Pron. Banned.

[Oakey]

Well, blocked. And you have to opt in. Or out. Or something.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250809/Vi...

This made me laugh, another example of how clueless the Daily Mail is;

DM said:

Mr Cameron’s intervention follows a concerted campaign for an automatic block by this newspaper and will be welcomed by campaigners on child internet safety, although concerns remain about how the Government plans to address children accessing porn via their own smartphones, and phones and tablets such as iPads using public wi-fi.

Do they think smartphones, tablets and public wifi all use a different internet?

Edited by Oakey on Thursday 20th December 17:47

[hyperblue]

Hopefully the Daily Mail will get blocked too.

[Oakey]

To be honest I stopped reading at the quoted part. but having gone back I see this is actually some sort of filters you're forced to apply when you buy a new computer. Not quite the victory the DM were making it out to be.

[Dogwatch]

Front page splash too, along with some other campaign they were running.

(Disclaimer - not a DM reader, saw the front page on a news stand)

[eldar]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/teenage...

The danger is bursting teenagers.

[Pothole]

Hmmm http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20738746

Ministers have rejected plans to automatically block internet access to pornography on all computers, saying the move is not widely supported.

[Regiment]

Wait, The Register is reporting there is no compulsory filtering that the ISPs had to do, this is what the Mail has been fighting for, and that there has been a U turn after it wasn't popular among parents?


[quote]Oddly, the Mail rather generously heralded Cameron's comments as a "victory" for its campaign to force ISPs to censor web smut. The newspaper had envisaged red-faced Brits contacting their providers to ask for access to pornography blocked by default at the network level. Instead, parents will have to ensure they configure their internet connection correctly.
[/quote]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/david_came...

The fact that any such filter was being discussed at all is truly shocking for me and am very happy with the U turn. Any filter should be optional and interested parents should be advised that its off by default and advised on the best options, forcing censorship on everyone everywhere is a terrible, terrible decision for everyone.

[davepoth]

The Mail suggesting they've won is actually the Mail hiding the fact that they've given up. Good news all round, I'd say.

[hornet]

Presumably they'd support parents blocking Mailonline, given the infamous "all grown up" sidebar of shame antics?

[El Guapo]

They can take my porn when they pry it from my cold slippery fingers.

[Northern Munkee]

El Guapo said:

They can take my porn when they pry it from my cold slippery fingers.

[CRA2Y]

Northern Munkee said:

Don't you mean "warm and sticky fingers" ???

[voyds9]

Just ban computers to households with kids.

[sjn2004]

eldar said:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/teenage...

The danger is bursting teenagers.

Those were the days, catalogues and if you were lucky a French film (with subtitles) on Channel 4 once a month.

[Pesty]

sjn2004 said:

Those were the days, catalogues and if you were lucky a French film (with subtitles) on Channel 4 once a month.

Ahhh anybody remember the banned season on channel 4 with some weird former Yugoslavian film which was basically a porn film.

no wonder I grew up strange.

Edited by Pesty on Friday 21st December 00:21

[Negative Creep]

Here's something I didn't think I'd say, but the top rated reader comments make a lot of sense

DM Readers said:

I find this highly strange that the Daily Mail have campAigned for this yet you use images verging on pornographic or low brow tittilation to entice readers in. A few weeks back we even had topless pictures of pixie geldoff on here, does that make the daily mail appear a little hypocritical?...........

- yell, kent, United Kingdom, 20/12/2012 0:54

I'd take this seriously if the Daily Mail wasn't consistently showing random celebs in their underwear every day.

- Ross, Manchester, 20/12/2012 2:23


So the DM agrees with Internet censorship, but not press censorship- that is so hypocritical and the reason I don't buy papers anymore!

- Ross100, Cardiff, 20/12/2012 0:04

Edited by Negative Creep on Friday 21st December 00:42

[Pothole]

Negative Creep said:

Here's something I didn't think I'd say, but the top rated reader comments make a lot of sense

DM Readers said:

I find this highly strange that the Daily Mail have campAigned for this yet you use images verging on pornographic or low brow tittilation to entice readers in. A few weeks back we even had topless pictures of pixie geldoff on here, does that make the daily mail appear a little hypocritical?...........

- yell, kent, United Kingdom, 20/12/2012 0:54

I'd take this seriously if the Daily Mail wasn't consistently showing random celebs in their underwear every day.

- Ross, Manchester, 20/12/2012 2:23


So the DM agrees with Internet censorship, but not press censorship- that is so hypocritical and the reason I don't buy papers anymore!

- Ross100, Cardiff, 20/12/2012 0:04

Edited by Negative Creep on Friday 21st December 00:42

In any given iteration of the DM's daily webpage you can expect to find a piece deploring something or other as pornographic alongside a picture of some minor celeb's growler in a taxi shot. You will also be treated to a size 12 bird being called fat and a size 6 being called too skinny alongside a size 12 being called gorgeously curvaceous and a size 6 being called enviously svelte.

It's bog roll with print on, nothing more.

[aw51 121565]

Just ban all internet access, that'll learn em .

Oh no, hold on, I've not thought this through have I?

Best download all the mass-murder sites before 'they' ban them, and the serial killer sites and, errm, oh...

Back in the loft to retrieve all me 'dodgy' (mass murderers and serial killers) books, and visiting the local bookshop to top the collection up then, I guess?

I'm quietly confident the chemistry element of my degree detailed how to make plastic explosive devices as well as defoliants (and the mechanism by which fly spray works ). This info can all be found down the library regardless .

Mmm, ill thought out boocks from the government, who'd have thunk it... If they actually thought it through, it would be slightly more palatable, but the lack of life experience is painfully apparent in this alleged policy (as in so so many others, the showers of shte)...

[Gaspowered]

Pesty said:

sjn2004 said:

Those were the days, catalogues and if you were lucky a French film (with subtitles) on Channel 4 once a month.

Ahhh anybody remember the banned season on channel 4 with some weird former Yugoslavian film which was basically a porn film.

no wonder I grew up strange.

Edited by Pesty on Friday 21st December 00:21

Ah, the old 'Red Triangle' films. Certainly corrupted my youth.

[Gun]

The problem definitely isn't with parents allowing their young children unsupervised access to the internet, no siree.