British government wants all porn filtered out of the web, all fun sucked out of life

[Riposte]

A lot of people take the "parents should do more to..." route but what exactly are we protecting kids from? Especially horny preteen boys who will be thinking about tits one way or the other(whether it be slight cleavage on sitcoms or japanese cartoons(OR AMERICAN ONES WITH FURRYS?) or some explicit material). Like, along side violent movies, videogames, and so on, what evil result demands or justify such grandiose action? This makes less sense than terrorism.

[ZarakiKujata]

This makes less sense than terrorism.

Coincidentally both are the cause of religious bullshit.

Spoiler: show

Yes, I'm aware that terrorism is not exclusively a Muslim phenomenon but you know what I mean

[Shuvo]

Isn't it just one single MP who suggested this? I don't think it has any kind of actual traction in government.

[Riposte]

Religion doesn't really factor into this, other than maybe being the source of such inhibitions(like traditions generally are). I see stuff like this as nothing more than a powerplay or prelude to a government trying to gain more control over its citizens.

EDIT: That's another thing though, I am basically speaking hypothetically at this point. The british government is bigger than a single person.

[Uzor]

In a parliamentary debate last month, Claire Perry, a Conservative MP who has campaigned for tighter controls, said that 60% of nine- to 19-year-olds had found porn online, while only 15% of computer-literate parents knew how to use filters to block access to certain sites.

Shouldn't they use more "correct" statistics, like nine- to 17-year olds, or is it illegal for 18 and 19 year olds to view porn in England?

Also, I wonder how large % it is if they'd use 9- to 14-year olds, 9-to 13 year olds etc. Hell, I read some statistics in a Swedish newspaper a year or so ago that 15% of all 7 year olds had googled for porn.

Either way, it's the parent's responsibilities to raise their kids, not the ISP's.

Edit: There's retarded people everywhere, imo. I know two parents who forbid their 12-year old children from watching news because "The world is so horrible, and my child is innocent". There's also the retarded ones that think Looney Toons is bad because a hunter shoots a rabbit, or that Tom & Jerry should be banned because it contains violence.

Porn isn't exactly dangerous, it's not like you watch porn and go "I'll do that to the first girl I meet! Ringing the doorbell and asking to use the shower in a random house will lead to buttsex, right?! All women are willing!".

[ronin sparthos]

A lot of people take the "parents should do more to..." route but what exactly are we protecting kids from? Especially horny preteen boys who will be thinking about tits one way or the other(whether it be slight cleavage on sitcoms or japanese cartoons(OR AMERICAN ONES WITH FURRYS?) or some explicit material). Like, along side violent movies, videogames, and so on, what evil result demands or justify such grandiose action? This makes less sense than terrorism.

If your 9 year old is surfing the web then yeah, you're gonna want to use the already present filters to block any porn because most children around that age are not ready to get a convo about "what to do if you see porn" from their parents.

No magical age really prepares a kid for a porn discussion but responsible parents will know when to take down the barriers when their kid becomes old enough to navigate the internet without running to you and asking why some random broad is flashing her tits.

That being said, tools are already in place to filter what comes out of web searches. As a parent you can choose to use them or not. By 13-4 most kids WILL get to that porn regardless anyway.

In today's world you either get ahead of the "problems" (porn, violent movies, violent music etc) as a parent or roll the dice and hope your kids friends don't perma-fuck their minds. This entire idea is pointless but I guess it does cater to the lowest common denominator.

[Lucavi]

Are you honestly thinking she'd be against it? She's shown herself to be very conservative. And I think you're overestimating how much power she has.

Trolled, I guess. Wow, Ksandra, I never thought you'd fall for it.

[Kerberoz]

60% of nine- to 19-year-olds had found porn online

bull-fucking-shit, 40% are liars.

[Uzor]

bull-fucking-shit, 40% are liars.

Not necessarily, if they include girls in that study, 1% of those could be girls that don't know how to turn on a computer. So that puts us at a liar rate of 39,9%

The study still confuses me; Since when are 19-year-olds considered children who should not watch porn?

[Kerberoz]

You're right, I actually forgot about blind people, too. Although they probably still listen to it.

[Ksandra]

The study still confuses me; Since when are 19-year-olds considered children who should not watch porn?

