
Sky to block pornography by default - GotAnyMegadeth
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30896813
======
CountHackulus
I remember when it wasn't going to be on by default, and also when it was
going to be JUST for really revolting/violent pornography. People say that you
can't argue slippery slope here, but I say otherwise. The UK government has
proven that the temptation to block anything they want by default and shame
others into not turning off the block is too great, and I feel that this
entire filtering experiment is a step or two away from a China-style firewall.

~~~
sandworm
China-STYLE? Take a look at who admins the UK firewall.

[http://www.dailydot.com/business/david-cameron-porn-
firewall...](http://www.dailydot.com/business/david-cameron-porn-firewall-
china-huawei/)

~~~
jamesbrownuhh
Who admins _one_ , _optional_ firewall used by customers of _one_ British
Internet service provider. (And not even a very good one at that.)

------
PuffinBlue
Just a little perspective...I've got Sky Broadband and turning off this filter
took a couple of clicks. Actually it might have even just been one, and that's
it.

It's been harder to access age restricted content from other providers like
Three for over a decade. Access to adult content through the Three network
requires you to sign up with a credit card to prove your age for example.

Neither of these situations are ideal, nor are they catastrophic. Just retain
a little perspective and afford these companies the courtesy of believing the
intent is well meaning.

Of course there are slippery slopes and changes throughout the years, but also
remember we're an 800 year old democracy (almost), that's _probably_ not going
to change and it's good to keep a level head about this stuff.

~~~
akersten
> Neither of these situations are ideal, nor are they catastrophic

No, no, this is actually quite catastrophic. Someone else is deciding what is
and isn't acceptable for you to consume by default. Establishing the precedent
that someone else knows better than you, what content is acceptable for you to
view. That's absurd.

Christopher Hitchens had a very poignant[1] part about why the path to hell is
paved with censorship, and I think it's worth a watch.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIyBZNGH0TY&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIyBZNGH0TY&feature=youtu.be&t=20m15s)

~~~
Tombone5
From those categorical statements I guess you are one of those that objects to
sites defaulting to a language guessed from your ip location, or google trying
to <strike>auto complete your search</strike> putting words in your mouth.

~~~
akersten
> From those categorical statements I guess you are one of those that objects
> to sites defaulting to a language guessed from your ip location, or google
> trying to [auto complete your search]

I think it's a stretch to compare using geolocation to make a good assumption
about linguistics or using natural language processing to make a good
assumption about a search completion, to using political rhetoric to make an
objectively regressive default.

I suppose if you considered the filter being on by default a "suggestion" (in
the way that a language is suggested or a search term is suggested) then I
could see the comparison, but that's a policy decision, and you as well as
every other adult on the planet should be capable of self-policing.

------
peterwwillis
Does anyone know of any studies that show that pornography harms children more
than anything else, like seeing bomb victims on nightly news or ISIS
beheadings on Facebook? I seem to recall seeing porn when I was a child, and
i'm not intellectually or emotionally damaged, as far as I know.

~~~
sliverstorm
_... harms children more than anything else_

This is not a strong line of argument. We don't have to fix things only in
order of harm.

IF it is considerably harmful, we should do something about it. It doesn't
really matter if it is the _most_ harmful.

~~~
ANTSANTS
That's assuming it's actually harmful, which we have absolutely no proof of,
just "think uh duh childrens" gut feelings.

Society hasn't collapsed just because kids have had access to internet porn
for a few generations. A more libertarian perspective would be "unless you can
prove something is causing demonstrable, serious harm, the government should
not be involved in it at all, because at best you're wasting resources on
something insignificant, or at worst you're unintentionally causing _actual_ ,
demonstrable damage to society in pursuit of a misguided goal."

Not that it really matters in this case, it's obvious that Cameron doesn't
give a shit about porn and is just using this as an excuse to curb civil
liberties and justify surveillance.

~~~
sliverstorm
_That 's assuming it's actually harmful_

I had hoped " _IF it is considerably harmful_ " covered that, but I guess I
wasn't verbose enough.

Please don't assume that, because I object to my parent's argument, I support
the decision.

~~~
ANTSANTS
I caught that. I will also admit that I could have been more verbose and state
that I was primarily objecting to

>we should do something about it.

because I believe governments and societies generally function better when
they err on the side of permissiveness whenever possible. Even if we did agree
that pornography is "bad," not every "bad" thing should warrant a response.

Also, I think you were wrong to object to your parent commenter's argument,
because there is a big difference between "us" choosing between "stopping"
internet pornography or violence on the nightly news, and the government and
media hypocritically attempting to censor one kind of (allegedly) traumatizing
material while flaunting and sensationalizing an arguably much more
traumatizing kind.

------
LukeB_UK
The problems with these filters is that they catch things that aren't porn
too. For example advice on safe sex.

~~~
ddalex_ro
The problem is that they catch porn, in the first place. Who is the government
to tell me what I can and can't watch, provided I don't hurt anyone directly
or indirectly.

Next thing you know, the government is going to tell me who to vote in and out
the office.

~~~
zimpenfish
The government already tell you what you can and can't watch via the BBFC and
other various legal means (e.g. downloading a film to watch because the studio
hasn't given it a UK theatre/DVD release would be illegal, I think.)

~~~
AlyssaRowan
I do note that the government have _already_ mentioned aloud the possibility
of coercing ISPs to use these filters to block foreign porn sites which
wouldn't get a BBFC 18R (see the ATVOD crap we've been having over here).

