I remember when it wasn't going to be on by default, and also when it was going to be JUST for really revolting/violent pornography. People say that you can't argue slippery slope here, but I say otherwise. The UK government has proven that the temptation to block anything they want by default and shame others into not turning off the block is too great, and I feel that this entire filtering experiment is a step or two away from a China-style firewall.
Just a little perspective...I've got Sky Broadband and turning off this filter took a couple of clicks. Actually it might have even just been one, and that's it.<p>It's been harder to access age restricted content from other providers like Three for over a decade. Access to adult content through the Three network requires you to sign up with a credit card to prove your age for example.<p>Neither of these situations are ideal, nor are they catastrophic. Just retain a little perspective and afford these companies the courtesy of believing the intent is well meaning.<p>Of course there are slippery slopes and changes throughout the years, but also remember we're an 800 year old democracy (almost), that's _probably_ not going to change and it's good to keep a level head about this stuff.
Does anyone know of any studies that show that pornography harms children more than anything else, like seeing bomb victims on nightly news or ISIS beheadings on Facebook? I seem to recall seeing porn when I was a child, and i'm not intellectually or emotionally damaged, as far as I know.
Problem isn't with kids but more with teens.
Instead of trying to ban it, just talk about it.<p>Banning it would only make it slightly harder to find and would make parents believe their child/teen is "safe" and will never see porn... WRONG. Kids have plenty of time to find what they want.<p>Sex education is the only solution.
I'm curious if users of this ISP have alternatives?<p>If one wanted to view porn, and did not want to deal with getting it "enabled", would it be possible to switch to another ISP?
If you do not have it by default, you create an exception list of concerned parents.<p>If you have it on by default, you create an exception list of porn viewers.<p>Which of the two list carries higher privacy concerns?
Based on past performances of this company, I have a feeling this is a side show.<p>What else are they (or their friends) up to that they're trying to distract attention from?
That's all good and well, I used to use OpenDNS to try to block porn, so I can see the idea behind what they are trying to do. Unfortunately my son worked out how to use VPN a long time ago so really the only choice I got now is to be open and talk to him. It did help him learn more about networks and general hackery, so it is all good really..
I wonder how long before they either reverse or otherwise make it boneheadedly easy to opt out. This strikes me as wholly to appease the gov entities and as soon as it negatively impacts the numbers...
To take a bit of a contrarian perspective here, pornography has been linked to human trafficking, at least in Nevada. So if we want to distance ourselves from the religious moral and ethical arguments that oppose the "we're not actually harming ourselves" perspective, there is, at least in part, the perspective that viewing pornography contributes to violations against those viewed.<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0615162053?ie=UTF8&tag=prostreseaa02-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0615162053" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0615162053?ie=UTF8&tag=pros...</a>