be able to search for "truth," because some filter has deemed it, "inappropriate." All the sites that print the honest truth may be filtered out, and you are left only to read things like the "official truth."

Truth is not something that can be decided for you. The truth is the truth. The truth could become inaccessable because "Big Brother" doesn't think it's appropriate for you. This is where I'm concerned something like "clean feed" is headed, no matter how nice it sounds. Is this the future you want?

Troy

I mainly doubt things like this ever coming to be in America because as much as politicians like to rant about it to get votes they will never end up doing anything about it because the pornography industry has become such a massive source of taxes and income. I'd also hate to see things to start shutting down because of other citizen's opinions, when opinions are thrusted or forced on other people it stops being a free society.

Things are fine the way they are, porn is not bad, the people that work in it make heaps of money for their work, and it is possible, not easy I agree but possible to navigate the internet without running into pornography. Child Pornography is bad of course, but its already illegal, you think putting up a filter will stop Child Pornography? It wouldn't even stop normal pornography. People will still find ways to distribute that material no matter the law, I don't see how a filter is going to stop child pornography at all.

I think this whole thing is another thing the Gov is trying to get us to want this. Seems like a good idea to most at the time to most people. In all actuality it's just a ploy to get sites like this (ATS) shut down cause it expresses independant thought.
That's a scary place to be folks.

Concerning the porn part, it's the parents responcibility to keep access to that stuff away from they're kids.

The Gov is such B.S. right now.

Hope Ron Paul changes things.

-Jimmy

Originally posted by lazer1
The only reason you are attacking this type of plan is because it takes away some of YOUR freedom. You dont see the benefit...

And if everyone were locked up in cages the murder rates would plummet.

How many freedoms are you willing to surrender for a little security? How many other people's freedoms are you willing to surrender? What gives you the right?

The porn industry is big and I'm sure generates alot of revenue just like cigarettes and alcohol does. Isn't it amazing that the government is willing to accept 25,000 alcohol related traffic deaths per year just for the tax revenue? We are led to believe that tabacco is the most dangerous substance known to man yet it is legal just for the tax revenue. Just because it's legal it doesn't make it right. If it's so great why don't you have your wife or girlfriend go out and do it so you can make alot of money. Get this crap off the internet. Go to an adult book store so you can get your jack off material and sex toys. And for those who think that it's the parents responsibility, give me a break!. Parents don't know what their kids are doing. They can go to the library, school or a friends house and find this crap. Society may not be able to say to can't get it but where you get it from. It is not a loss of freedom. Get off your lazy ass and drive to your local adult book store and take all your friends with you. Our entire society is now based on sex and weight loss and looking a certain way. It's all around us and you can't turn on tv without being overwhelmed with commercials about looking hot when the vast majority of porn addicts are overweight, balding, lonely and couldn't get a hot chick if they wanted. Gee, I thought everything was all about the children and what we can do to protect them. Well one way is to get this crap off and it shouldn't require a special filter. It's common sense which we as a nation have lost.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by Mutantalien1947]

Wow ~ I've never been a big fan of Australia but hearing this gave me a new perspective! I think this is GREAT and would hope other countries would do the very same. If you don't realize it already, people who make porno and who are involved in the whole process are puppets to the frequency net - degrading their dignity as human beings - that's the f*ing objective - WAKE UP!!
You really think porno is normal? C'mon you can do better

[edit on 2-1-2008 by Junglistix]

reply to post by Mutantalien1947


And so if parents don't know what their kids are doing, how is it that government would know? What you've said makes no sense at all. That because parents have failed, that means that government has to step in and clean up the mess? If people are supposedly able enough to consult government and have it implement blanket censorship, then people are able enough to to monitor their own children. They are able enough to read the directions to install a 24kb filter to limited their children's surfing habits. I just installed a filter for my sister's child. Took 5 minutes to do. Every porn site I could think of was blocked. The kid's not a porn addict but a gaming addict. The filter blocked any and every site that had featured "games". And, you know what, I felt guilty about limiting the child's choices! Not about keeping porn out of reach, but games. Something that the child obviously loves. I don't know, maybe something is being learned that will be beneficial later in life. Still, though, there should be some kind of moderation of the use of anything, but the responsibility should fall on the shoulders of BOTH parent and child.

The point is, I bet that many parents don't like not knowing how to raise their own children and so they look to some outside authority to do it for them. Teachers are overworked because they are not only teaching kids but they are raising them, too. Parents are overworked working minimum wage are slightly higher, parents are overworked working at Fortune 500 companies, making 150k or higher, and are too busy to nurture their kids behavior in a positive way, parents just don't care, and, so what happens? "Please Mr. Gubmint, save my child." That's just ridiculous. Parents should bear the FULL responsibility for their children's behavior. I don't care if it's a demon child. There are no guarantees and if you going to have kids, then you should be ready for anything. If your personal security is threatened by a demon child, then be prepared to take the steps to will ensure your safety. If your child is threatened by predatory forces, on the Internet or in the neighborhood and community at large, then it's your duty and responsibility as a parent to ensure their safety. There's no way around it, the parent it responsible, NOT the doggone government. You are going to trust unknown entities of unknown capability and intent with the safety of your child? That question should be asked whenever any sharing or transfer of the welfare and safety of your child is being considered. Well, if you're worried about the ills of the Internet, you should be triply worried about the government. At least with the Internet you can just pull the plug, or install a "Browse in the living room or den when Mom and Dad is at home only" rule.

Government policy that targets ALL adults and ALL children in the capacity of monitoring and deciding individual choice is just reprehensible, at best. If society is saying that its broken and not up to the challenge of looking after itself, that government should fix everything, just count me out. I'll move to wherever such a policy does not exist, and I'd be sure to take my kids with me.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by Areal51]

Didn't the so-called smartest person in the world, the honorable Hillary Clinton write a book called "It takes a Village". Make no mistake about it, she's talking about the government takeover of everything and all I'm saying is if you want your porn go to a porn shop and leave it off the internet or you will see a total loss of freedom. You have to be 18 or 21 to go into an adult book store so why should it be any different for the internet. Because it's the exchange of free thought or free smut.

Many of us are not in support of porn. We just don't want to lose our ability to view the truth, because Big Brother had different intentions other than filtering porn.

Troy

Wow the wing-nuts came out in force in this thread.

"My penis is forever limp so all porn should be eradicated"

Well limpsters I have a hard one to hit you with.

Nothing the government has ever prohibited has ever been prevented from getting into the hands of the people, and by the government prohibiting a thing they have made rich men of the criminals who provide the service.

Just because you don't like porn and you fail to get your organs to react to sexuality doesn't mean the billions of humans out there have to suffer for your personal issues.

Some dimwit suggested "Go out and get the real thing.". Brilliant.
Maybe the rock they live under hasn't received any news in twenty years.
There's a family of friends who like to party with real sex, they are called
AIDS, Gonorrhea, Herpes, Syphilis, Warts, Meningitis, Strep, Staph, Mono, oh the guest list for the real deal is rather long.

Then there are the endless unwanted pregnancies.

All this: Porn Cures!



[edit on 2-1-2008 by Legalizer]

Ignore this whole censor the internet crap.

Not possible in any sustained, real way.

Originally posted by apc
Porn or child porn? Cus if you're talking about porn we definitely are not all agreed!

Why would you post ask a question about a quote and quote everything but the answer to your question?! Below is my oringinal quote.

BTW, I enjoy pornography as well.

Originally posted by tyranny22
Where did you get the idea this was about child pornography? I think we're all agreed that this form of media is unacceptable, but the means with which you suggest to rid the world of such is ludacris.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by tyranny22]