That's a _lot_ more sites than you might think.

~~~
zimpenfish
Oh, I don't know, I can think of loads offhand that would be caught - even
more if they applied the 18R rules to static images as well as VOD.

But I'm not surprised it's already on the cards - this has been coming since
the early 00s (e.g. the "usenet is CHILD PORN!!!!1!!" newspaper outrages, the
Sexual Offences Act 2003, etc.)

------
embro
Problem isn't with kids but more with teens. Instead of trying to ban it, just
talk about it.

Banning it would only make it slightly harder to find and would make parents
believe their child/teen is "safe" and will never see porn... WRONG. Kids have
plenty of time to find what they want.

Sex education is the only solution.

~~~
sremani
I absolutely hate this myth. Porn IS NOT Sex Ed. Actually, Porn misrepresents
Sex by a magnitude of 10. The fake breast implants, fake butt and make up and
editing etc. etc. Its just make believe. There is mounting evidence of Porn
being harmful to the mind and causing ED, anxiety etc. There is a reason
reditt is filled with NoFap stuff. People, I am all for sex ed for 16 year
old. But with near ubiquity of internet and kids playing with tablets and
phones my worry is not about the 16 year old, its about the 4 year old.

~~~
AlyssaRowan
I question your, um, "mounting evidence"; but in any case, we do agree on one
big point: pornography is entertainment for adults, with heavy artistic
licence.

People shouldn't try to learn about martial arts from kung fu movies, and
shouldn't try to learn about sex from porn.

Of course, this filter will also try to block you if you're trying to learn
about hacking, or seeking anonymous advice about self-harming. Don't fall into
the trap of thinking this is just a porn thing.

~~~
sremani
Here are couple of studies for you.

[http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0102419)

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21117979#](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21117979#)

[http://yourbrainonporn.com/](http://yourbrainonporn.com/)

Its unfortunate so many people here are mixed up about first amendment,
liberty and ease of watching Porn. I will not hold that against you, few years
ago, I was you.

~~~
ANTSANTS
What are your thoughts on the war on drugs?

------
jason46
I'm curious if users of this ISP have alternatives?

If one wanted to view porn, and did not want to deal with getting it
"enabled", would it be possible to switch to another ISP?

~~~
AlecSchueler
All other large ISPs have the same blocks but they are thus far opt-in.

~~~
jamesbrownuhh
I'd disagree with that - most other large ISPs have similar parental control
services but they are not all exactly the same and differ widely in technology
and scope.

------
drivingmenuts
Awesome. Now they just have to define "pornography".

~~~
icehawk219
At least in the US it seems like the definition of "pornography" has become,
or is increasingly becoming, "nudity".

~~~
anigbrowl
Yeah, it's weird that ultra-hardcore pornography is so available yet at the
same time I find myself watching PBS and they blur out anatomical details and
swear words even in depictions of paintings or in films. On foreign films they
even add another layer of subtitles to obscure offensive words, despite a
warning at the start of the program that it contains adult subject matter or
suchlike.

Meanwhile, it's considered _perfectly OK_ to depict all kinds of murderous
mayhem, demonic possession, mutilations and so on even in early-evening time
slots.

------
belorn
If you do not have it by default, you create an exception list of concerned
parents.

If you have it on by default, you create an exception list of porn viewers.

Which of the two list carries higher privacy concerns?

------
ris
Hmm I wonder if Rupert's going to block The Sun's website and all its page 3
glory.

(FSVO "glory")

~~~
smeyer
Didn't The Sun just decide to stop printing topless women on page 3? I thought
I heard they were replacing them with regular old scantily clad women or
something.

~~~
ghswa
The online version of page 3 will remain unchanged.

------
CraigJPerry
Based on past performances of this company, I have a feeling this is a side
show.

What else are they (or their friends) up to that they're trying to distract
attention from?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Actually I think it's part of their current marketing effort. TalkTalk, and/or
others, have probably been successful with increasing sign-ups by having
default filters and Sky are probably following the market.

------
weavie
That's all good and well, I used to use OpenDNS to try to block porn, so I can
see the idea behind what they are trying to do. Unfortunately my son worked
out how to use VPN a long time ago so really the only choice I got now is to
be open and talk to him. It did help him learn more about networks and general
hackery, so it is all good really..

------
zeruch
I wonder how long before they either reverse or otherwise make it boneheadedly
easy to opt out. This strikes me as wholly to appease the gov entities and as
soon as it negatively impacts the numbers...

~~~
jamesbrownuhh
You can already opt out now. When you sign with any major ISP the first
question it asks you on connection is, basically, parental controls, yes or
no. You say no and get on with your life.

The single and only thing that Sky have done today, is changing that "If you
don't answer, we'll assume no (filtering)" to "If you don't answer, we'll
assume yes."

------
lnaie1
protect from what?!

~~~
alextgordon
Themselves, apparently.

------
swasheck
To take a bit of a contrarian perspective here, pornography has been linked to
human trafficking, at least in Nevada. So if we want to distance ourselves
from the religious moral and ethical arguments that oppose the "we're not
actually harming ourselves" perspective, there is, at least in part, the
perspective that viewing pornography contributes to violations against those
viewed.

[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0615162053?ie=UTF8&tag=pros...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0615162053?ie=UTF8&tag=prostreseaa02-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0615162053)

~~~
rudolf0
>pornography has been linked to human trafficking

Water has also been linked to human rights abuses in the form of
waterboarding.

~~~
swasheck
Thanks for the downvote. I can see I've hurt the hive-mind's feelings.

~~~
rudolf0
I did not downvote you or anyone else in this thread.

