Opt_in for online porn

[Flat_Eric]

Its a fucking stupid idea anyway as far as child protection is concerned.

Even if we accept (for the sake of argument) that it really is about "protecting children", along with Jim's argument that those willing to pay for it will in fact just opt in, how does that actually protect children?

All that will happen is that Dad will opt in and Junior will merrily carry on accessing porn as before.

And those who choose not to opt in but still want to view porn will presumably just get it in another form, be it mags, DVDs or whatever.

So instead of logging on, Junior will just raid Dad's stash in his wardrobe or garden shed (like those of us who grew up pre-Internet used to). Junior will still get his porn fix.

But it's not really about child protection. Is about censorship and control.

Be careful what you wish for Jim ....

- Eric

[Sam Slater]

[quote]More significanlty though, if forced to actively "opt in", many people who may at present be quite happy to pay for their smut will probably think twice about whether it's really a good idea to tell their ISP that "I WANT TO VIEW PORN" because they would be very worried (and quite rightly in my view) that they'll end up on some government "watch" list.[/quote]

Agreed (though not about the government watchlist part). As I said before, most people watch porn but most don't want their close family knowing. I mean, really....how many 50 year old dads want their 20 year old daughters knowing they're watching other 20 year old girls take cocks up their arses and jizz on their faces? You wouldn't even need dad's laptop. Anyone who uses his wi-fi and types in any adult-themed site will know if he's opted in or not based on if you get access.

It will shame many into not bothering. And I'd say the people that would be shamed most would be middle-aged couples, mum's and dad's. The exact people who probably have much more disposable income to buy porn. The kid's, as you say, will easily work out how to circumvent any blocks.

An attack on viewing porn should be considered at attack on porn itself.

[Flat_Eric]

[quote]It will shame many into not bothering.[/quote]
This is also very true.


[quote]And I'd say the people that would be shamed most would be middle-aged couples, mum's and dad's. The exact people who probably have much more disposable income to buy porn.[/quote]
Many of whom will not even have any kids who need "protecting", or else will have kids who have either fucked off to "uni" or otherwise flown the nest, and who are in any case of legal age to view porn themselves if they choose to.

Also adults living alone. No kids who need potecting there either. As I said higher up in the thread, sledgehammer to crack a nut.


[quote]An attack on viewing porn should be considered at attack on porn itself.[/quote]
100% agree. It's the thin end of the wedge. I suspect that the true motive behind this opt-in propsal is a return to the full-on censorship of porn, followed by more censorship of the wider Internet. But they know they have to tread carefully on both counts, and do it in stages. This is Stage 1. The "protecting childen" thing is just an excuse to try and get the tabloid-reading chattering classes on board.

- Eric

[frankthring]

I suppose its too late to ban the Internet and make the little fuckers read
books ? Can`t we all go back to vhs and dvds ?

[thealtruist]

This is the video nasties controversy all over again. Somebody kicks off, the government need to make it look like they're doing something and rush through an ill thought out law and start panic censoring.

[jimslip]

Eric, as you can imagine, I would lose alot of money if you are correct, but the sad fact is, freebie hunters and tube sites are killing porn stone dead. tube site fans don't peruse the Internet with a view to ultimately joining a paysite, they are leeches, sucking the very life blood out of the twitching carcass of what is left of the porn industry.

I have argued for a long time about the "benefits" of prohibition and history has shown time and time again that the value of the item being prohibited becomes much more desirable and valuable., the more Draconian the prohibition. Your suggestion that people will just give up looking at porn, has one major flaw and that is TESTOSTERONE! The "nectar of the Gods", the drug that guarantees people wont take up gardening or needle work instead of "opting in" to watch porn.

Frank will go crazy, but what we need is a new Mary Whitehouse who can bring back the glamour to our industry, make us dangerous again, instead of being completely accessable to any 10 year old who cares to type in , "Porn" on his PC. I want him to type in, "Porn" and fucking sirens go off all over the house, I want the PC to blow up!

We have become a throwaway freebie, trash that people simply don't value, chew it up and spit out, a bag of KFC scraps consumed and then cast into a dustbin to rot.......except you had to pay for the KFC!

