And so it begins. Large scale internet censorship is coming.

23-07-2013 01:31PM

Censorship is already here in many forms. Just ask about recommending a dentist on boards and mods will remove any names of dentists in posts.
As a father with kids ranging from 8 to 16, I decide what each child is allowed to see online. I use Windows Live family settings on all PCs and laptops in the house.
I tried blocking porn at the router level but then I found legit sites ended up blocked. I allow my 16yr old a lot more internet freedom than the younger kids.
Definitely it should be a parental responsibility rather than an ISP or government responsibility to determine what kids can view online.
The key is to ensure the tools to achieve this are freely available and publicised.

username123 · 23-07-2013 01:34PM

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

Most of which is not found on the regular web, you have to go to the deep web for that, where most people will go now to watch regular porn, and stumble across this ****e, its a viscous circle that will end up in dozens of people accidentally incriminating themselves

Im fascinated by this. What, pray tell, is "the deep web" and how does it differ from the regular web? Ive never heard the term.

seamus · 23-07-2013 01:35PM

I'm going to say this right here and now, then you can all come back in ten years time and say, "Holy ****, this guy got it bang on!"

Blocking online porn will cause more children to access online porn, not less.

First off, you have the Barbara Streisand effect. By labelling something as banned and taboo, you automatically increase its value tenfold, especially where teenagers and children are concerned. Blocking online porn will cause a flood of methods to get around the block, actually resulting in porn being better available than it was before the block.

Secondly, you have a technological literacy aspect. As it stands, children are more technologically literate than their parents. And the parents know this, so many will at least make some rudimentary attempt to police their childrens' web usage. If you bring in a ban, many parents will think, "It's OK, the ISP has got this", and drop their guard. "Go on and use your laptop in your bedroom, I know the ISP nanny is keeping you safe". "Here's the password for computer while I go out for the night, I know you can't get up to any trouble while the ISP ban has you".
Which is of course fallacious. No ISP can execute an effective ban on any genre of site. The net result is that the vigilance of parents will drop, and the number of kids accessing porn will skyrocket.

An ISP block on porn sites will result in more children accessing porn online. There's no two ways about it. Any such move will in later years be held up as the perfect example of old and out of touch politicians fumbling and faltering over modern issues that they don't even being to understand.

Lenin Skynard · 23-07-2013 01:35PM

username123 wrote: »

Im fascinated by this. What, pray tell, is "the deep web" and how does it differ from the regular web? Ive never heard the term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Web

Dravokivich · 23-07-2013 01:36PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Censorship is already here in many forms. Just ask about recommending a dentist on boards and mods will remove any names of dentists in posts.
As a father with kids ranging from 8 to 16, I decide what each child is allowed to see online. I use Windows Live family settings on all PCs and laptops in the house.
I tried blocking porn at the router level but then I found legit sites ended up blocked. I allow my 16yr old a lot more internet freedom than the younger kids.
Definitely it should be a parental responsibility rather than an ISP or government responsibility to determine what kids can view online.
The key is to ensure the tools to achieve this are freely available and publicised.

That's not censorship, it's a website stating what content it does/doesn't want on it. And likely with reason too. Censorship along the lines of your example would be not able to access anything regarding the details of dentists anywhere online.

Bipolar Joe · 23-07-2013 01:36PM

kneemos wrote: »

On the contrary I would have thought.It's the dumbest that need protecting or the dumbest's children.

So you'd rather they stay dumb? [/wordsinmouth]

It would be nice if, instead of forcing everyone to wear a helmet in case some don't know it's not a good idea to hit your head with a hammer, they have some sort of advertising saying "Yo, don't hit yourself with a hammer."

It's not my job to babysit people's kids, it's not Eircom's, it's not UPC's or 3's, it's the job of the parents. If I have a kid who gets burned, do I blame the company I bought coal from? Do I blame the landlord for having a fireplace? God for inventing fire? Whose fault is it?

seamus · 23-07-2013 01:38PM

username123 wrote: »

Im fascinated by this. What, pray tell, is "the deep web" and how does it differ from the regular web? Ive never heard the term.

Typically it refers to content which doesn't and never will appear on search engines, instead the links typically appear on dodgy forums and gob****e hangouts like 4chan.

The "deep" generally referring to the fact that you end up hopping across multiple sites, digging through a huge chain of links before the content appears, and no matter how hard you tried to search for it, neither the content nor any of the sites in the chain would appear in Google.

krudler · 23-07-2013 01:39PM

username123 wrote: »

Im fascinated by this. What, pray tell, is "the deep web" and how does it differ from the regular web? Ive never heard the term.

