Internet censorship & kids

Censoring the internet for kids in an automatic manor is a non-starter. It can't be done. I know ... I helped develop the network we now call "The Internet" ... It was designed right from the git-go to share information, not to suppress it. Even back in the mid '70s we were using what we now call "proxies" to get around filters[1] ...

Kids are kids. They are curious about everything. And as kids mature and hormones start doing what hormones are supposed to do, they start getting curious about sex. It is normal to the human condition, despite various holier-than-thou groups trying to suppress this normalcy.

The ONLY way to ensure you know what your kids are doing online is to watch over their shoulder as they do it. Harsh? Perhaps. But that's reality in The Big City that is today's 'net.

Note that I am not commenting on the right/wrong of curious kids doing curious kid stuff ... just that kids will do what kids will do if given the opportunity ... YOU did, right? Why are you surprised that your kids do the same?

[1] Sorry again for making the ASCII BJ shell prompt at Tressider, Vint ;-)

A revelation?

"Parents should take greater responsibility for what their children get up to on the internet, according to Jeremy Olivier, Ofcom’s Head of Convergent Media."

OFCOM department of the obvious.

I understand that OFCOM is tasked with protecting consumers from harmful or offensive material amongst other things, so where is their sense of duty with respect to Phorm?

Strict censorship of the Internet is required urgently, children desperately need protecting from reality. Please shield their eyes and swathe them in cotton wool. This approach is far easier than talking to them about sensitive subjects and trying to explain in language they understand how the world works.

Oddly enough I as a parent were fully aware of my responsibility with regard to the nurturing of my child, and explaining the truths behind what he was exposed to whilst accessing the Internet during his formative years. Thanks to my attention to detail and unerring support he is now a confident and levelheaded young man.

Oddly enough I as a parent were fully aware of my responsibility with regard to the nurturing of my child. By denying him access to certain websites, telling him how sick and perverted pornography is and answering his queries of "why?" with "because I said so" in addition to punishing him severely for masturbating, he now has more hangups and psychological problems than one can shake a leather studded paddle at.

I don't need a third party telling me what is right and wrong or how to raise my children. Those that do and there are a fair few out there, check teenage crime stats, shouldn't be parents.

Parnets need to monitor their kids?

Really? Id never have guessed, instead of site blocking and government intervention, how about parents take responsibility for what their kids do online. The internet is not a babysitter ffs!

Idiots

What is this obsession with 'protecting' kids from porn? If kids are old enough to be titillated by porn then it's time to start sex education; if they're not, then reassure them that it's perfectly normal for adults.

Young kids don't understand, they're missing the wiring.

Give the man an icecream!

Well.....not exactly earth-shattering but at last someone "important" talking actual common sense instead of blaming Pugh, Pugh and Barney Mcgrue or whoever else happens to spring to mind.....blame those who are actually at fault; the parents!

At last!

How on earth?

How the hell did we get to a point where by and large, the same people complaining about the nanny state, are the same people demanding the government regulate the internet to protect their kids?

Incidentally, why do children need to be "Protected" from porn? Wouldn't a more healthy attitude be to educate them? I mean, heres what I took away from "Personal and Social Education" when I left school:

1) Sex is bad and you shouldn't have it.

2) Drugs are bad and you shouldn't take them.

3) Being white is racist, and being a male is sexist.

4) Always listen to people in authority, even when their instructions seem stupid and arbitrary.

and this was from a modern, well funded educational establishment.

This system needs overhauling badly. Educators are so far out of touchwith reality that pretty much nothing they say bears any relevance to their students lives. Making sex and nudity into a forbidden fruit in the fashion they are just encourages people.

“Laws rarely prevent what they forbid.”

Are you listening, Jacqui?

but we're too busy!!!!!

is the usual cry from people who don't want to do something.

Whether it's filling in tax forms, cooking proper meals, reading a book or taking a role in the local community. In fact, these days "busy" translates into either "lazy", "not interested" or "don't care about" - especially when the responsibilities or duties in question can be dumped onto an anonymous, official body (subsequently referred to as "they" - as in "they ought to do something ..." or, better, "it's their fault").

