e petition asking for internet constrols on !!!!!! etc

Dave101t

only unfit parents give kids access to unsupervised internet.

MoreOn

it's complete nonsense you can't stop that stuff, it's like trying to control all the stars in the sky... eg.. there are 31,700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 .co.uk (31.7 undecillion) web addresses that doesn't count dot.com etc, each with it's own IP address.. All they can do is retrospectively identify suspicious address and sites using key word/link analysis and at a long shot image recognition and user reporting... Then there is the assumption web address don't transfer to new owners, which if it does it make the use of the internet crepe... Then there is technology that doesn't use web address or sites, or sites that have a linking strategy...

As great as the petition is and as unsavoury that stuff is...it's here to stay

Annisele

VestanPance wrote: »

Trying to block !!!!!! on the web is like trying to ban the common cold. Despite it's use it's amazing how many folk don't really understand how the World Wide Web works.

I agree.

On my home network I have no intention of using any filtering software whatsoever. I wouldn't mind if the filter didn't block everything it should, but I mind a great deal when it does block something that it shouldn't.

I have to put up with it at work, even though the filters our IT department use are ridiculously overzealous. As an example, when Tessa Jowell's husband was reported to have watched a !!!!!! film I couldn't view the front page of the Guardian for a week - I had to wait until the word "!!!!!!" dropped off it.

surfsister

j.e.j. wrote: »

I signed the petition about internet !!!!!!, but not the page 3 one.
OP do you know who this doctor is who started the e-petition about the internet !!!!!! opt-in?

no I don't but it seems sensible to me. Thanks for signing!

surfsister

Tropez wrote: »

Tabak is hardly representative of society as a whole.

There are countries that do not employ anywhere near the level of censorship that we do in the United Kingdom that have lower violent and sexual crime rates than we do. As is usual, however, for the UK we tend to look for an easy scapegoat rather than examine the wider issues.

interesting what would you say the wider issues are?

MoreOn

Caroline73 wrote: »

Why should !!!!!! bed opt in? What next a national register of people who want to look at !!!!!!?

What makes you think it doesn't already exist... AOL loses data of 6million searches, have a read about it..

It's scary what appears in searches, who searches is a different issue and for what reason..

Carl31

Teenage boys look at !!!!!!, they always have and always will do, you dont need to go on !!!!!! sites to get !!!!!! off the net anyway

I did, never did me any harm

surfsister

the government is considering making the viewing of hardcore strangulation/binding/whipping of women or men type of !!!!!! on a par with child !!!!!!. The Church of England who pay money to support servers are putting pressure on them to do so. So we will have to wait and see what happens.

j.e.j.

I've never seen so many men jump on a thread so quickly :rotfl::rotfl:

Lyger

I'm astonished that a bit of !!!!!! is seen as more harmful than the other nasty things that are lurking on the internet. Bomb making, anyone? Suicide 'how to' guide?

As mentioned in previous posts - something like this is impossible to enforce. China have been trying it for years, and plenty of the population there manages to get around it without too much difficulty.

People will do much more good for their children/teenagers if they just supervise their internet use.