The British government has joined China, Iran and Australia in seeking to actively restrict access to certain portions of the Internet. Communications officials have revealed plans to ask Internet service providers in the UK to restrict access to pornographic websites, especially for minors. However, ISPs have given that idea the thumbs-down on the grounds that it’s up to parents and caregivers to deal with the issue. It will be difficult to restrict access to online porn, say the plan’s critics.
Its pointlessly stupid. Yeah, if someone, some place, flags the images right, you could say, block it via something like Google's system, *maybe*. The problem is, automated systems look for "human" nudes, and significant amounts, and you would still need a human to go back and make sure with *every single thing*. Case in point:
Google "twi'lek" under images, with safe search set "on" and "strict", and *literally* the 4th image is a twi'lek women, a two nude human woman, and one of the two human women is very definitely not receiving attention from the other two that would be considered "safe" for non-adults. Apparently, all you need to get past the image filter is make sure that at least one of the people in your "picture" is painted blue, or something. Willing to bet there are others, further down the list...
The only semi-sane solution that has *ever* existed was to allow for art, given that sort is a whole different mess, but *generally* accepted as different, while letting the sources mark their content appropriately. And, its taken what... 15 years or more to *finally* decide that .xxx is an option for porn? Argument was always good too... If you do it, no one will use it ( since they, apparently, all want to be sued and put out of business, selling to non-adults), so lets not do it now, and instead wait (until this prediction is actually correct, because you are not dealing with 100 porn sites, but 100,000), and, it would be just stupid to tell them all they need to move to a specific site type, and given them time to manage it.
If 90% of the content was "already" some place you know it is supposed to be safe to host it, since the content is behind age verification already, or can be easily blocked, it *drastically* reduces how much stuff you then have to keep tabs on. Sort of like how making sure only people old enough, and with a valid license, drive, keeps cops from having to pull over every single car on the road to make sure its not an 8 year old behind the wheel. Duh!
Loading ...
UK Plan to Filter Porn Could Be a Hot Mess, Say ISPs
Posted by: Richard Adhikari December 20, 2010 11:41 AMThe British government has joined China, Iran and Australia in seeking to actively restrict access to certain portions of the Internet. Communications officials have revealed plans to ask Internet service providers in the UK to restrict access to pornographic websites, especially for minors. However, ISPs have given that idea the thumbs-down on the grounds that it’s up to parents and caregivers to deal with the issue. It will be difficult to restrict access to online porn, say the plan’s critics.
Google "twi'lek" under images, with safe search set "on" and "strict", and *literally* the 4th image is a twi'lek women, a two nude human woman, and one of the two human women is very definitely not receiving attention from the other two that would be considered "safe" for non-adults. Apparently, all you need to get past the image filter is make sure that at least one of the people in your "picture" is painted blue, or something. Willing to bet there are others, further down the list...
The only semi-sane solution that has *ever* existed was to allow for art, given that sort is a whole different mess, but *generally* accepted as different, while letting the sources mark their content appropriately. And, its taken what... 15 years or more to *finally* decide that .xxx is an option for porn? Argument was always good too... If you do it, no one will use it ( since they, apparently, all want to be sued and put out of business, selling to non-adults), so lets not do it now, and instead wait (until this prediction is actually correct, because you are not dealing with 100 porn sites, but 100,000), and, it would be just stupid to tell them all they need to move to a specific site type, and given them time to manage it.
If 90% of the content was "already" some place you know it is supposed to be safe to host it, since the content is behind age verification already, or can be easily blocked, it *drastically* reduces how much stuff you then have to keep tabs on. Sort of like how making sure only people old enough, and with a valid license, drive, keeps cops from having to pull over every single car on the road to make sure its not an 8 year old behind the wheel. Duh!
Politicians can be massive idiots.