Hi. I have just written a new blog article about David Cameron’s seemingly innocuous wheeze to put ratings on Youtube videos. Together with the plans for Internet filters they contribute to a picture of increasing restrictions on who can actually use to the Internet to get their messages across http://fearthenextpage.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/stage-2-in-destruction-of-internet.html
If the left circle said “People who like the idea of an internet porn filter being automatically implemented without their permission” you would be right. If it represented “People who like the idea of an internet porn filter that helps make their job easier when it comes to protecting their kids”, you would be wrong.
I hate censorship. But that doesn’t mean that all forms of filtering are bad. Filtering helps parents to keep their kids a little safer on the web – whilst making sure that they educate them about the benefits of the web without scaring them. Just a thought 🙂
The diagram, naturally enough, is of course somewhat simplified – but not as much as you suggest, I think, because the option that you proffer, a porn filter that ‘works’ without censorship, and under control of the user, is pretty much impossible, as I and many others have blogged about and discussed in great depth elsewhere. Indeed, it’s a potentially damaging illusion to suggest that such a thing could work, without ending up with a system far more like that in China and Saudi Arabia than anyone with a sense of freedom should be comfortable with. At least that’s how I see it….
But we are not debating the technical capabilities of whether the a filtering system works – as I too have blogged about. Instead, we are commenting people’s preferences/opinions to the concept of filter. So, rather than assume every filter is bad, let’s assume we live in a perfect world and there is a filter that has the ability to block XXX content while not blocking any innocent sites (false positives). Are you saying everyone would rather not have a filter? You can’t actually answer that question without context – pretty much like your post requires more context.
Even in this perfect world, consenting adults (who know how the Internet works) would not want to have someone else filter content on their behalf (unless at work perhaps, but for the sake of this conversation let us avoid grey areas). In the same perfect world, the same people who do not want their content filtered, are likely to filter certain types of content for their kids – at least responsible adults who know how the internet works would anyway.
Back to your original assertion, why is it impossible for a filter without censorship to work? Are you saying this because the concept of filtering is bad no matter what, or are making this assertion because in your opinion there is no filter that’s good enough?
Here is a link to a Dept of Education Report dated dec 2012. http://www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/safeguardingchildren/b00222029/child-internet-safety/parental-internet-controls-consultation
It shows that after an effective public consultation that the majority of parents did not want Internet filtering at all and that the Givernment had accepted advice from experts that Internet filters would block too much innocent content. It is impossible for this not to happen because no computer could make the types of decisions that the Government or any part of the public would like it to make. For instance the recent situation of the British Library filter blocking Hamlet is actually a case of a filter making an accurate assessment. Shakespeare’s tragedies are actually extremely violent. The idea that they are suitable for school age children whereas a gory zombie film isn’t is actually based on a mixture of taste and snobbery not on any kind of logical algorithm that today’s generation of computers could understand and implement. Even if computers could make those sorts of decisions whose agenda will they follow. Feminist campaigners think that page 3 is exploitation all because it objectifies women- David Cameron thinks it is okay because it just shows breasts. What sort of computer would make the choices- a feminist computer, a prudish computer, a naturist computer or a liaises faire computer or a computer owned by Rupert Murdoch?
The scheme cannot operate in ways which could possibly please all the interested parties- and parents all have very different views about what is suitable for their children and children differ in terms of how mature they are and whether they can be trusted to obey their parents.
The biggest worry about default on filters is that people,are being encouraged to think that having censorship is the norm – that the state is going to make decisions for them and that they may be regarded as suspicious of they attempt to turn the filters off. This is the ‘nudge’ principle of government and it is manipulative.
Well, isn’t UK also banning porn? And Google has recently announced that porn is banned on Google Glass (http://mashable.com/2013/06/04/glass-porn-ban/). Which means we’re getting a new anti-porn club: UK + US + Saudi Arabia + Iran = UKUSSAI.
Paul Bernal's Blog 
You know, that Venn diagram looks kind of obscene. FILTER IT!
I’m sure someone will already have done so…..
These two intersecting circles, have a common portion
Reblogged this on The Greater Fool.
I still not seem to understand, but still thank you
that overlapping in the middle looks like a v_ _ _ _ _ . (censored due to keyword indecency).
Hi Paul, Hope you don’t think this is a bit cheeky but I have put in a link here to my latest blog on Cameron’s internet filtering which reveals some of the additional areas of censorship which he is hoping to slip past people on the back of protecting children. http://fearthenextpage.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/why-camerons-default-porn-filters-will.html
Don’t mind at all! I’ll tweet it….
