Daily Mail - Anti porn hysteria!

[jimslip]

The way I see it, opt in will stamp on millions of timewasters, freebie hunters, peer to peer sharers, adolescent boys and various other hordes of porn leeches who inhabit tube sites and like a massive tumour are destroying this industry. These people are far more destructive to us than any government legislation or Daily Mail campaign. The porn locust is the real enemy of porn!

That rarity, ie the person that believes in paying for his or her porn, will simply opt in, its not a problem for them, they don't want to be nannied. Best of all it puts porn back where it belongs, underground and feared and in turn WORTH PAYING FOR! Making porn "Mainstream" makes it worthless and if its worthless people stop bothering to produce it, which is what is happening now.

The more prohibition, the more desperate people become. I don't want porn on TV, I want people to have to work hard to get it and then they'll appreciate it a little more than seeing it as a throwaway freebie.

So bring it on, what we need is a new Mary Whitehouse, screaming her head off and trying to ban everything, what bliss.......we'd start making serious money again!lol

My hero:
[img]http://www.nndb.com/people/527/00006632 ... granny.jpg[/img]

[Sam Slater]

[quote]The way I see it, opt in will stamp on millions of timewasters, freebie hunters, peer to peer sharers, adolescent boys and various other hordes of porn leeches who inhabit tube sites and like a massive tumour are destroying this industry. These people are far more destructive to us than any government legislation or Daily Mail campaign. The porn locust is the real enemy of porn![/quote]

Sorry, Jim. Utter drivel. You don't have to use your brain to understand how many would-be customers of porn will be put off opting in, as lessimon has already explained. You'll know if someone watches, or is interested in porn simply by typing in any porn url into their computer. For you, it doesn't seem a big deal because you're out there, in the open, making a living from it. But, the average Joe still feels uncomfortable with their wife, husband, son, daughter, brother, sister, nan, work-mate, friend knowing they access porn. I'm sure my Dad, for instance, doesn't want me to know if he watches porn or not, and vice versa. He can call me over to fix his PC safe in the knowledge his privacy on this matter is assured (as long as he's cleaned up the cookies and browsing history etc). With this new proposal I'd just have to type in the url to these forums, on his PC, to find out if he's opted in and that might embarrass him and many others.

A basic grasp of maths would tell you that 1% of 1,000,000 is ten times greater than 100% of 1000. It's why retailers pay higher rents for stores on the main street than the side alleys. Sure you'll get more window shoppers, timewasters and kids nicking stuff, but in the end it makes better business sense due to more genuine customers walking in and spending their dosh.

And don't blame 14 year olds. Hell, I know a fair few pornographers when the internet was just starting to catch on who would specifically avoid credit card payments and would give passwords to websites over premium-rate numbers. It gave teenage kids temporary access to sites when Mum and Dad were out at the weekend and they were home alone. Pornographers specifically targeted the under-18s when it suited them.

Just ask the number of people involved with webcamming and the like to realise how many customers bash themselves silly at work, or when the wife's asleep in the next room. A lot of these customers will be lost with opt-in......unless everybody opts in, which means you'd be in the exact same position you are now.

[Hugh6821]

An opt-in will stop people from visiting genuine porn sites.
It will never stop people from getting porn illegally.

Any UK porn producer supporting this is shooting himself in the head.

But then, the same goes for those who supported anything that would help to track down pirates. Porn isn't like mainstream movies, music, games, etc. No politicians would ever consider use these new tools to shut down access to mainstream content. But they will when it comes to porn.

And for all the attacks on Labour in this thread:
http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/may/04/pornography-online-cameron-opt-in-plan

[jimslip]

I think you'll find New Labour have joined the lynch mob!



Prohibition of anything never works, it just makes what is probibited more desirable. The opt in will cause an enormous collapse of traffic to websites.......ie useless, time wasting freebie hunting traffic. There will be a lull and then serious traffic will return, ie people who do not want to be told what they can and can't watch, will start opting in and we will be left with a World rid of millions of timewasters and porn junkies who either don 't want to pay or simply can't pay.

Never underestimate the power of testosterone!

By the way, I have alot to lose if I am wrong! One way or another this attack on the internet will happen in the end, so time will tell. If you see me cleaning toilets at Gatwick Airport one day, you can say, "Jim, you were wrong!" lol

[Hugh6821]

I'm perfectly aware of New Labour's position, the link was in your first post that started the thread.

