Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!

E-MAIL   PASS  

Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
Forum Thread A note about the site and any replies from other users.
Porn Users Forum » UK to block all pornography
1-39 of 39 Posts Page 1
 
Thread Nav :  Refresh Page  |   First Post  |   Last Post  |   Porn Forum Home

07-22-13  04:36am - 436 days Original Post - #1
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,943
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
UK to block all pornography

I know a couple of our forum participant are from the UK and I was curious to know if you had heard about a story the Daily Mail ran yesterday about the UK actively looking to block access to all pornography from the internet unless the user asks for it from his/her ISP. I'm including a link below to the story. Now it's from the Daily Mail and I'm told that they aren't always as truthful as you would expect a newspaper to be.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ledges-opt-rule.html Long live the Brown Coats.

07-22-13  07:14am - 436 days #2
jberryl69 (12)
Active User



Posts: 980
Registered: Nov 27, '10
Location: neverland
Do you get the impression that the Daily Mail is repressively obsessed with sex & murder? If it ain't grits, it must be a Yankee.

If you're going to lay her head over the pool table and fuck her throat, get your fucking hand off her throat!

07-22-13  08:25am - 435 days #3
tboy (7)
Active User

Posts: 14
Registered: Sep 15, '11
Hi,

BBC article covers a few more aspects of it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076

It will be interesting to see how this spurs new technologies to bypass the filtering / hand real control back to the consumer.

The use of the phrase 'adult content' is quite concerning, Cameron focuses on porn and the depiction of rape but you know there's a lot of adult content out there...

Just have to wait a few years for the fallout now

Toby

07-22-13  09:55am - 435 days #4
Capn (28)
Active User



Posts: 1,697
Registered: Sep 05, '09
Location: Near the Beer!
A bit of scaremongering, IMO.

The harder & illegal stuff will likely be hit first.

A 'heads up' though, nevertheless.

Thanks for the link.

Cap'n. Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU Award
Hilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award
( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/
Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder!

07-22-13  11:13am - 435 days #5
Marcus (45)
Active User

Posts: 47
Registered: Dec 31, '11
Location: London
I'm from the UK. Cameron has taken leave of his senses in my opinion. IMHO this is the thin end of the wedge and you have to wonder what other things they'll decide to censor.

Who is going to decide what is and what is not porn?

Presumably they'll get a list of who has opted in - will these people be considered as 'not trustworthy' or 'dodgy'?

I'm not someone who is paranoid about big brother watching me. I don't mind CCTV, I don't even care if someone bugged my calls, but this really troubles me.

07-22-13  01:34pm - 435 days #6
Reveen (0)
Active User

Posts: 95
Registered: Apr 06, '09
I'm from Ireland so this doesn't directly affect me....yet. Usually if the UK does something then our government follows suit like a bunch of sheep.

This is a curb on peoples freedom. Governments know that ordinary people are reluctant to speak up in favour of porn so they can bring in this type of censorship without much protest. The same goes for when they say they are monitoring everyone's email and web traffic so as to "prevent terrorism", governments are taking away civil liberties and there is barely a murmur about it.

On the bbc news today David Cameron was talking about banning "violent porn" but just how do you define violent porn? Is spanking included? How about bdsm? Rough Sex? This kind of law gives police and judges wide powers to define what is or isn't "violent" and your fate could rest on the whim of some old decrepit magistrate.

Another disturbing part of this is how politicians and trashy tabloid gossip-mongers like The Daily Mail link normal pornography with child pron. In the BBC article one member of parliament said, "filters would make a difference, saying that the killers of schoolgirls April Jones and Tia Sharp had accessed legal pornography before moving on to images of child abuse." That kind of assertion that there could be a causal link between normal porn and child pron and thence to child murder is absolutely outrageous. Its ridiculous that someone using logic as faulty as that could be responsible for implementing legislation.

07-22-13  01:42pm - 435 days #7
Ed2009 (7)
Active Webmaster




Posts: 493
Registered: Sep 12, '09
Location: Wales, UK
I've already had to remove softcore sets from my site a while ago due to previous changes in UK law. In a sense the problem isn't so much the law directly, but that the billing companies will play it safe and adopt the strictest interpretation of the law (as they usually do).

I used to have a couple of photosets where girls were pranked by other girls stripping them while they slept. I also had some videos where women were "hypnotised" and tricked into getting naked. All fun, all fantasy and all strictly softcore with no sex, but all fell foul of the rules on non-consensual sex and had to be removed immediately on pain of losing my billing facilities.

I notice the movie studios don't have to stop depicting murder, rape, violence etc. in case someone copies it or is incited by it. Webmaster of StripGameCentral and A Measure of Curiosity.

07-22-13  04:46pm - 435 days #8
TheSquirrel (53)
Active User



Posts: 693
Registered: Oct 29, '08
Location: UK
Yep anything to do with rape now is going to be banned. It will depend on how you, and more importantly the law, interprets it. You have to opt in from now on to be able to access porn. Thin end of the wedge? Very probably.

It's not that long ago you were sent inside for selling straight hardcore. I know I ordered some videos from someone who received two years for selling some mainstream run of the mill American hardcore videos which wouldn't make you bat an eyelid nowadays.