I want to go back to a time when 14 year olds were passing around dog eared centre spreads of girls they've ripped out of a magazine. I want to go back to a time when you'd crawl across burning coals to get your hands on a couple of dodgy VHS tapes.

I want our industry to be WANTED and DESIRED once again and that is why I am happy to be hard to find once again. Like Pennywise the clown, I want to be back in the sewars where I belong! I want people looking over their shoulder when they are Googling "jimslip!"

What about Anne Widdicombe as the new anti porn Zsar?

[img]http://studentcarblog.com/wp-content/up ... ecombe.png[/img]

[Flat_Eric]

Jim you crack me up sometimes, you really do. And I can understand your discombobulation over freebie hunters, pirates and file sharers.

But having an opt-in is not the answer to your problems.

As Sam quite rightly points out, what's to stop the "freebie hunters" from simply opting in themselves? Because if (as you say) they are "driven by testosterone" and want their smut badly enough, they will surely do so if they're the bill-payer.

You need to be going after the torrent sites, the file uploaders and the pirates. Maybe "do a Ben Dover" of your own, even? After all, that is where the "freebie hunters" are getting your material from and bypassing your good self. That - not the freebie hunters - is the root of your problem.

That's the only way you'll get anywhere and make your product more exclusive and less readily accessible to "freebie hunters" - not by focussing your attention on spotty, hormonal teenagers and sad, studenty techno-nerds in shabby bedsits, none of whom could probably afford to join your site anyway.

Because even an "opt in" won't make the tube and torrent sites go away. All your freebie hunter will have to do is either just opt in himself or circumvent the opt in, and you're back to square one.

And if as (I pointed out) it's Dad who's the bill-payer and he chooses to opt in, then Junior and his mates will simply carry on as before, seeking out free porn wherever they can find it.

Bear in mind also that you also run the risk with your opt-in of driving away a lot of punters who will either be concerned about ending up on some government "Deviants Register" or will not want other family members knowing about their porn-surfing habits.

You're looking at it from entirely the wrong angle and you'll achieve nothing by supporting this kind of nannying censorship.

- Eric

[one eyed jack]

Jim,

The free stuff ruining porn is lost on a lot of posters here. You can say it till youre blue in the face and it still wont make no difference.

No one owes anyone enough loyalty to pay them money when it is available for free. What I dont understand is the same said people that find a way to argue that if it is for free then they dont deserve to have some come back on them with regards the controversial soliciting of invoices.

Yes it was ugly and controversial but when the gloves come off it always is. I like to believe the argument is now aimed at the uploaders than the downloaders who are stealing it to make money. If that isnt stealing I dont know what is if they are financially gaining from the theft but he who is without sin cast the first stone eh?

If it aint nailed down someones gonna nick it. It really is that simple. Those who are really guilty are not even up on here to comment or they are in the minority and dont even care. To them its fair game.

People dont give a shit about the music or film industry as long as they can get what they want for free

[thealtruist]

Jim and Jack

You're both missing the point. We totally agree about the tube sites and freebie hunters. We're on your side. The argument here is having to TELL people that we want to watch porn. It's my private business if I want to watch it.

I understand you're views as it impacts on your industry and income but that's not the point. Your views are hindered by pound signs.

[jimslip]

The altruist said:

"I understand you're views as it impacts on your industry and income but that's not the point. Your views are hindered by pound signs."

I think the views of most people are "hindered by pound signs" aren't they? If you get thrown out of your job and you complain to your boss, could he not look at you and say, "Your views are hindered by pound signs! Now get down to the dole office!"

Or perhaps your house gets ransacked and you storm into the police station and complain about the lack of policing, you wouldn't be very pleased if the desk sargeant said, ".......of course sir, your views are hindered by pound signs!"

Of course our views are hindered by pound signs, this is because we actually invest money in makng stuff for millions to steal. Yes, it costs money to make porn, quite alot of money actually. Like OEJ said, it is "Stealing" pure and simple and if nothing else I am really dispappointed that we in porn at some point in the past did not set up an anti-porn pressure group, but concentrated on banning the tube sites. Its too late now.