Time-wasters and porn junkies will find other ways. Encryption, whether it's encrypted sharing networks, encrypted files in filelockers, or encrypted forums will help them.

I stopped joining sites for two reasons.
1. I don't like to give my details to some person running a pornsite.
2. I found out that I immensely more enjoyed shooting models myself than purchasing what others have shot. Interactive is far more fun than static.

How is the opt-in going to stop the second thing? I will still be able to set up a shoot with a model directly or a caming session.

A lot of people won't want to apply to their ISP or the government to allow them to watch porn sites.

This will hurt sites a lot more than models, performers, and actresses.

[David Johnson]

"Personally, I have no problem with "Opt in", because its just rids us of millions of freebie hunters, "

Typical! You scream endlessly about attacks on civil liberties but as soon as a restriction on civil liberties i.e. this measure, helps to put money in your pocket, in your opinion, you are all in favour.

Some may call Jim Slip, a two-faced hypocrite. I can't possibly comment!

[Toliverwist]

I don't understand how it will stop people viewing free porn. Surely they'll just opt in to view adult material with their ISP, and then visit free porn sites if they want to.

I dimly remember having to opt in to adult material with the Pay As You Go mobile phone service provider Virgin. I was bloody irked at the time, but gave them the details, and thereafter was able to visit adult sites, including free ones.

[andy at handiwork]

These may be of interest:





especially if, like me, you see it as the thin edge of the wedge.

[jimslip]

Johnson, I presume you believe yourself to be some kind of. "Man of the people", it is you who are the fucking hypocrite. If it wasn't for people like me actually investing money in making porn you wouldn't have a BGAFD to come on and spout your endless drivel on!

But I suppose our, "Man of the people" our very own, "Citizen Smith" thinks we should work for nothing! Haven't you noticed the corrupt and greedy values of those you so slavishly and unquestionly adore and obey? Do your New Labour MP's work for nothing, for the common good? Has your hero Tony Blair offered any of his ?20+million horde to those dispossessed by Tory cuts? I think not!

A crazed New Labour nut-ball like you, screaming "hypocrite!" at others is a bit rich if you ask me, you and your New Labour cronies define self serving greed and hipocracy!

How quickly you forget your hero, another "Man of the people" John Prescott, oh sorry I mean LORD PRESCOTT! Sure he should be crowned, King of the Hipocrites and lets not forget the crooked band of New Labour MP's languishing at Her Majesties pleasure for blatant crookedness!

Finally in the name of fuck why are you even on this forum? Given a chance your grass roots, right-on Labour Party supporters would shut BGAFD down in an instant and you'd be leading a mob of donkey-jacketed Jo Brand lookalikes, holding flaming torches outside the magnificent edifices of the BGAFD screaming hysterically "Set the porno perverts to the torch, my comrades!"

Go and preach on a forum that will value your drivel:



You can spend every evening telling eachother how everything would have been just perfect if everyone just voted New Labour every single election!

[David Johnson]

Which of the following points are untrue, Mr Slip?:

1. You have written a large number of posts on this forum hammering the "New Labour" government for introducing restrictions on civil liberties. Some, but not all, of your criticisms I agree with and have stated so.

2. Forcing people to opt in to receive adult material rather than leaving it to an adult/family etc to decide as to what they view, is another example of restrictions on civil liberties in a "nanny state" which may or may not have wider implications than the actual objectives outlined.

3. You have stated in this thread "Personally, I have no problem with "Opt in", because its just rids us of millions of freebie hunters, 14 year old boys and general bandwidth wasters." and "Opt in" doesn't effect successful, established websites like jimslip.com, but it will effect fledgling new websites that are already struggling to stay afloat or simply starting out".

4. In short, based on 3. above, you appear to have "no problem" with this restriction of civil liberty, because it appears to be a good business opportunity for you in terms of giving competitive advantage.

Which of the above points is not true?

It's the same with all restrictions on civil liberties, someone, like your good self always trots out seemingly valid reasons/advantages for these restrictions.

As I said, some might view your stance on this as hypocritical in the light of your history of posts on this forum.

Your reply to my post is rambling, apoplectic, incorrect, misleading, deeply tedious and irrelevant to the specific point I made.