Abuse of internet censorship in the UK

[Cyborg Girl]

IPFire is a Linux distribution for computers acting as routers and firewalls. It's also been blocked by the UK's new "porn filter."

http://planet.ipfire.org/post/www-ipfir ... ed-kingdom

I would guess the rationale is that someone could use its VPN capability to bypass the filter, but that would still be vast overkill, and IMO does not bode well.

[FZR1KG]

There is a lot of irony in politicians attempts to block porn when they are screwing the public constantly.

I'm starting to suspect that they don't want their home video's to go public.

[Cyborg Girl]

The thing that pisses me off is that, IMHO, opt-out porn filtering is actually a good idea. But those in power don't see it as a public service, they just see it as an excuse to exercise further control over what information the public has access to.

They're turning something that ought to be helpful into an instrument for covering their asses. I find that pretty disgusting.

[SciFiFisher]

The thing that pisses me off is that, IMHO, opt-out porn filtering is actually a good idea. But those in power don't see it as a public service, they just see it as an excuse to exercise further control over what information the public has access to.

They're turning something that ought to be helpful into an instrument for covering their asses. I find that pretty disgusting.

Don't underestimate the value of CYA. After all, if you are discredited and thrown out of office you can't do anyone any good.

[The Supreme Canuck]

The thing that pisses me off is that, IMHO, opt-out porn filtering is actually a good idea.

I disagree. If you need it at all, it should be opt-in. Opt-out results, even in the best case scenario, in a chilling-effect. Say you're gay. Do you really want to have to call up a government official and tell them that you want to be able to see gay porn? Or are you just going to not do that?

[Cyborg Girl]

@TSC: Why would anyone have to specify gay porn? It's not like that warrants a separate category. Not IMO anyway.

Anyway keeping kids from viewing porn is the least of the problems here. I realize this is "the oldest profession" and is not going away any time soon, but I would like there to be some serious federal oversight of the industry - from what I've heard, human trafficking is completely rife in it, never mind more "garden variety" horror stories. (Physical and emotional abuse, gaslighting, brainwashing, you name it.)

[FZR1KG]

TSC is simply saying that you have to choose opt in/out such that people aren't going to feel like they are being judged for choosing it.

The gay porn was an example.
If you want gay porn it should be on an opt out basis. That way no one that's gay need identify themselves. Path of least harm.
The reverse happens if you want filtering, it should be opt in.

So if you want filtering of porn, you should therefore be the one to ask for filtering rather than ask for no filtering.
No filtering should be the default.

That make sense?

[Cyborg Girl]

Well yes, except that it assumes you can rely on parents to make the right choices. Which a lot of times you can't.

BTW I realize that sounds totally nanny statist, etc. Don't worry, I'm open to being shown that the vast majority of people can wisely make long-term decisions in the interest of themselves and others. But given the state of my own country, and my own personal experience, I'm not feeling to optimistic.

[FZR1KG]

Sadly evolution dictates that almost any two idiots can reproduce.
Trying to legislate the problem away fights against the natural flow of evolution.
Something we can't win.

[SciFiFisher]

Well yes, except that it assumes you can rely on parents to make the right choices. Which a lot of times you can't.

BTW I realize that sounds totally nanny statist, etc. Don't worry, I'm open to being shown that the vast majority of people can wisely make long-term decisions in the interest of themselves and others. But given the state of my own country, and my own personal experience, I'm not feeling to optimistic.

The statistics show that except in the cases of the absolute worst parents government involvement in parenting usually is a colossal failure.

[FZR1KG]

The statistics show that except in the cases of the absolute worst parents government involvement in parenting usually is a colossal failure.

Is that world wide or US?

I know Oz has had a pretty bad reputation on that front.

[SciFiFisher]

The statistics show that except in the cases of the absolute worst parents government involvement in parenting usually is a colossal failure.

Is that world wide or US?

I know Oz has had a pretty bad reputation on that front.

U.S. as that is what I am familiar with. In studies that compared outcomes of children who were allowed to stay with "crappy" parents vs being raised by the state i.e. foster care system the kids with "crappy" parents turned out better than the kids raised by the foster care system. The only exception is homes where the risk is high enough that the child is likely to wind up dead, serverely neglected to the point of malnutrition or brain damage, or sexually abused. Even homes where one or both of the parents have serious emotional or mental issues manage to turn out kids that are marginally better than kids raised in the foster system.

in essence, children are extremely resilent. If they have someone to consistently bond with (however disfunctionally) they turn out better emotionally, mentally, and physically. When that need for emotional bonding is yanked out from under them again and again they often become extremely damaged as human beings.

I think it doesn't matter what country you look at this is a consistent factor of the human condition.

[Cyborg Girl]

Thanks for the info, Fisher, but I'm not sure that statistics on foster care can be extended to things like opt-out censorship. This would not be a case of the state ripping the carpet out from under the kids, so much as assisting less experienced/capable parents a bit.

That said, it all seems pretty theoretical to me, since what we have IRL is a mostly unbroken track record of abusing censorship for political purposes. AFAIK anyway.

[SciFiFisher]

Thanks for the info, Fisher, but I'm not sure that statistics on foster care can be extended to things like opt-out censorship. This would not be a case of the state ripping the carpet out from under the kids, so much as assisting less experienced/capable parents a bit.

That said, it all seems pretty theoretical to me, since what we have IRL is a mostly unbroken track record of abusing censorship for political purposes. AFAIK anyway.

I used that comparison primarily because you were suggesting that goverment could (possibly) do a better job than parents at protecting children from online porn and other unsavory things. I suspect that even bad (or stupid) parents might surprise you.