Ultimately, people need to realise that the internet is an unregulated, anonymous entity where anyone can do anything with impunity. Just as you would not let a child roam around the dodgier areas of any big city without supervision, parents should not permit their children to do the same on the internet - it's an adult medium with occasional, but unreliably monitored, areas that contain *some* child-friendly content. And so it will always be - that's life, deal with it.

If parents are unwilling to spend the quality time with their children, due to being "too busy", then the answer has to be to remove their internet access. I'm sure the kids wouldn't like it, but that's the price they have to pay for having parents who aren't willing to live up to their responsibilities.

“Laws rarely prevent what they forbid.”

Now that sounds like words of wisdom.

If that is true, though, then why on Earth are legislators so hell-bent on creating new ones ?

Oh, sorry. I had an access of logic there. I'll be all right, I promise.

a single reason

"Was there a single reason they could advance as to why all new PCs should not come with optional porn filters on as default?"

well one i suppose is that assuming she means internet porn filters, and assuming she means pc's running windows, and assuming she only means web pages*, does every browser in existance now have to filter out porn sites (somehow) by default. It wouldn't be fair to micriosft to force it on IE but not any other browsers. people not knowing how to switch it off would turn to a competitor.

*those 3 assumptions are three reasons right there anyway.

To be fair...

The question asked by Mediamarch was why would there be any objection to having pron filters on as a default, but with the ability for adults to turn them off?

On the surface, that is a reasonably reasonable position - and one that would probably find traction both with Daily Mail readers and government Ministers.

Re: stop the kids

As long as you're not going to try and teach them punctuation, Lionel.

Here's my answer

To the question:

"However, she had more success in splitting the panel with a slightly trickier question. She asked: Was there a single reason they could advance as to why all new PCs should not come with optional porn filters on as default? Answers on a postcard, please"

Yes I can advance a reason, because someone has to pay for such a filter directly or indirectly, and I'm not paying for something I don't even want.

In other news...

> Parents should take greater responsibility for what their children get up to on the internet

In other news...

Pope found to be Catholic.

Bear seen defecating in arboreal environment.

In more interesting news, a quick glance at their site notes that Media March "heartily endorses the Christian aspirations which have been publicly displayed, ever since 1931, at BBC Broadcasting House in London. We recognise that these are in accordance with Philippians 4:8"

It also links to Media Watch (the latest incarnation of the Mary Whitehouse Brigade) saying:

"mediawatch-uk and mediamarch are independent organisations, but we pursue very similar aims and often work in cooperation on current issues.

"We are grateful to mediawatch-uk for regularly passing on to us vital information and timely advice.:

In other words, they're just another bunch of narrow-minded prudes who think that their personal tastes should govern what everyone else is allowed to see.

And as for "Was there a single reason they could advance as to why all new PCs should not come with optional porn filters on as default?" well, no, not a single reason, several reasons, for instance:

1) If I want to buy a "bare bones" PC I don't want any software installed on it, full stop.

2) I don't have kids, but even if I did, if anything is going to be filtered on my PC, it is MY decision, not the State's nor a bunch of prod-noses.

3) If I'm going to install filtering software, I want to be able to choose for myself which software I install, not have the choice (probably M$) imposed on me (and probably jacking up the price!)

4) What else might a State-sponsored piece of filtering software *also* choose to block? Would it be subject to automatic updates so that if there's more legislation like the so-called "Extreme Pornography" laws, the State could force it to add more content/ sites to its blocked list?

5) Would such software start inPhorming the authorities that I've tried to access certain sites...?

I'm sure there are more, but I've got to get on with other stuff...

One reason

if all PCs come with the same porn filter they will come with the cheapest porn filter and the first one to be cracked. Parents will not then bother trying to protect their children online because they've got this compromised piece of software that used to be a porn filter in place.

It's called a single point of failure.

P.S. If you want to protect your children then clean your kitchen. It's the biggest threat to them.

This is fun

All the logic of the Daily Mail, but with the opposite opinion.

UK teens spend almost two hours a week surfing porn!

According to an article at Ars, a report just came out that states that UK teens spend around 1 hour and 40 minutes every week surfing porn.

Article here: http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/02/report-uk-teens-spend-5-of-time-online-looking-at-porn.ars