Opt_in for online porn

[Scottgp]

Just watching the Wright Stuff and another discussion on the proposed opt-in scheme for online porn.

Yet another scheme where people who are doing absolutely nothing wrong, breaking no laws are being held responsible for those who are unable to stop their children accessing porn.

The same old arguments were trotted out:
The children are more tech savy than their parents, who don't know how to set parental filters on their PC's or smart devices. So we have to have an opt-in scheme. I personally see that as an incredibly stupid justification.
As an example, I'm not a plumber, so does that mean I can't get a burst pipe fixed? Of course not, I get someone who does have the skills to fix it. Why is it so difficult then for those parents who don't know how to set parental filters to go and get an expert to set them up or show them how?

If you're a parent who worries that their child is accessing porn online, take their smart phone off them (how many children honestly need smart phones anyway) and don't let them access the internet when you're not there.


Also, where does it stop. You have to opt-in to access Porn to protect innocent children, what about music sites with explicit lyrics, what about sites featuring Horror images or movies, what about news sites with real life images of peril and death?
Should they also be covered in any opt-in schemes? Some of those sites can be incredibly harmful.

[randyandy]

Load of bollocks but the Government being seen as doing something

[Flat_Eric]

Scottgp wrote:

> Also, where does it stop. You have to opt-in to access Porn to
> protect innocent children, what about music sites with explicit
> lyrics, what about sites featuring Horror images or movies,
> what about news sites with real life images of peril and death?
> Should they also be covered in any opt-in schemes? Some of
> those sites can be incredibly harmful.


Exactly. I've said thought all along whenever the subject has come up.

As usual, we have a government using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

If they're really worried about children becoming "sexualised", then they should look no further than the highly sexualised music videos that are being beamed into millions of homes on TV music channels 24/7, featuring scantily-clad glamour model types (male as well as female) wearing next to nothing, rubbing their crotches and leaving nothing whatsoever to the imagination as they dance & pout seductively and sing about sex.

Is anything being said about that (much less proposing a ban)? No. Why? Because it's far easier to hold biased "consultations" that "prove" how children are being "damaged" by "porn" and try and pick up cheap votes from the Daily Mail and blue-rinse brigades.

Who gets to define what "porn" is anyway? Because the more prudish and hysterical argue that it starts with just run-of-the-mill 'tits & bums' stuff in lad-mags and in the tabloid press. In which case presumably the Daily Mail will be wanting to see its own web site blocked, given the amount of semi-nudity they publish on there. Which is deliciously ironic really, given that the Mail is at the forefront of this 'opt-in' campaign.

It worries me that this could be the thin end of a very nasty Orwellian wedge. And I'm sure it will come in some form, given that there are a lot of muddle-headed idiots out there signing petitions who think it's a good idea and the eagerness of poltiicians to pander to such vocal "moral minorities".

If it's porn today, what will our esteemed leaders be wanting to "protect" people from tomorrow? Because if this legislation goes through, we will be heading down the road towards being up alongside the likes of Iran, North Korea and China in the Internet censorship stakes. Is that really a road we want to go down as a society?

- Eric

[jimslip]

Peronally, if they want to "Protect kids" (Actually they call it, "The tyranny of the 9 year old in the US) they should do as they do in Turkey and that is to block all free porn tube sites. It would be so easy, ISP's are given a list every month of tube sites and their new alias's, and they simply block them. At a stroke, "Kids" would suddenly have to have a credit or debit card to access porn.

As far as "opting in" is concerned I don't see what the problem is. You have to opt in your your mobile device and have had to for years. There are many people who simply don't want to be nannied about what they watch, so they'll simply opt in, just on principle, even if they don't watch porn. People who expect to pay for their porn will also just "opt in". It's only the millions of freebie-hunters who lap up pirated porn who will be pissed off, as to them this measure is an "Affront" to their "Uman right" to access free porn when and where they choose without let or hinderance. How dare anyone interfere with their "Freedom!"

They'll have to now phone up their ISP and say, "Hey guys, I'm a porn junkie, can you wire me up please?" lol

Also it will be great for retired porn performers who will be much less likely to have some nasty chav stumble on their stuff on line and then organise a lynch mob to daub the performers house with offensive insults.

So, I'm afraid I simply can't see a downside to any of this! I've always said, prohibit something and you increase its value and desirability, so bring it on!

[Zorro]

Well said Jim, I agree 100%.

The harder porn becomes to get the greater the value and the better it will be for the industry.

[Flat_Eric]

Jim, if people are made to "opt in", what do you think will happen?

Do you think that the folks who are willing to pay for porn now will all just say "OK no problem", contact their ISP to opt in and continue happily subscribing to JimSlip.com?

And that thousands more potential punters who have never even bothered with porn before would suddenly think "Hey! this opting-in to look at porn is a fucking great idea, sign me up please and while we're at it, give me six months of JimSlip!"?

And that armies of kids and freebie-sharers would all suddenly be magically excluded from viewing and trading online smut at a stroke?

Because if that's what you see happening, then I think you're in for a nasty shock my friend, as it won't quite pan out in the way that you envisage.

For one thing, there'll always be plenty of tecchie-nerd types who'll find ways and means of circumventing any blocks & filters, and will just continue downloading and sharing as before, for free.

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.