All you have to do is blame any violent act on online porn and the media owned by the very rich will be screaming for more controls, resulting in the general public, 90% of whom, just happen to be inferior fucking morons, to be screaming for the same thing.

That's just the way I feel. Should I feel superior to most of them? Yes, probably. That doesn't make my opinion more important, I just happen to feel superior. Edited on Jul 22, 2013, 06:16pm

07-22-13  08:33pm - 435 days #9
graymane (31)
Active User



Posts: 1,350
Registered: Feb 20, '10
Location: Virginia
Puts more teeth in the popular old command: "Don't do as I do....just do as I Say do!

======================================
Ever notice:?
The more our governing entities turn up the heat on suppressing porn, the wiser, aggressive and more actively creative the industry's deep pockets work, behind the scene, to come back bigger and stronger when all has blown over .... theoretically beginning while in the throes of an existing threat (as in the case represented in this thread).

Porn is like a would-be fictionalized, indestructible robotic insect..... stomp on it, spray it -- whatever -- but you ain't gonna kill it.

07-23-13  03:46am - 435 days #10
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,943
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by jberryl69:


Do you get the impression that the Daily Mail is repressively obsessed with sex & murder?


It's a tabloid after all, isn't it?

Here in America though we have all of our news media outlets obsessed with sex and murder. In fact, our tabloids have nothing on the yellow journalism juggernauts that are Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

07-23-13  04:16am - 435 days #11
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,943
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by Reveen:


I'm from Ireland so this doesn't directly affect me....yet. Usually if the UK does something then our government follows suit like a bunch of sheep.


Forgive my ignorance, but I'm surprised Ireland doesn't have stricter porn laws already considering the majority Roman Catholic population (for example, elective abortion is largely illegal). Still, like abortion, I think trying to restrict porn can lead more people to simply break the law regardless of the consequences.

With the news of this recent proposal and now all the weak-kneed babble over the birth of a child to a tax-funded show family I'm kinda glad I'm not living in Britain at the moment. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

07-23-13  06:34am - 435 days #12
TheSquirrel (53)
Active User



Posts: 693
Registered: Oct 29, '08
Location: UK
Originally Posted by turboshaft:


With the news of this recent proposal and now all the weak-kneed babble over the birth of a child to a tax-funded show family I'm kinda glad I'm not living in Britain at the moment.


A prostitute is paid to have sex, this one is paid to breed and that's what she's done, unfortunately she's a very expensive one. One more mouth to ponce off us.

Weak kneed babble from losers who don't have a life, so have to live other lives by proxy. Fat stupid slobs sitting in front of a tv set will have changed channel from a 90's sitcom to feel good about that baby, and about restrictions on porn. They will feel good after beating some sense into the wife, then alternating between stuffing a 4000 calorie meal into their faces and picking mould from their yellow toe nails.

However I far prefer them to Mr 100 IQ Sensible, who knows what he thinks because the media tells him what to think. Of course he believes they're all his own opinions, but he doesn't have either the time or intelligence to think for himself. He's too busy working 8 til 6 then driving home for two hours to a wife and kids that hate him. It was either him, or work and spinsterhood, so not much choice there.

I prefer Mr Loser because he knows he has the life quality and expectancy of a battery hen, whereas Mr Sensible thinks he counts. Mr Loser I feel sad for, Mr Sensible I just want to smash in the face repeatedly with a hammer. I have anger issues. Edited on Jul 23, 2013, 07:00am

07-23-13  10:02am - 434 days #13
Reveen (0)
Active User

Posts: 95
Registered: Apr 06, '09
Originally Posted by turboshaft:


Forgive my ignorance, but I'm surprised Ireland doesn't have stricter porn laws already considering the majority Roman Catholic population (for example, elective abortion is largely illegal). Still, like abortion, I think trying to restrict porn can lead more people to simply break the law regardless of the consequences.


I can see why you might assume that. With regard to physical distrubition of erotica/porn regulations are still pretty strict in Ireland. Hell you couldn't even buy Playboy in Ireland till about 20 years ago, the most you could get from a newsagents was H&E (Health and Efficiency), an extremely tame nudism magazine (perhaps some of the UK posters here might remember the thrill of getting one of these as a teenager lol).

About 20 years ago, when the various scandals surrounding the Catholic church broke there was a massive disillusionment with the church. Around that time homosexuality was legalised, contraception was allowed to be made available over the counter and not just with a doctors prescription and sex shops were legalised. Abortion is still a hot topic with mainly people over 50 objecting under any circumstance and those under 50 more tolerant. Church attendances since the scandals have fallen dramatically with most attendances being made up of pensioners.

Online porn has rather flown under the radar as it were in Ireland with no regulation as to the distribution or consumption of it (although I think there are harsh restrictions on production here, but its too small a market to sustain local production anyway). Everyone I know uses porn and certainly until now there's been no discussion in political circles about restricting it, sort of a "if you don't talk about it, it doesn't exist" attitude if you know what I mean.

07-23-13  04:24pm - 434 days #14
Drooler (218)
Active User



Posts: 1,684
Registered: Mar 11, '07
Location: USA
Originally Posted by TheSquirrel:


A prostitute is paid to have sex, this one is paid to breed and that's what she's done, unfortunately she's a very expensive one. One more mouth to ponce off us.

