Discussion
eldar said:
"Masturbatory infrastructure"
mrtwisty said:
eldar said:
"Masturbatory infrastructure"I feel sorry for young lads today (and the girls they'll be anatomically unfamiliar with) if the ban takes effect, I mean it's not like you can go to the nearst hedgerow to mine a few jazz mags out these days.
Gun said:
The problem definitely isn't with parents allowing their young children unsupervised access to the internet, no siree.
And how exactly do you propose supervising children's internet access? At the last count, my house had 3 desktops, 2 tablets, 3 laptops and 4 smart phones. My two kids (12 and 14) spend most of their free time in their bedrooms, only coming out to feed. There's no way I'm going to be constantly checking their browsing history, and even if I did I guess they're both more computer savvy than me so shouldn't have too mach trouble covering their tracks. I should ask them to educate their grandad, 'cos he knows nothing about private browsing or deleting his history...
RYH64E said:
And how exactly do you propose supervising children's internet access?
At the last count, my house had 3 desktops, 2 tablets, 3 laptops and 4 smart phones. My two kids (12 and 14) spend most of their free time in their bedrooms, only coming out to feed. There's no way I'm going to be constantly checking their browsing history, and even if I did I guess they're both more computer savvy than me so shouldn't have too mach trouble covering their tracks. I should ask them to educate their grandad, 'cos he knows nothing about private browsing or deleting his history...
Let me google that for you...At the last count, my house had 3 desktops, 2 tablets, 3 laptops and 4 smart phones. My two kids (12 and 14) spend most of their free time in their bedrooms, only coming out to feed. There's no way I'm going to be constantly checking their browsing history, and even if I did I guess they're both more computer savvy than me so shouldn't have too mach trouble covering their tracks. I should ask them to educate their grandad, 'cos he knows nothing about private browsing or deleting his history...
Assuming you want an answer, rather than just looking for a reason why it's not your responsibility of course.
RYH64E said:
And how exactly do you propose supervising children's internet access?
At the last count, my house had 3 desktops, 2 tablets, 3 laptops and 4 smart phones. My two kids (12 and 14) spend most of their free time in their bedrooms, only coming out to feed. There's no way I'm going to be constantly checking their browsing history, and even if I did I guess they're both more computer savvy than me so shouldn't have too mach trouble covering their tracks. I should ask them to educate their grandad, 'cos he knows nothing about private browsing or deleting his history...
Difficult I agree, but still a parental responsibility not one that can be shuffled off to society in general. At the last count, my house had 3 desktops, 2 tablets, 3 laptops and 4 smart phones. My two kids (12 and 14) spend most of their free time in their bedrooms, only coming out to feed. There's no way I'm going to be constantly checking their browsing history, and even if I did I guess they're both more computer savvy than me so shouldn't have too mach trouble covering their tracks. I should ask them to educate their grandad, 'cos he knows nothing about private browsing or deleting his history...
I wonder if the answer is guidance rather than an outright ban as nothing arouses teenage curiosity more than being told something is illegal, immoral or 'not good for you'.
Digga said:
Top phrasology from the Mash.
I feel sorry for young lads today (and the girls they'll be anatomically unfamiliar with) if the ban takes effect, I mean it's not like you can go to the nearst hedgerow to mine a few jazz mags out these days.
True, but the son of the local corner shop owner will once again be the most powerful kid in the class. I feel sorry for young lads today (and the girls they'll be anatomically unfamiliar with) if the ban takes effect, I mean it's not like you can go to the nearst hedgerow to mine a few jazz mags out these days.
The Black Flash said:
RYH64E said:
And how exactly do you propose supervising children's internet access?
At the last count, my house had 3 desktops, 2 tablets, 3 laptops and 4 smart phones. My two kids (12 and 14) spend most of their free time in their bedrooms, only coming out to feed. There's no way I'm going to be constantly checking their browsing history, and even if I did I guess they're both more computer savvy than me so shouldn't have too mach trouble covering their tracks. I should ask them to educate their grandad, 'cos he knows nothing about private browsing or deleting his history...
Let me google that for you...At the last count, my house had 3 desktops, 2 tablets, 3 laptops and 4 smart phones. My two kids (12 and 14) spend most of their free time in their bedrooms, only coming out to feed. There's no way I'm going to be constantly checking their browsing history, and even if I did I guess they're both more computer savvy than me so shouldn't have too mach trouble covering their tracks. I should ask them to educate their grandad, 'cos he knows nothing about private browsing or deleting his history...
Assuming you want an answer, rather than just looking for a reason why it's not your responsibility of course.
In my opinion there is something approaching zero chance of stopping kids finding dodgy stuff on the internet, so little chance that I'm not going to waste my time trying. Mind you, I'm not a great role model for a parent, my kids have been free to have wine with their dinner since a very early age (they don't like it), and my daughter thought vodka shots were cool so I gave her a glass (neat) to try - she won't try it again any time soon.