Because make no mistake - governments love to keep tabs on who's doing what. So all it will take will be another high-profile, shock-horror sex crime (a la Jane Longhurst) with the perp confessing that "it was porn wot made me do it" and before you know it, some Private Member's Bill will be rushed through Parliament "as a matter of urgency", forcing all ISPs to hand to the police (and thus to the state) a list of their "opted-in" porn consumers, whose cards will then of course be well and truly marked by the authorities as potential "deviants".

And of course as I said in my earlier post, if they start off by making people "opt into" porn, what will be the next thing we're told that we have to "opt into" if we want to see it? Where will it end?

I have a lot of time for you normally Jim. But I fear that in this instance, your personal business motives are blinding you to the bigger picture, and the much more sinister implications and motives behind an "opt-in" scheme of the type being proposed.

- Eric

[thealtruist]

I'm sorry, Jim, but I've got to agree with Eric.

I watch porn but I who tell that to is my business. I don't watch anything illegal but that doesn't mean I broadcast it to all and sundry. Porn still has a stigma that people who watch it are perverts despite that most people do.

I don't want to have to tell somebody that I want to watch porn so I can have a wank. It's private and personal.

All this will do is make me use tube sites and torrents. I get my porn fix, no one knows AND I save money.

[Flat_Eric]

thealtruist wrote:

> I watch porn but I who tell that to is my business. I don't
> watch anything illegal but that doesn't mean I broadcast it to
> all and sundry. I don't want to have to tell somebody that I want to
> watch porn so I can have a wank. It's private and personal.


Exactly right.

As long Joe Punter isn't accessing anything illegal, what business is it of anybody's?

Why should Joe Punter have to inform his ISP and/or the state (or for that matter anyone else) that he wants to watch porn in the privacy of his own home, just because some irresponsible parents can't be arsed to keep their kids in check and control their online access?

Whatever happened to the idea of parents actually taking some fucking responsibility for their own kids? And remember also that this is the government that promised to "roll back" the nanny state when it took office.

Personally I think all this "we've got to protect the children" stuff is a load of old bollocks. The same old lame excuse they wheel out time and again when they want to ban or restrict what people do, see, eat, smoke, drink and read.

Because if they were serious about it, there's a whole lot of other "sexual" stuff that's far more readily accessible and visible to kids that they could be clamping down on in order to "protect" them.

As far as I'm concerned it's about censorship and control, and about being "seen to be doing something" - a cynical ploy in pandering to the more prudish elements of the chattering classes who still hold sway with (and also within) the political establishment, who still believe in "No sex please, we're British" and who seek to impose their own narrow-minded, neo-Victorian moral code on everyone else.

- Eric

[Flat_Eric]

This about the "independent" parliamentary inquiry relating to the opt-in proposals.

As it says in the article: that's "independent" as in "biased as fuck".



This is also interesting with regard to how "sexual content" is defined for the purpose of promoting this "gotta protect the kids" anti-porn agenda, and the anecdotal bollocks that's peddled as "evidence".



- Eric

[Sam Slater]

[quote]Peronally, if they want to "Protect kids" (Actually they call it, "The tyranny of the 9 year old in the US) they should do as they do in Turkey and that is to block all free porn tube sites. It would be so easy, ISP's are given a list every month of tube sites and their new alias's, and they simply block them. At a stroke, "Kids" would suddenly have to have a credit or debit card to access porn.[/quote]

And what of amateur couples who choose to publish themselves online for free? What about porn previews and trailers?

[quote]As far as "opting in" is concerned I don't see what the problem is. You have to opt in your your mobile device and have had to for years.[/quote]

I think this is more about saving bandwidth on overstressed 3g networks than protecting anybody.

[quote]There are many people who simply don't want to be nannied about what they watch, so they'll simply opt in, just on principle, even if they don't watch porn.[/quote]

If true then what's the point of spending money implementing the idea?

[quote]It's only the millions of freebie-hunters who lap up pirated porn who will be pissed off, as to them this measure is an "Affront" to their "Uman right" to access free porn when and where they choose without let or hinderance.[/quote]

You just typed that without any thought whatsoever, didn't you? What's stopping 'freebie hunters' just opting in like everyone else?

[quote]They'll have to now phone up their ISP and say, "Hey guys, I'm a porn junkie, can you wire me up please?" lol[/quote]

And so will the customers that have kept you going through the years. So will the one's that, as you say, 'don't want to be nannied about and will opt in on principle'. Yet another sentence with no real thought behind it at all.

[quote]Also it will be great for retired porn performers who will be much less likely to have some nasty chav stumble on their stuff on line and then organise a lynch mob to daub the performers house with offensive insults.[/quote]

I doubt that. Whether principled, payers or freebie hunters, if they want porn they'll opt in. No one's accidentally discovering the girl round the corner is an ex-porn star without looking at porn in the first place. And if they are it's very very rare.

[quote]So, I'm afraid I simply can't see a downside to any of this! I've always said, prohibit something and you increase its value and desirability, so bring it on![/quote]

The only bit you've I think there's any merit to. It might be good for you but it's still making YOUR customers jump through more hoops to give you money. What you gain in the value of your product you may lose in the number of customers.

I've got an idea. Put your money where your mouth is. To increase the value of your product, and create more desirability why don't you force your customers to produce a photo-ID and credit check before accepting their card details? In fact, make them give their card details before they're even allowed to watch a preview on your site. Let's see if what you say works out.