Weak kneed babble from losers who don't have a life, so have to live other lives by proxy. Fat stupid slobs sitting in front of a tv set will have changed channel from a 90's sitcom to feel good about that baby, and about restrictions on porn. They will feel good after beating some sense into the wife, then alternating between stuffing a 4000 calorie meal into their faces and picking mould from their yellow toe nails.

However I far prefer them to Mr 100 IQ Sensible, who knows what he thinks because the media tells him what to think. Of course he believes they're all his own opinions, but he doesn't have either the time or intelligence to think for himself. He's too busy working 8 til 6 then driving home for two hours to a wife and kids that hate him. It was either him, or work and spinsterhood, so not much choice there.

I prefer Mr Loser because he knows he has the life quality and expectancy of a battery hen, whereas Mr Sensible thinks he counts. Mr Loser I feel sad for, Mr Sensible I just want to smash in the face repeatedly with a hammer. I have anger issues.


Perhaps, then, you'd enjoy this from the Onion on the subject of the royal birth.

And if anyone can explain the humor here, I'm all ears. Good DNA, good T 'n A.

If the scene is going to be any good, the title for it had better have an exclamation mark.

07-23-13  05:50pm - 434 days #15
TheSquirrel (53)
Active User



Posts: 693
Registered: Oct 29, '08
Location: UK
Originally Posted by Drooler:


Perhaps, then, you'd enjoy this from the Onion on the subject of the royal birth.

And if anyone can explain the humor here, I'm all ears.


I think it's all about having his father's eyes, linked to a picture of a demon holding a pair of eyeballs, and another of a demon bursting out of the stomach Not exactly a loud guffaw.

07-23-13  05:52pm - 434 days #16
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,943
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^You got to love the Brits and their dark humor. I'm assuming that you saw the article and that you also saw the picture above it. The picture should help with the joke. Long live the Brown Coats.

07-23-13  06:33pm - 434 days #17
Reveen (0)
Active User

Posts: 95
Registered: Apr 06, '09
Before we start getting too off-topic here A post I saw on another forum really pointed out what will happen with this block

"There's nothing simple about having an opt in, incidentally. Because it also requires the setting up of a database of harmful sites to be blocked. And that raises all sorts of questions regarding who decides which sites are to blocked, what criteria they use, whether sites can appeal their blocking, whether the list is publicly available etc.

You don't see anything wrong with putting control of what sites can be seen in the hands of a few individuals?"

How many thousands of porn sites will they have to check through? Inevitably some will get through the block and someone will sue the government.

Also, I'm not one for believing in conspiracy theories but I think there is a legitimate concern over a government deciding what sites can be seen. So today its porn that they go after, next will it be protest groups? or animal rights organisations? or political blogs? consumer-rights groups? I don't know if I'd trust any government not to try and block opposing groups. We're getting into the area of thought-crime here.

And also, what if someone releases the names of those that are on the non-blocked list? "Well we'll hire Mr Smith because he's not a pornhound, but Mr Jones is a dirty dawg so we won't hire him" etc etc

07-24-13  06:13am - 434 days #18
TheSquirrel (53)
Active User



Posts: 693
Registered: Oct 29, '08
Location: UK
Originally Posted by Reveen:


Before we start getting too off-topic here A post I saw on another forum really pointed out what will happen with this block

"There's nothing simple about having an opt in, incidentally. Because it also requires the setting up of a database of harmful sites to be blocked. And that raises all sorts of questions regarding who decides which sites are to blocked, what criteria they use, whether sites can appeal their blocking, whether the list is publicly available etc.

You don't see anything wrong with putting control of what sites can be seen in the hands of a few individuals?"

How many thousands of porn sites will they have to check through? Inevitably some will get through the block and someone will sue the government.

Also, I'm not one for believing in conspiracy theories but I think there is a legitimate concern over a government deciding what sites can be seen. So today its porn that they go after, next will it be protest groups? or animal rights organisations? or political blogs? consumer-rights groups? I don't know if I'd trust any government not to try and block opposing groups. We're getting into the area of thought-crime here.

And also, what if someone releases the names of those that are on the non-blocked list? "Well we'll hire Mr Smith because he's not a pornhound, but Mr Jones is a dirty dawg so we won't hire him" etc etc


Couldn't have put it better myself. Also it's not the slightest bit off topic, it's directly on topic. I have said in the past on this forum it's all about money and control. The internet is the one place left which has free speech, or at least close to it. Big business owns the media, but they don't own all websites or the whole internet, so they need to control it.

Control and censorship is political, it shows us who is boss, and stifles protest. A free(ish) internet, is about to become a thing of the past. What could be a future is wireless or even satellite connections with renegade foreign isp's.

Politicians have continually used terrorism and piracy in arguments for control. They need and want terrorism. 9/11 was perfect for them. If it was a fringe Islamic attack, it didn't harm government at all, it helped cement control. Those in power like Blair and Bush must have raised their eyes to the sky and thanked their god for this most wondrous gift.

