Piggie
I Actually use Windstream
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Orange Springs, FL
 ·HughesNet Satellit..
 ·Windstream
| Get what they deserve
So the bad sites move off shore and don't bother with the system.
People are so stupid, they want government to wipe their you know what's so their hands don't get dirty.
The world today is exactly what people have allowed.
--
| Speedstream 4200 Modem - 3m/384 plan | W98-W2KSP4-XPSP2 - All AMD | Buffalo WHR G54S with Tomato 1.18 | 3 downstream switches feeding 6 total clients (no wireless) | Including the Data port on the side of my neck | |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC | That's not the Internet, that's the InterNOT
We don't blow-up bridges because they lead to the bad side of town, likewise we don't cut cords that lead to websites we don't like.
The Internet is about connectivity and end-user choices -- warts and all, |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Already Exists
Don't they already have 3rd party applications that people can use to filter content? Stuff like Net Nanny already provide children-friendly sites and age-specific ratings.
If they ever develop this silly rating system, where can I get a list of the filtered sites? These are the sites I want to visit.   |
|
badtrip
East Bay
Premium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA
 ·Unwired Ltd
 ·Comcast
1 edit | reply to funchords
Re: That's not the Internet, that's the InterNOT
said by funchords  :We don't blow-up bridges because they lead to the bad side of town, likewise we don't cut cords that lead to websites we don't like. The Internet is about connectivity and end-user choices -- warts and all, The person who suggested this is an idiot. Why is this person in his position of cultural authority considering his insurmountable ignorance with regards to culture?
How are they going to rate every blog? Who will rate every my space or facebook page? The only way I can see it getting done (however sloppily) is a software algorithm and we already have many sloppy software algorithms to do this kind of crap. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to jmn1207
Re: Already Exists
said by jmn1207 :Don't they already have 3rd party applications that people can use to filter content? Stuff like Net Nanny already provide children-friendly sites and age-specific ratings. If they ever develop this silly rating system, where can I get a list of the filtered sites? These are the sites I want to visit. Net Nanny/etc. have the same problem as this proposal when it comes to the list being subject to someone-else's 'what you can not see' agenda. As to getting NN's or the proposal's list of what is being blocked (or even the blocking criteria) that is secret (to prevent the censor from having to identify their bias/agenda). |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Wow, I can't believe...
Karl actually opined something that I agree with.A less expensive option for the nations of the world would be better parenting. Moving your child's PC out of the bedroom and into an area where you watch them will likely be far more effective than multi-million dollar filtering efforts designed by politicians. Parenting tactics and family values continue to degrade, especially here in the US. IMO, the best, most efficient content filtering action is for parents to actually take an interest in their children's "hobbies", provide some old-school parenting tactics, and talk with and educate their children. Governments should stay away from censorship, no matter how they try to define it. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Piggie
Re: Get what they deserve
said by Piggie :... they want government to wipe their you know what's so their hands don't get dirty. ... I have no desire to have the govt do anything but leave the net alone. It's the govts that are hot to trot for filtering and other sh1t - I think it drives them crazy that they can't control what people do on the internet. They all want to be like China. |
|
FunnyBones
Premium
join:2004-01-22
usa
 ·Vonage
| reply to openbox9
Re: Wow, I can't believe...
said by openbox9 :Karl actually opined something that I agree with. A less expensive option for the nations of the world would be better parenting. Moving your child's PC out of the bedroom and into an area where you watch them will likely be far more effective than multi-million dollar filtering efforts designed by politicians. Parenting tactics and family values continue to degrade, especially here in the US. IMO, the best, most efficient content filtering action is for parents to actually take an interest in their children's "hobbies", provide some old-school parenting tactics, and talk with and educate their children. Governments should stay away from censorship, no matter how they try to define it. In this day in age you have to have some better parenting skills and offer a lot more guidance and I agree you could move the pc into the family room other than offer some sort isp filtering.
--
Are you part of the cattle? |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to RARPSL
Re: Already Exists
The problem I have is not with the filtering methodology, but the proposal to force ISP's to offer this to customers. Like I said, these already exists for those people interested in some type of internet morality shield, I don't want the ISP to be anything more than a provider for a dumb pipe. |
|
devnuller
join:2006-06-10
Hollis, NH
2 edits | Options are good. Blanket Censorship is NOT.
Not sure how many commenting have children, but the option for better user controlled censorship is beneficial.
I do like that my Tivo's require passwords to get to certain show ratings (or blocking unrated shows). I don't see a problem with a common film-style rating system for websites (as long as unrated is an option).
Once kids get old enough to work around these systems, then perhaps they are old enough. But until then I would like some better and more consistent controls in the unrequested pop-up web-world we have today. |
|
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| I have no problem with a filter....
...as long as the users have a CHOICE in it whether to turn on or off the filter. I understand the need of protecting young children from porn etc, but I don't believe porn should be filtered from horny persons such as myself. 
ISP's should only give you an open, unfiltered TCP/IP pipe. Then, you should be able to log on to a website of your provider and set filtering options. Don't want your kids breaking RIAA/Copyright laws? Checkmark the P2P filter. Don't want your kids to see porn? Checkmark the Porn filter.