It's basically the hidden internet, everything from black market weapons to drugs can be bought on it, my housemate got onto it before and some of the stuff on there is crazy, there's a big convoluted way of paying for things so its pretty untraceable but you can buy stuff like assault rifles and grenades and boxes of drugs wholesale, mad sh1t.

23-07-2013 01:41PM

Dravokivich wrote: »

That's not censorship, it's a website stating what content it does/doesn't want on it. And likely with reason too. Censorship along the lines of your example would be not able to access anything regarding the details of dentists anywhere online.

And how is that different from the government stating what content it does/doesn't want you to see?

23-07-2013 01:41PM

I said that something like this was on the cards when Sherlock first appeared with his agenda. People thinking that this is a good thing and is the governments being proactive in "protecting the most vulnerable in society" could not be more wrong. This move by the English government is a way for them to slowly change how the vast majority if the people view the Internet and slowly bring in more and more restrictions and censor the Internet. It would not surprise me if in 5 years time any criticism of the government here or in the UK was blocked by the government.

Look back a few months and we had a government desperate to restrict and censor access to online content. The reason they gave, "oh a ministers suicide was caused by criticism and he got online." Pure and utter crap, if a sitting member of the government needs to resort to ending his life because of criticism and insults online then they need to find a new line if work. His suicide was the best thing that could have happened for them and their plans to censor the Internet. The shameless manner in which they jumped on the suicide of teenagers to push this same agenda was disgusting. It's clear, and has been for years that the government have serious plans about restricting access to the Internet. It's only a matter if time.

Knasher · 23-07-2013 01:41PM

kneemos wrote: »

To insure everyone gets blocked and only those that want it get it.A lot of parents may not be savvy or diligent.

The Australian government introduced a filter in 2007 at a cost of AU$85 million. It was publicly bypassed by a 16 year old boy 30 minutes after its launch. It cause reductions in both speed and stability of internet connections and because it was forced upon everyone, the information on how to bypass it was disseminated to anyone who had any interest in bypassing it.

If the goal is to actually do something effective, then the best approach is to have as tightly targeted filter as possible, so as few people as possible are figuring out ways to bypass it. And then target parents so that they learn how to implement or avail of these things, through things such as organised demonstrations during teacher/parent meetings in schools.

Personally though I'd be much happier setting up my own filter rather relying on an ISP solution. ISP solutions will always be easy to bypass because they have to balance filtering the internet and respecting your privacy and access to services that are much harder to filter. If you run your own you can have much finer grain control over what can be accessed and when, as well as the threat of logs so that even if one of the kids finds a way around, they know there is a chance you will find out.

Friend Computer · 23-07-2013 01:45PM

Deleted User wrote: »

And how is that different from the government stating what content it does/doesn't want you to see?

Do you understand the difference between a private organisation and the government?

davyjose · 23-07-2013 01:45PM

We are entering a new age where we are genuinely ceding our own human rights, because the powers that be have figured out that, not through force, but subtle coercion, they can control evrything we do. Like the frog on the pot of water, enough small changes and we won't do a thing to protect ourselves.

Since the financial collapse of 07/08 which has made the 99% poorer, but miraculously allowed big business to thrive, we've proven we are not up for the fight. Gradually they will press harder and harder.

This coming from someone who isn't a rallying, war-crying leftie, but someone who just can't ignore the obvious.

hurlsey · 23-07-2013 01:46PM

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

You don't keel to the dumbest, you educate them, or they stay dumb.

Well every piece of over the top Health and safety legislation in Ireland suggests the contrary, we always cater for the lowest common denominator...... And those of us with common sense suffer!!!

V_Moth · 23-07-2013 01:46PM

biko wrote: »

It's just a first step to block porn, then sites with "inappropriate content" and sites with "questionable content" will follow.
Of course it's not up to us to dictate what this content is. It's up to some government sponsored PC think tank that will go along the lines of better safe than sorry.

But I like that website

the_syco · 23-07-2013 01:49PM

How easy will it be to bypass these censors, I wonder, and will there be any penalty doing so?

johnr1 · 23-07-2013 01:51PM

The level of paranoia here is too funny. Its the internet people, real life goes on.

username123 · 23-07-2013 01:54PM

Thanks everyone for describing the Deep Web - sounds crazy.

seamus wrote: »

By labelling something as banned and taboo, you automatically increase its value tenfold, especially where teenagers and children are concerned. Blocking online porn will cause a flood of methods to get around the block, actually resulting in porn being better available than it was before the block.