07-24-13  09:26am - 433 days #19
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,544
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Another article on Britain's ban on internet porn.

Wondering how much of a hit internet porn sites will feel after this goes into effect.

.........

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100907216

Internet
No porn please, we're British


Published: Wednesday, 24 Jul 2013 | 6:57 AM ET
By: Chris Morris, Special to CNBC.com





As U.K. Internet surfers prepare for major changes to the availability of online porn, U.S. adult entertainment companies are scrambling to determine the potential consequences on their bottom lines.

British Prime Minister David Cameron announced Monday that the U.K.'s four biggest Internet service providers will automatically block access to porn sites for both new and existing connections, unless users specifically request that the filters be disabled. The new measures are expected to be in place before the end of the year.

"Young people have always been curious about pornography and they have always sought it out," Cameron said in a speech. "But it used to be that society could protect children by enforcing age restrictions on the ground whether that was setting a minimum age for buying top-shelf magazines, putting watersheds on the TV, or age rating films and DVDs. But the explosion of pornography on the Internet—and the explosion of the Internet into children's lives—has changed all that profoundly. It's made it much harder to enforce age restrictions and much more difficult for parents to know what's going on."

Forecasting the economic impact of the action on the porn industry isn't proving easy. Globally, porn is a $97 billion industry, according to Kassia Wosick, assistant professor of sociology at New Mexico State University. At present, $10 billion to $12 billion comes from the United States, but it's harder to determine how big a percentage the U.K. represents.



A 2006 study by Nielsen NetRatings, however, found Britain to be the world's fastest growing pornography market—with almost 40 percent of the country's male population visiting porn sites at least once a year.

That's due in part to the country's already stringent policies on adult content. (Television is restrictive about what can be shown and adult DVDs sold are often censored versions.) For people wanting to see hardcore porn, the Web is often the best option.



"It's going to hurt the big boys," said Ogi Ogas, author of "A Billion Wicked Thoughts," a pop psychology book. "They're going to feel it. It will probably help places like Tumblr and such, where amateurs are free to publish whatever they want. Corporations are going to suffer."



While no one is willing to project specific financial losses, most agree that the company most likely to be affected by these restrictions is Manwin, which controls the Brazzers and RealityKings collection of websites as well as several adult "tube" sites (think Youtube for porn).

"It will be very easy to block these tube sites," said Ogas. "Those account for the vast majority of people's online porn use."

U.S.-based porn companies say they're bracing for a potential hit, but won't know how big a disruption it will be until a few details about the opt-in process for viewing adult content online are made clear.



"I'm not sure what you're going to see when you go to those sites now," said Michael Klein, president of LFP Inc., which owns and oversees the Hustler empire. "The only sites you're affecting are the ones who already have [age verification] precautions in place. ... When you type in Hustler.com, are you going to see a page saying 'enter your credit card'? [If so,] that's going to have an impact because people have no idea what they're buying. ... The U.K. is just one portion of our business, but I'm sure it will have some impact."

Adult holders of existing accounts will be asked directly by the ISPs if they'd like the filters added to their accounts over the next 18 months, the government said. That, essentially, will require customers to not only verify their age, but also confirm that they'd like the ability to watch porn online.



And having to make that declaration could be costly for the industry.

"Obviously people are not going to want to do that," said Robert Rosen, a porn publishing veteran and author of "Beaver Street: A History of Modern Pornography". "People just don't want to come out in public and say 'I want to look at porn'. A lot of people who do look at porn are inhibited, shy people."

The U.K. is hardly the first country to ban online porn. Last year, an Egyptian court ordered that all X-rated websites be blocked. China and Saudi Arabia also have mandated filters on their Internet connections. Officials in Iceland, a largely liberal country, proposed a ban earlier this year—though the movement seems to have lost steam after the country's ruling party lost control in recent elections.

And in India, ISPs were ordered to block 39 websites serving up porn earlier this month—following a petition from the country's Supreme Court to establish a ban on online porn. (Government officials stopped short of a complete ban, saying they didn't believe such a thing was possible.)

That may, in fact, be an accurate assessment. Porn, like nature, tends to find a way.



While Cameron warns that access to online porn is "corroding childhood," Rosen notes that children have always found a way to circumvent rules meant for their protection.

"If kids want to look at pornography, they usually figure out how to do it," he said.

Ogas agrees. For "A Billion Wicked Thoughts," he and co-author and fellow neuroscientist Sai Gaddam did an extensive study of online pornography to determine how the area of the brain that generates sexual desire and arousal worked—and were amazed at how widespread it was.

"I can tell you from our research, we went through and tried to identify every piece of porn online—and it is an impossible task to try to filter it all out," he said.

—By Chris Morris, for CNBC.com.

07-25-13  04:08am - 433 days #20
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,943
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by TheSquirrel:


Politicians have continually used terrorism and piracy in arguments for control. They need and want terrorism. 9/11 was perfect for them. If it was a fringe Islamic attack, it didn't harm government at all, it helped cement control. Those in power like Blair and Bush must have raised their eyes to the sky and thanked their god for this most wondrous gift.


I wouldn't go so far as to say that politicians want terrorism, but I would say that most are cynical opportunists and terrorists attacks serve as great opportunities for passing new laws and gaining more power.