A lot of said this and I don't think they're trying to restrict 19 year olds (considering I think adults in britian are 17?), the study could have been semi independent but is what prompted them to "do something about it". They can't just lie and say the study is 9-17 though, cause that skews results.

[Uzor]

But why include 18-19 in the study in the first place then?

[Ksandra]

But why include 18-19 in the study in the first place then?

because it's a 10 year bracket? I mean it's all just speculation because there's no link (in the article anyways) to the actual study, but it might have done a range of all ages split up to 10 years each for all we know. It would be interesting to see where she got that info, hell for all we know she was pulling numbers out of her ass since it's only one comment in the article.

[Uzor]

because it's a 10 year bracket? I mean it's all just speculation because there's no link (in the article anyways) to the actual study, but it might have done a range of all ages split up to 10 years each for all we know. It would be interesting to see where she got that info, hell for all we know she was pulling numbers out of her ass since it's only one comment in the article.

My point is, it's not a very accurate study then. It'd be like saying "100% of all people ages 1 to 200 die within 200 years Out of those people studied, all had at one point drunk water. Ergo, water kills you". There's a lot more people in the 15 - 17 age group that watch porn than in the 9 - 14 age group, and there's a probably more than that in the 18-19 age group that watch porn. If they wanted more accurate results, they'd have done 5-year intervals (9-14, 15-20). Right now it seems like they just threw a study together to go "Look! 9-19 year-olds watch porn! Let's ban porn!". Hell, for all we know they could have asked 1 9-year old girl and then 100,000 15-19 year-old boys and said "99% of children 9-19 watch porn! Let's ban it!".

I know BG has nothing to do with it, but I hate inaccurate "studies" like this. I'd really like to know where said study took place, and how...

[Ksandra]

My point is, it's not a very accurate study then. It'd be like saying "100% of all people ages 1 to 200 die within 200 years Out of those people studied, all had at one point drunk water. Ergo, water kills you". There's a lot more people in the 15 - 17 age group that watch porn than in the 9 - 14 age group, and there's a probably more than that in the 18-19 age group that watch porn. If they wanted more accurate results, they'd have done 5-year intervals (9-14, 15-20). Right now it seems like they just threw a study together to go "Look! 9-19 year-olds watch porn! Let's ban porn!". Hell, for all we know they could have asked 1 9-year old girl and then 100,000 15-19 year-old boys and said "99% of children 9-19 watch porn! Let's ban it!".

I know BG has nothing to do with it, but I hate inaccurate "studies" like this. I'd really like to know where said study took place, and how...

I never said it was accurate or even good, hell I'm not even for the ban in the first place. I was just pointing out that just because she said 9-19 in a study doesn't mean that the gov't was trying to stop 17 and above year olds from looking at porn.

[Kaisha]

Wouldn't it just be easier to make it illegal for underage folks to use the net, then to try and censor it from their end? ;/

[Ashmada]

Shouldn't they use more "correct" statistics, like nine- to 17-year olds, or is it illegal for 18 and 19 year olds to view porn in England?

You'd make a rubbish politician. Twisting statistics is one of the major pilars of the job.

She said 9-19 because the 9-17 number probably wasn't high enough to cause outrage.
When dealing with politicians (especially moralistic nutjobs), always assume malice.


On the side, since someone's mentionned her: did they make a porn movie with a Christinne O'Donnell (or better yet, herself) look-like yet? It'd be great, you could wank AND enjoy the irony at the same time.
Bonus points if the actress is wearing a "sexy witch" costume.

[Uzor]

You'd make a rubbish politician. Twisting statistics is one of the major pilars of the job.

She said 9-19 because the 9-17 number probably wasn't high enough to cause outrage.
When dealing with politicians (especially moralistic nutjobs), always assume malice.


On the side, since someone's mentionned her: did they make a porn movie with a Christinne O'Donnell (or better yet, herself) look-like yet? It'd be great, you could wank AND enjoy the irony at the same time.
Bonus points if the actress is wearing a "sexy witch" costume.

I know the point of being a politician is to twist statistics, but it still annoys me. If I ever become a politician - and I have no interest to, as It'd go against many of my morals - I'd twist statistics, too. It just annoys me to no end when they make "studies" that, in its very core, is inaccurate.