[FZR1KG]

I was about to say, GJ, you brought that up not fisher! LOL

[The Supreme Canuck]

@TSC: Why would anyone have to specify gay porn? It's not like that warrants a separate category. Not IMO anyway.

The UK filtering system already sorts and categorizes. Do you think it's that much of a stretch? Possession of pornography that depicts fictional rape was criminalized by the same law that created the opt-in system. Which means the system is already sorting for content.

But, fine, as FZ said this was just an example to illustrate the problems that could arise from such a system. If you prefer, do away with that aspect of the scenario. Would you want to call up a government official and tell them you want to see porn of any sort? Or would you just not do that? I'm betting the latter. That's the chilling effect.

Anyway keeping kids from viewing porn is the least of the problems here. I realize this is "the oldest profession" and is not going away any time soon, but I would like there to be some serious federal oversight of the industry - from what I've heard, human trafficking is completely rife in it, never mind more "garden variety" horror stories. (Physical and emotional abuse, gaslighting, brainwashing, you name it.)

And you think an opt-in system for internet pornography would do that? You know better than that. A) It makes censorship the default. B) It creates a chilling effect. C) It blocks things that should not be blocked (sexual health sites, for example, or Charlie Stross' blog. Yes, that happened.) D) Such blocks are trivial to get around, as you know, and thus are ineffective. E) Such a system does nothing to address the concerns you bring up. Proper regulation of the pornography industry does. You're targeting the wrong thing. F) It isn't the job of the state to restrict the liberty of every citizen to prevent children from seeing certain things that they're going to see anyway despite the restrictions.

Given all that... what benefit does requiring people to opt-out of internet censorship provide? I see none.

[Cyborg Girl]

No, I don't think it would prevent any of the abuses that happen in the porn industry. There should be other measures for dealing with those issues.

Yes, I do think it would help prevent some rather serious emotional issues in certain at-risk groups. (Mostly but not limited to teenagers.)

And no, I wouldn't call up a government official asking for permission to look at any sort of porn. That's... kind of part of the point, actually. Maybe chilling effect can be useful.

As far as porn depicting fictional rape goes. Well, I'd rather not discuss the minutiae of this topic, but suffice to say I'm not sure that's a bad idea either. For starters, how exactly do we know it's fictional?

[FZR1KG]

And no, I wouldn't call up a government official asking for permission to look at any sort of porn. That's... kind of part of the point, actually. Maybe chilling effect can be useful.

Now I find this to be chilling.
What you're suggesting is that the government use emotional blackmail, intimidation, public humiliation as a technique to control the general population.

Let's take this a little further and apply it to the USA as I understand the system to work.
Anyone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
If the USA puts out a system of censorship (opt in) that is voluntary and it is passed as constitutional this is a possible outcome:
1) Because of freedom of information the list of people who contacted the government to say they want to watch porn is made publicly available.
2) Sites start gathering this data and putting it up on their website broken down by geographical location.
3) You now have a public shame file, "Is your neighbour is a pervert? Check www.pornperverts.org.y to find out"

[The Supreme Canuck]

No, I don't think it would prevent any of the abuses that happen in the porn industry. There should be other measures for dealing with those issues.

Fine. Then let's drop it from this conversation since it isn't relevant here.

Yes, I do think it would help prevent some rather serious emotional issues in certain at-risk groups. (Mostly but not limited to teenagers.)

A) Teenagers are going to get around any such ban.
B) Preventing such emotional issues is not for government to do. It is for parents, the teenagers themselves, and school counsellors to do.
C) Is preventing this emotional distress in a few people worth restricting the rights of literally every citizen? Is it worth creating a chilling effect?

And no, I wouldn't call up a government official asking for permission to look at any sort of porn. That's... kind of part of the point, actually. Maybe chilling effect can be useful.

A) So don't look at porn. Maybe other people want to look at it without dealing with the embarrassment and hassle of getting government approval to do so. Why should they not be allowed?
B) You admit there is a chilling effect. You think it's good. Please explain to me how making explicit material unavailable to people without getting permission from the government is a good thing. Keep in mind that sex-positive things like this (very NSFW) and information on sexual health would become blocked.
C) related to B, think of teenagers. We want them to see sexual educational material. If their parents don't allow it, they're going to never see it. Because they're going to be unable to get permission from the government for themselves. Again, chilling effect. Unless they're technically savvy enough to get around the block, which makes the entire system useless.
D) Another problem with the chilling effect, and related to the gay porn thing I brought up earlier: explicit material related to sexuality (and, yes, text can be explicit) would also be banned. This would prevent people from developing their sexuality and finding support in an online community. Because of the chilling effect. They're not going to want to talk to the government for permission to do these things. And, again, think of teens. As in C, those who most need access to this material will not have it. And this is an already at-risk group - I suspect that without access to such online communities, you'd see more people remaining closeted, more people being confused about themselves, and more people killing themselves.
E) As FZ says, how long until the list of people who asked to see porn gets out? How long until they see negative consequences from that? And how long until people stop asking to see explicit material out of fear?

So. Chilling effect. Not good. Never good.

As far as porn depicting fictional rape goes. Well, I'd rather not discuss the minutiae of this topic, but suffice to say I'm not sure that's a bad idea either. For starters, how exactly do we know it's fictional?

A) Because the participants say so, and that is made public. As is the case now.
B) Can we please not go down the "We need to treat all sex/porn as rape, because we can never know the subjective state of another person's mind" road? Again? Because we've done that already.