When we--the U.S. congress, anyway--passed the dystopian Patriot Act back in 2001 it made a lot of Americans less than the hopeful about how rational political leaders could be in the post-9/11 world. And given that the original bill was passed within two months of the 9/11 attacks and is over 300 pages long people have plenty of reason to be concerned.

Hell, one of its more infamous abuses was to investigate a Las Vegas strip club. And this would be fine if we were all living in the movie Casino, with Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci running things. Except we live in the real world and instead it was used to peer into the seamy underbelly of library records and conduct searches without warrants, and even if authorities had a warrant they didn't need to immediately tell suspects their homes would be searched. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

07-26-13  02:05am - 432 days #21
slutty (111)
Active User

Posts: 459
Registered: Mar 02, '09
Location: Pennsylvania
Just heard about this on my 2-day old NPR podcast today, I try to stay current (but have been falling behind)! Assuming this goes through, will any of the brits here sign up? And I guess more importantly, would PU be one of the blocked sites?

If it does go through, I would bet the teenage pregnancy rate goes through the roof (due to even hornier teens and accidentally blocked sex-ed sites). Bunny Lebowski: I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars.
Brandt: Ah hahahahaha! Wonderful woman. We're all, we're all very fond of her. Very free-spirited.

07-26-13  08:37am - 431 days #22
Reveen (0)
Active User

Posts: 95
Registered: Apr 06, '09
Originally Posted by slutty:


Just heard about this on my 2-day old NPR podcast today, I try to stay current (but have been falling behind)! Assuming this goes through, will any of the brits here sign up? And I guess more importantly, would PU be one of the blocked sites?


I'd imagine pornusers would be blocked, after all it has porn in its name

What this will do is force people to use proxies. Already the UK and Irish governments have been trying to block piratebay for years without much success and TPB has dozens of proxy sites now.

There was another message board post I saw yesterday which summed up things really well. Since I agree with it, I'll copy it and save myself from typing everything out

"they can't block the pirate bay. How are they going to block millions of porn sites!
The truth is that they can't.

I don't mean they 'shouldn't' or they 'won't do it effectively' - I mean *they can't filter the internet and still have it resemble the internet.

There are really two separate issues here, filtering *content* like porn and filtering *sites* (that have porn content).

ISPs cannot filter content. Why not? Even if they monitor every byte that goes between your computer and a site on the internet, they can't stop encryption. The same type of encryption that protects us when we buy something from Amazon.co.uk or check our g-mail. At the core of encryption, we've got math problems that are computationally hard to solve. And we're decades away from that changing (if it ever does).

Anyone who wants to, can encrypt data between themselves and someone else. The ISP can't read it. The government can't read it. It doesn't even take prior sharing of private keys or anything - and everything can be observed, it doesn't matter. Encryption is awesome.

If the block all 'unrecognized' traffic (this, they could do) - it would break the internet. Everything would be sent encrypted. Logging into sites would be an invitation for everyone to sniff your password. Buying anything online would be the same as giving your credit card number away.

If they don't - they'll never be able to stop people from downloading/uploading/sharing encrypted content. And that encrypted content can be *anything*.

The other issue is blocking individual sites that allow content they don't approve of. There are two ways you can attempt to do this....maintain a list of every single site in the world that contains content you don't like (blacklisting) and prevent people from connecting to them.....or, maintain a list of every single site in the world that is 'safe' to visit and blocking everything else (whitelisting).

Blacklisting can't work. And neither can whitelisting....

All anyone needs to do is connect to a server that is not on the blacklist and then make the request from there to the blacklisted site. Easy as pie. VPNs/proxies/ssh tunnels - I paid 2 euro per month for a US based server so I could get the US version of Netflix before it was available in Ireland.....and there are countless ones available free, online. There are legitimate uses for VPNs and proxies. If you disallow them - you've fundamentally broken the internet. Businesses in Ireland depend on them. If your whitelist includes them - anyone can access any site they want by connecting through one of these sites first.

Besides all of that - many sites are easily classified as either porn or not porn. Many sites I visit are primarily not-porn, but have adult content. It would take an effort larger than the UK could muster to actively police all of these sites to block just the sections of content....and any site that offers https:// connections prevents any content-based filtering from occurring.

At it's very core - this *cannot* work. They can't filter the internet. It's just not possible. Physically, logically, this entire debate is really, really pointless, because it can't be done. It's not even 'really impractical' - this is 'impossible'. This is like passing a law that is going to 'block gravity' or order the sun to stop shining so much."

07-26-13  10:27am - 431 days #23
skunk (0)
Active Webmaster




Posts: 56
Registered: Jun 21, '12
Location: UK/london
What they are doing is the same as they did with the mobiles that did not work.

I do not see it having any impact on porn if any thing will make more look for it as it will make it more propeller you see it all the time when they ban something.

