Children + porn has 2 meanings
And they are totally confused about them. One is children seeing porn, the other is porn containing children.
One aim of the proposal is to prevent children from SEEING porn, for their own good. As only "refused classification" porn is to be filtered, this still leaves substantial amounts of "18+" some of which is quite horrendous. (And no way to know if someone's lying when the click the "I am over 18" button). These sites are NOT easy to come across by accident, but are VERY easy to find if a kid is curious, as many are around puberty. The filters will do NOTHING to stop young people seeing some quite disturbing porn, if they want to.
Another aim, and the one that gets opponents of this BS idea labelled as pedos, is to prevent the dissemination of pornography containing children. As this is illegal almost everywhere, and carries high penalties for anyone caught with it, the purveyors of it don't have top-page results in Google.....they pass knowledge around through secret groups,. and download the videos by peer to peer methods. Is the filter going to look at peer-to-peer? OF COURSE NOT.
So, (1) kids won't come across porn by accident, as they already don't (2) those who look for it will still find it, except for the worst 5% which is already not on the open public internet (3) the private nets containing the worst will not be filtered.
What a great system!
Of course, for obvious reasons, they can not publish the list of banned sites. Which conveniently means they can put anything else they like onto the list, and no-one will ever be the wiser. Some very innocent (and innocently named) sites have already been blocked by mistake.
A job at Filter Headquarters would be Pedo's Paradise.