Etc, etc. But someone who wants to receive it all, should damn well be able to receive it all.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" |
|
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
·Skype
| Do it yourself!
"the country would like to work with the United States to create a film-style rating system for websites"
Yeah, let's drag the U.S. into this stupid idea too. . . 
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to devnuller
Re: Options are good. Blanket Censorship is NOT.
"unrequested pop-up web-world"?
Maybe the web was that way 10 years ago. You could go to www.SeeminglySafeSite.com and have nude photos pop up repeatedly. (Had that happen during my first month of work once when I went to barnesNnoble.com instead of barnesANDnoble.com.) However, most recent browser versions (FF, IE6 on XPSP2, IE7) contain pop-up blockers. So you shouldn't have to deal with out of control pop-ups. If you do, either you A) are using a very old browser (time to upgrade) or B) are infected with spyware (time to clean that PC).
Yes, I have kids. Yes, I like having user-controlled options for blocking content. No, I don't want the government to block that content for me and/or tell me what content my kids should/shouldn't be able to see. Whenever politicians say they want to block content "for the good of the children", I get wary.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause |
|
devnuller
join:2006-06-10
Hollis, NH
| said by Jason Levine :No, I don't want the government to block that content for me and/or tell me what content my kids should/shouldn't be able to see. Whenever politicians say they want to block content "for the good of the children", I get wary. Not sure you read the article, but the proposal is not to censor the Internet it is to "create a film-style rating system for websites". I would expected "unrated" to be an option. It also wanted ISPs to have a level of service which a user could subscribe to which honored that rating system. The latter is a bit much, but as people claim "monopolies" perhaps this is helpful.
Didn't a similar uproar happen when TV ratings and V-Chip came out about 10 years ago? People should try not to go to extreme thinking before they understand the details. I personally like options as long as I get to make the decision.
... and yes my browsers are up to date. And yes my family PCs are in public areas, but pop-ups still happen and young children tend to follow "click me" links. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Great idea, get to work guys.
I think this is a great idea. Mr. Burnham should form a group to do this. To get the most accurate rating, they should personally review each and every web page to determine the rating.
Even reviewing ten pages per second at 8 hours per day (no weekends or holidays - they're protecting the children!) and at 1 trillion websites to review (ignoring that some will arise/fall/update during the review period), they'll be done with their review and be ready to launch in about 9,500 years.
Just for humor's value, we should stream their reactions over the Internet and order the URL list so some of the most hard-core/freaky sites wind up getting reviewed first. Of course, they would need to rate the site showing them rating the sites.... Oh, no, I've gone cross-eyed.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause |
|
Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
| You get who you vote for
and the people of Australia and the UK got theirs in spades. Nanny stater's always think of the children first. When did children start becoming our lowest common denominator with regards to allowing governments to institute or propose draconian measures to protect them without parental consent? |
|
DarkLogix
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX | reply to devnuller
Re: Options are good. Blanket Censorship is NOT.
Your computers need a good scan then
I never get pop-ups and I use IE so if your getting pop-ups then you must have spyware
and someone must be doing the rating and if only 10% is rated then its usless |
|
NetAdmin
CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| reply to devnuller
said by devnuller :Not sure how many commenting have children, but the option for better user controlled censorship is beneficial. Absolutely. Instead of trying to use government funds to create and deploy filtering lists that are mandatory, the government of UK would probably be much better served on simply educating the public on filtering products. I don't know how many times I've had people ask me if there was a way to filter out "objectionable" material only to be surprised by the number of products that exist that they did know about.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" |
|
Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to fireflier
Re: Do it yourself!
said by fireflier :"the country would like to work with the United States to create a film-style rating system for websites" Yeah, let's drag the U.S. into this stupid idea too. . . Dragging the US (and other countries) into the plan is absolutely necessary for the program to work, as Australia is discovering. This actually has two benefits for the pro-censorship crowd:
1) You have the ACTA model to follow, which allows you to negotiate in secret with absolutely zero public input, then present each legislature with a fait accompli that they can only vote up or down. It completely eviscerates both the legislative process and the involvement of the public.
2) Involving as many countries as possible means that getting around the filters by off shoring becomes much more difficult.
--
"2 Strangers + 1 20 minute ceremony + $50 + 10 shots of tequila = Holy Matrimony and 1st Class Protections Under the Law… now that’s crazy!" |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to badtrip
Re: That's not the Internet, that's the InterNOT
The article is 404 on Yahoo now, but you can still read it here: »www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandte···ays.html
And I'll take the liberty of reprinting apt comments from "Robert" who posted in the reader remarks on the article. Do take a look at the page (for the picture) and you'll get a laugh from this.
said by Robert :
More sinister 'we'll protect you' spin from New Labour. As a huge percentage of adults both male and female in this country surf porn sites it will be interesting to see how much demand there is for kiddie-friendly ISPs, as it will mean Disneyfied browsing 24/7 for mum and dad too.
The only way site rating could possibly begin to work is voluntarily. There are already codes that adult websites put into page headers that allow them to be filtered out by the web browser.
But overall this is extremely sinister. As things turn bad for the government it proposes censorship and 'classification' of the web. Well the websites that I run are hosted in the USA and the UK government can go and whistle.
Andy Burnham looks like a complete pillock in that photo too. |
|