All the thing are there now to stop there kids seeing porn and any adult dating sits.
It is that the parents can not be bothered to set them up with a click of the mouse.

so need a nanny state to do it for them.

im in the uk and most of the users to my site use mobiles to access the content. so what they are planing will not change that.

and if i need to look at a ban site i use proxyspy and i can see what i like lol http://www.sexxximps.com

07-26-13  12:34pm - 431 days #24
Wittyguy (95)
Active User



Posts: 1,058
Registered: Feb 04, '08
Location: Left Coast, USA
Superficially I can see where an "opt in" program for porn searches would be acceptable in terms of limiting kids' exposure to it and shutting up the uptight religious nuts who complain about current "everything goes" model we have right now. However, it only takes a few seconds to start conjuring up all the bad ju-ju that is bound to happen.

1. Not a lot really changes: Porn companies adapt so that their sites still come up in regular searches. Companies may also limit previews in order to disguise their wares (not good for us).

2. Another waste of tax payer $$: Some government agency has to buy a bunch of hardware / software and start filtering. Australia already does (or recently did) filtering and the results weren't pretty to say the least. Legitimate companies get pushed from the regular web, work arounds are too easy, people link into servers outside the country, etc. etc. Meanwhile you've created another bureaucracy whose sole mission is to protect and expand it's turf, increase it's budget and stay alive indefinitely while ultimately not really doing the job it was tasked with doing. Yay.

3. You've created another database for the government to track your online activity. How long before this gets abused, gets hacked, or otherwise shared with other government branches who can use your activity as blackmail (official or otherwise)?

4. You actually decrease national security. The more content that is blocked from the internet, the more people are likely to try and find a work around especially with something as universally desirable as porn. I noted this in the "Free Speech and Porn" thread before. The more government restricts then the natural reaction is for people to get more creative and secretive about what they do online. Encryption increases (very expensive and time consuming for the gov. to crack hard encryption even if they capture it) as do other work arounds. As more people start to move into a secondary web system you also lose more control over being able to monitor and regulate it.

5. All of this results in a mess with root cause being politicians who like to pick the low hanging fruit of "protecting children" or "moral decency" for cheap political points while in fact the result will be a bunch of wasted time and money and future abuse waiting to happen while nothing really changes.

07-27-13  05:28am - 431 days #25
elephant (65)
Active User



Posts: 312
Registered: Jan 11, '07
I really cannot believe this could ever work and the huge cost to the British tax payer just because of lazy parents who can't be arsed setting up the filter their end. It's just baffling, just have a major advertising campaign of protect your offspring viewing on the internet, do a subtle tv advert and website, make it easy for parents to set up. I'm no politician but surely this makes more sense.

It will have an absolute major effect to porn industry though as someone said above, most people will not signup as it means standing up and saying I love porn. Ain't gonna happen with millions not doing it and without porn which is in fact a major release for lots of guys then yeah their will seek it out elsewhere, back to porn mags stashes maybe lol.

What is annoying though as they should clear up other things first like movies and tv with all the violence and unbelievable things that pass censorship things that get on the tv with programs about cannibalism and films like hostel and human centipede which are shown on tv and so easy for a youngster to see. Then there violent computer games which have much more of an ill effect than some nookie scene. where does it all end but yeah I'd be more worried about a violent film than a naked body. "Women are like tricks by sleight of hand, Which, to admire, we should not understand." WILLIAM CONGREVE

07-27-13  06:46am - 431 days #26
Ed2009 (7)
Active Webmaster




Posts: 493
Registered: Sep 12, '09
Location: Wales, UK
Originally Posted by turboshaft:


Forgive my ignorance, but I'm surprised Ireland doesn't have stricter porn laws already considering the majority Roman Catholic population (for example, elective abortion is largely illegal). Still, like abortion, I think trying to restrict porn can lead more people to simply break the law regardless of the consequences.

With the news of this recent proposal and now all the weak-kneed babble over the birth of a child to a tax-funded show family I'm kinda glad I'm not living in Britain at the moment.

Don't forget that the Royal family made a deal long ago with the UK government. The Government took over ownership over huge amounts of Royal estates and land on condition that the Royal family was supported from the proceeds. Check the figures - the Government have still made massively more money from that deal than it has ever cost them. The fact that they have sold of much of that property (reducing future income) is a decision solely of the Government.

Also our head of state (the Queen) costs a lot less than most Presidents in other democracies. Plus as she only costs each citizen of the UK about 50p per year, it's hardly a big cost in comparison to MANY others. Webmaster of StripGameCentral and A Measure of Curiosity.

07-27-13  11:31am - 430 days #27
Drooler (218)
Active User



Posts: 1,684
Registered: Mar 11, '07
Location: USA
Originally Posted by Wittyguy:


Superficially I can see where an "opt in" program for porn searches would be acceptable in terms of limiting kids' exposure to it and shutting up the uptight religious nuts who complain about current "everything goes" model we have right now. However, it only takes a few seconds to start conjuring up all the bad ju-ju that is bound to happen.

1. Not a lot really changes: Porn companies adapt so that their sites still come up in regular searches. Companies may also limit previews in order to disguise their wares (not good for us).

2. Another waste of tax payer $$: Some government agency has to buy a bunch of hardware / software and start filtering. Australia already does (or recently did) filtering and the results weren't pretty to say the least. Legitimate companies get pushed from the regular web, work arounds are too easy, people link into servers outside the country, etc. etc. Meanwhile you've created another bureaucracy whose sole mission is to protect and expand it's turf, increase it's budget and stay alive indefinitely while ultimately not really doing the job it was tasked with doing. Yay.