Hi. I have just written a new blog article about David Cameron’s seemingly innocuous wheeze to put ratings on Youtube videos. Together with the plans for Internet filters they contribute to a picture of increasing restrictions on who can actually use to the Internet to get their messages across
http://fearthenextpage.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/stage-2-in-destruction-of-internet.html
If the left circle said “People who like the idea of an internet porn filter being automatically implemented without their permission” you would be right. If it represented “People who like the idea of an internet porn filter that helps make their job easier when it comes to protecting their kids”, you would be wrong.
I hate censorship. But that doesn’t mean that all forms of filtering are bad. Filtering helps parents to keep their kids a little safer on the web – whilst making sure that they educate them about the benefits of the web without scaring them. Just a thought 🙂
The diagram, naturally enough, is of course somewhat simplified – but not as much as you suggest, I think, because the option that you proffer, a porn filter that ‘works’ without censorship, and under control of the user, is pretty much impossible, as I and many others have blogged about and discussed in great depth elsewhere. Indeed, it’s a potentially damaging illusion to suggest that such a thing could work, without ending up with a system far more like that in China and Saudi Arabia than anyone with a sense of freedom should be comfortable with. At least that’s how I see it….
But we are not debating the technical capabilities of whether the a filtering system works – as I too have blogged about. Instead, we are commenting people’s preferences/opinions to the concept of filter. So, rather than assume every filter is bad, let’s assume we live in a perfect world and there is a filter that has the ability to block XXX content while not blocking any innocent sites (false positives). Are you saying everyone would rather not have a filter? You can’t actually answer that question without context – pretty much like your post requires more context.
Even in this perfect world, consenting adults (who know how the Internet works) would not want to have someone else filter content on their behalf (unless at work perhaps, but for the sake of this conversation let us avoid grey areas). In the same perfect world, the same people who do not want their content filtered, are likely to filter certain types of content for their kids – at least responsible adults who know how the internet works would anyway.
Back to your original assertion, why is it impossible for a filter without censorship to work? Are you saying this because the concept of filtering is bad no matter what, or are making this assertion because in your opinion there is no filter that’s good enough?
Here is a link to a Dept of Education Report dated dec 2012. http://www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/safeguardingchildren/b00222029/child-internet-safety/parental-internet-controls-consultation
It shows that after an effective public consultation that the majority of parents did not want Internet filtering at all and that the Givernment had accepted advice from experts that Internet filters would block too much innocent content. It is impossible for this not to happen because no computer could make the types of decisions that the Government or any part of the public would like it to make. For instance the recent situation of the British Library filter blocking Hamlet is actually a case of a filter making an accurate assessment. Shakespeare’s tragedies are actually extremely violent. The idea that they are suitable for school age children whereas a gory zombie film isn’t is actually based on a mixture of taste and snobbery not on any kind of logical algorithm that today’s generation of computers could understand and implement. Even if computers could make those sorts of decisions whose agenda will they follow. Feminist campaigners think that page 3 is exploitation all because it objectifies women- David Cameron thinks it is okay because it just shows breasts. What sort of computer would make the choices- a feminist computer, a prudish computer, a naturist computer or a liaises faire computer or a computer owned by Rupert Murdoch?
The scheme cannot operate in ways which could possibly please all the interested parties- and parents all have very different views about what is suitable for their children and children differ in terms of how mature they are and whether they can be trusted to obey their parents.
The biggest worry about default on filters is that people,are being encouraged to think that having censorship is the norm – that the state is going to make decisions for them and that they may be regarded as suspicious of they attempt to turn the filters off. This is the ‘nudge’ principle of government and it is manipulative.
Reblogged on Samizdata
https://www.samizdata.net/2013/08/how-true/
Paul – wrote an article a while back about the filter (http://blog.dave.io/2013/07/the-proposed-uk-porn-filter-is-a-threat-not-a-safeguard/) and went on Canadian radio to talk about it, so I can assure you that we’re on the same page. Anyway, I knocked this together inspired by your diagram. http://tumblr.dave.io/post/59424258778/why-a-mandatory-internet-filter-is-a-terrible
I like it!!
Well, isn’t UK also banning porn? And Google has recently announced that porn is banned on Google Glass (http://mashable.com/2013/06/04/glass-porn-ban/). Which means we’re getting a new anti-porn club: UK + US + Saudi Arabia + Iran = UKUSSAI.
Have tweeted your article Dave. Very good
thanks for sharing this, i love this. i have too related to this visit https://bit.ly/33sOy66