+1
Couldnt agree more. Never even heard of The Pirate Bay before all the furore about it being blocked. Tried it there, get a page telling me its blocked. Well, I cant be having that, 15 seconds later Im looking at it. Never would have bothered looking for it except now its not allowed.

seamus · 23-07-2013 01:54PM

the_syco wrote: »

How easy will it be to bypass these censors, I wonder, and will there be any penalty doing so?

Bypassing will be dead simple, and there cannot be any penalty for doing so, not unless they actually make accessing porn a crime.

The ISP would have no remit to charge fees or penalties for accessing legal content.

AlanS181824 · 23-07-2013 01:55PM

Feck sake....
Have to use a VPN to download stuff from TPB and now I'll have to do it when I wanna .....

ARGHHHHHHHH

Dravokivich · 23-07-2013 01:58PM

Deleted User wrote: »

And how is that different from the government stating what content it does/doesn't want you to see?

You are not being prevented from seeing it elsewhere. Nor do you have to go through hoops to access another website with that information. So it's not censorship.

maximoose · 23-07-2013 01:59PM

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Now I'm going to have to use google images just like i do with 3. FFS....

Why don't you just pm a rep on here and have it removed?

23-07-2013 02:00PM

johnr1 wrote: »

The level of paranoia here is too funny. Its the internet people, real life goes on.

Take or restrict the Internet and watch as the world takes ten steps backward. The Internet may be full of disgusting and depraved content but that does not mean that it isn't also the greatest tool at our disposal. Can you imagine a world where our only source of news comes from the newspapers that are more concerned with the Royal fcuking baby than they are real events. Imagine if we had to rely on RTE, an organisation that bows down and serves the government, for news

upstairs for coffee · 23-07-2013 02:05PM

johnr1 wrote: »

The level of paranoia here is too funny. Its the internet people, real life goes on.

How naive are you?

"Real life goes on" - What does that mean exactly. For millions, the internet is real life. Millions have internet businesses, I bet you check your bank account online etc etc.

The internet is a vital part of "real life"

DipStick McSwindler · 23-07-2013 02:06PM

This post has been deleted.

Mr Benevolent · 23-07-2013 02:08PM

*cough* torrents *cough*

Actually, let them ban it or censor it or whatever, it wouldn't affect me tbh. I know that millions of husbands are now wondering where their next **** will come from, but that's a minor problem.

shruikan2553 · 23-07-2013 02:11PM

By preventing people from doing something they will find a way around it. Look at security and hacking. Its an arms race between the two of them, The security has to make sure there is no loop holes and close down any as the hackers find them. They blocked thepiratebay and more people learnt to use VPNs. Again this will be a half assed job of them just doing the minimum and we take a few second to google and find something on the first page.

Politicians love this idea of everyone doing their "moral duty" while they cut spending in hospitals instead of their wages.

inforfun · 23-07-2013 02:16PM

johnr1 wrote: »

The level of paranoia here is too funny. Its the internet people, real life goes on.

You are not wrong there but what pisses me off is the government again thinks what is good for me.
Again, they should just **** off and fix what is broken and let me decide myself if i want to look at porn or not.

The Backwards Man · 23-07-2013 02:16PM

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

How naive are you?

"Real life goes on" - What does that mean exactly. For millions, the internet is real life. Millions have internet businesses, I bet you check your bank account online etc etc.

The internet is a vital part of "real life"

No it isn't. If technology went down the swanny overnight life would still go on. The internet is a useful tool, the same as a hammer, or a seed drill, no more no less.

The amount of outrage and toy throwing here is very amusing, I have to say.

Duggy747 · 23-07-2013 02:16PM

The naivety that blocking porn is somehow a good measure, somehow just a trivial matter, or that it'll just stop there. That there won't be a high chance for a government to advance on and use whatever legislation is written in to go after other content because of pressure from lobby groups or it doesn't meet "content regulation".

As seamus said, the Streisand effect will make porn all that more valuable and important to view. Remember, common teenager trait is to rebel against authority and do things "the old folks" worry about.

This will put people towards the Deep Web which has far, far worse things on it than the standard web majority of people use.

It's not the fact that it's porn, it's the precedent that it sets.

And so it begins. Large scale internet censorship is coming.

Comments