3. You've created another database for the government to track your online activity. How long before this gets abused, gets hacked, or otherwise shared with other government branches who can use your activity as blackmail (official or otherwise)?

4. You actually decrease national security. The more content that is blocked from the internet, the more people are likely to try and find a work around especially with something as universally desirable as porn. I noted this in the "Free Speech and Porn" thread before. The more government restricts then the natural reaction is for people to get more creative and secretive about what they do online. Encryption increases (very expensive and time consuming for the gov. to crack hard encryption even if they capture it) as do other work arounds. As more people start to move into a secondary web system you also lose more control over being able to monitor and regulate it.

5. All of this results in a mess with root cause being politicians who like to pick the low hanging fruit of "protecting children" or "moral decency" for cheap political points while in fact the result will be a bunch of wasted time and money and future abuse waiting to happen while nothing really changes.


It all looks pretty much like the "nanny state" that conservatives in the US pretend to rail about -- except when it's THEM doing the nannying. Good DNA, good T 'n A.

If the scene is going to be any good, the title for it had better have an exclamation mark.

07-27-13  04:50pm - 430 days #28
TheSquirrel (53)
Active User



Posts: 693
Registered: Oct 29, '08
Location: UK
Originally Posted by Ed2009:


Don't forget that the Royal family made a deal long ago with the UK government. The Government took over ownership over huge amounts of Royal estates and land on condition that the Royal family was supported from the proceeds. Check the figures - the Government have still made massively more money from that deal than it has ever cost them. The fact that they have sold of much of that property (reducing future income) is a decision solely of the Government.

Also our head of state (the Queen) costs a lot less than most Presidents in other democracies. Plus as she only costs each citizen of the UK about 50p per year, it's hardly a big cost in comparison to MANY others.


This is true but it depends on perspective. They sold land which had been stolen from the original owners. Their ancestors invaded, fought, killed the inhabitants, one another, then the survivors exploited the resources. Nothing new there. The Queen and Charles own over �1bn worth of land.

There was a great documentary on Channel Four about 10 years ago which exposed Charles as a rogue property developer riding over the small guy and the law. He is supposed to dislike property developers and the rape of the countryside yet was exposed as doing just that.

I think the Royal Family en masse is supposed to cost the taxpayer just over 60p a year. I just hate 60p of my hard earned going to a bunch of people who are for all intents and purposes completely worthless human beings, have little intelligence, no idea about the world, or other human beings, no taste, no clothes sense, no ability to communicate, no sense of humour, are dull, boring, with no sense of decency, integrity or morality, and thoroughly rotten to the core... and these are supposed to be the people I admire and look up to? F**k no. Edited on Jul 27, 2013, 04:58pm

07-27-13  04:58pm - 430 days #29
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,544
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
I don't really understand the mechanics of trying to block internet access to porn sites.

skunk lives in the UK, and he says that using a mobile or proxyspy would bypass any internet restrictions.

Is it really that simple?

And what is proxyspy?

If it were that simple, what about China's censorship of the internet?

Wikipedia says:
Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China is conducted under a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations. In accordance with these laws, more than sixty Internet regulations have been made by the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC), which have been implemented by provincial branches of state-owned ISPs, companies, and organizations.[1][2] The apparatus of the PRC's Internet repression is considered more extensive and more advanced than in any other country in the world. The governmental authorities not only block website content but also monitor the Internet access of individuals.

China is not using all those resources, spending millions of dollars (hundreds of millions?) on censoring internet access for something that can be bypassed by using a mobile phone or some proxyspy program.

07-28-13  01:17am - 430 days #30
slutty (111)
Active User

Posts: 459
Registered: Mar 02, '09
Location: Pennsylvania
I would imagine China probably has an easier time with this since the pretty much control their intra-country-net, which probably isn't the same situation as in the UK where corporations and other entities probably have a lot more involvement. If the goal is to avoid children seeing porn, I don't think it is a bad idea in principle, I'm not really a fan of having such an opt-in list, just for the pure fact that it could be potentially used to shame people. The greater concern is all the important information they block on accident. Perhaps they will do a better job of it, but I still remember all the stupid filters on library computers that prevented pretty much any website with a bad word, what that site says something about vaginas, it must be blocked!

Would be kind of funny if every OB/GYN in the UK had to sign up. Bunny Lebowski: I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars.
Brandt: Ah hahahahaha! Wonderful woman. We're all, we're all very fond of her. Very free-spirited.

07-28-13  01:51am - 430 days #31
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,943
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by TheSquirrel:


I think the Royal Family en masse is supposed to cost the taxpayer just over 60p a year. I just hate 60p of my hard earned going to a bunch of people who are for all intents and purposes completely worthless human beings, have little intelligence, no idea about the world, or other human beings, no taste, no clothes sense, no ability to communicate, no sense of humour, are dull, boring, with no sense of decency, integrity or morality, and thoroughly rotten to the core... and these are supposed to be the people I admire and look up to? F**k no.


You sound almost as indifferent as me, Squirrel.

I still think it's pretty dumb, if not extremely embarrassing, to be an American and witness my fellow citizens swoon over something as anachronistic and undemocratic as a royal family. I guess they're enchanted by what they think is a fairytale come to life or something. Unfortunately it's real and still has enough people convinced it's something worthy of more respect than a Disney cartoon.

Maybe Ed2009 is right and you don't spend as much on the Queen as other democracies do on their heads of state, ceremonial or otherwise. The U.S. president has an annual salary of $400k, but his constant travel cost millions (mainly to feed the gargantuan security octopus that is required to protect him).

And your country has got nothing on us when comes to electing leaders (or having the Supreme Court choose one). According to the BBC, our last presidential was estimated to cost about $5.8 billion dollars while your 2010 general election was only $49 million.

Amateurs. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

07-28-13  06:52am - 430 days #32
Cybertoad (104)
Active User



Posts: 2,046
Registered: Jan 01, '08
Location: Wash
Its all about money, and how much they tell us they need ours as financial institution world wide have neared collapsing.
They still find money for Gold trips and world wide vacations and spending sprees. Our White House spend more then any president in the past but will claim we are broke and closed the White House tours and then her flits off to Hawaii .
The UK amazes me how figure heads are supported by such high taxes and the royals have no power politically is just odd. And I think makes it worse. Dianna was about the only person of royalty to really go out and do something for people.
And then they want our porn too,

07-28-13  04:44pm - 429 days #33
LPee23 (13)
Active User

Posts: 143
Registered: Jul 14, '13
Location: USA
Let's call it what it is - this is just the first step in a crusade against pornography by certain political groups in the UK. And there may be a second front in this offensive. I recently purchased a membership at a site that featured porn produced in the UK and subsequently sold to a business in the Netherlands. This was a site featuring BDSM and peeing that made the claim, which I will admit is absurd, that it was not porn. While I was a member, I saw them take down about two thirds of their sets, amounting to about 15,000 pics and 1 GB worth of porn. They took down probably 98% of their sets containing nudity, leaving only the ones with non-nude S&M. They still have a few dozen sets with nudity, but they are almost entirely non-nude now.

So why did they do this? I quote:

Please also note that recently we have had to remove some of our older content in order to comply with new biller/visa regulations. However, we will have some new content soon to replace it. Sets will be renumbered at that time.

This is a disturbing trend. What do you think, will we see this happen with more UK sites?

07-30-13  04:09pm - 427 days #34
Capn (28)
Active User



Posts: 1,697
Registered: Sep 05, '09
Location: Near the Beer!
I think that once they get a bigger crisis developing the politicians will redirect attention with another tack.

Realistically, I think this is another political feint.

Cap'n. Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU Award
Hilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award
( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/
Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder!

08-01-13  11:14pm - 425 days #35
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,943
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by Capn:


I think that once they get a bigger crisis developing the politicians will redirect attention with another tack.


Like with a hilarious scandal that is synonymous with the politician's last name (no, not Carlos Danger)?

Granted Weiner is not known for crusading against porn--if anything, he should at least consider giving up on the dick pic--but he is running for an office where the previous occupants took issue with things ranging from the 1st Amendment to individual soda size. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

08-16-13  03:53pm - 410 days #36
jupiter4686 (0)
Active User

Posts: 26
Registered: Aug 12, '13
y 2 block its nt illegal,, jst keep away frm kids....

08-17-13  02:48pm - 409 days #37
jupiter4686 (0)
Active User

Posts: 26
Registered: Aug 12, '13
It's a tabloid after all, isn't it?

08-20-13  04:15am - 407 days #38
webstream (0)
Suspended

Posts: 1
Registered: Aug 20, '13
Location: London
Yes Harriet Harman would have a field day with this one. Good luck in trying that one I am sure that the UK will not end up like China.

Adults need to ensure that they police the net for children and software to filter content is a good idea but censorship wont get any of us anywhere

Tarnia
[URL & SIG removed by Admin] Edited by Staff on Aug 20, 2013, 07:25am

08-21-13  07:55pm - 405 days #39
LPee23 (13)
Active User

Posts: 143
Registered: Jul 14, '13
Location: USA
Originally Posted by webstream:


Adults need to ensure that they police the net for children and software to filter content is a good idea but censorship wont get any of us anywhere


Isn't this a contradiction? Also, give a government a powerful tool like ISP filtering, and its only a matter of time before "mission creep" sets in, and they use it for purposes other than it's initial intent. Case in point, consider the US. We now have agencies like DHS, whose creation was made palatable by strict assurances that they will stick to their mission of keeping Americans safe, that now spend taxpayer dollars taking down websites with unauthorized broadcasts of sports games. Once ISP filtering is implemented, it's only a matter of time before it is expanded.

1-39 of 39 Posts Page 1
 
Thread Nav :  Refresh Page  |   First Post  |   Last Post  |   Porn Forum Home


Home - Sites - Users - Reviews - Comments - Categories - Forum

Contact Us - Announcements - FAQ's - Terms & Rules - Porn Review - Webmasters

Protecting Minors
We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.

DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.

To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP!  We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction?  We recommend this helpful resource.

Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.


Loaded in 0.03 seconds.