Those who are in favour of this filtering seem to be focusing on the fact that children can accidentally view hardcore content.
I use the Internet all day everyday and have done for over ten years. Never have I accidentally found adult content; in fact has anyone ever accidentally found adult content when looking for a new car, booking a flight, buying something online?
I would suggest that the instances of this happening are very small.
This then logically follows that children are actively seeking out this content that the DM are trying to get filtered out – all well and good I hear you say as no one in their right mind wants children to see such content.
There are many flaws in this plan; if a child wishes to view inappropriate content then they will find a way around it.
If / when this content is filtered out by the ISP then I would imagine the void will be filled by USB memory sticks full of pron being swapped in the playground.
Then the thorny issue of what is appropriate content raises its head; filter out pron but you may still have access to pro-anorexia sites & other inappropriate content.
Children must be protected from inappropriate content but ISP filtering is not the way forward, legislation is not a substitute for parental responsibility.
I use the Internet all day everyday and have done for over ten years. Never have I accidentally found adult content; in fact has anyone ever accidentally found adult content when looking for a new car, booking a flight, buying something online?
I would suggest that the instances of this happening are very small.
This then logically follows that children are actively seeking out this content that the DM are trying to get filtered out – all well and good I hear you say as no one in their right mind wants children to see such content.
There are many flaws in this plan; if a child wishes to view inappropriate content then they will find a way around it.
If / when this content is filtered out by the ISP then I would imagine the void will be filled by USB memory sticks full of pron being swapped in the playground.
Then the thorny issue of what is appropriate content raises its head; filter out pron but you may still have access to pro-anorexia sites & other inappropriate content.
Children must be protected from inappropriate content but ISP filtering is not the way forward, legislation is not a substitute for parental responsibility.
DonkeyApple said:
Digga said:
Top phrasology from the Mash.
I feel sorry for young lads today (and the girls they'll be anatomically unfamiliar with) if the ban takes effect, I mean it's not like you can go to the nearst hedgerow to mine a few jazz mags out these days.
True, but the son of the local corner shop owner will once again be the most powerful kid in the class. I feel sorry for young lads today (and the girls they'll be anatomically unfamiliar with) if the ban takes effect, I mean it's not like you can go to the nearst hedgerow to mine a few jazz mags out these days.
Sadly, we never had a video recorder until after I left home, although I made up for any shortfal on theoretical education in practical sessions.
AndyClockwise said:
Those who are in favour of this filtering seem to be focusing on the fact that children can accidentally view hardcore content.
I use the Internet all day everyday and have done for over ten years. Never have I accidentally found adult content; in fact has anyone ever accidentally found adult content when looking for a new car, booking a flight, buying something online?
I would suggest that the instances of this happening are very small.
This then logically follows that children are actively seeking out this content that the DM are trying to get filtered out – all well and good I hear you say as no one in their right mind wants children to see such content.
There are many flaws in this plan; if a child wishes to view inappropriate content then they will find a way around it.
If / when this content is filtered out by the ISP then I would imagine the void will be filled by USB memory sticks full of pron being swapped in the playground.
Then the thorny issue of what is appropriate content raises its head; filter out pron but you may still have access to pro-anorexia sites & other inappropriate content.
Children must be protected from inappropriate content but ISP filtering is not the way forward, legislation is not a substitute for parental responsibility.
it doesn't have to be something like the 'pro-anorexia' sites as you suggest, if you're paying for a service that blocks 'inappropriate' content then who's to say that your ISP's view is going to match yours? For some people http://www.victoriassecret.com is hardcore porn. If something you disapprove of got through then could you sue your ISP for breach of contract?I use the Internet all day everyday and have done for over ten years. Never have I accidentally found adult content; in fact has anyone ever accidentally found adult content when looking for a new car, booking a flight, buying something online?
I would suggest that the instances of this happening are very small.
This then logically follows that children are actively seeking out this content that the DM are trying to get filtered out – all well and good I hear you say as no one in their right mind wants children to see such content.
There are many flaws in this plan; if a child wishes to view inappropriate content then they will find a way around it.
If / when this content is filtered out by the ISP then I would imagine the void will be filled by USB memory sticks full of pron being swapped in the playground.
Then the thorny issue of what is appropriate content raises its head; filter out pron but you may still have access to pro-anorexia sites & other inappropriate content.
Children must be protected from inappropriate content but ISP filtering is not the way forward, legislation is not a substitute for parental responsibility.
Personally I'd much rather my lad watched porn than the god bothering / creationist / psychic content that infests the Web and TV, but that's just me.
A few years ago the government banned 'extreme porn' but then couldn't decide exactly how you'd define such a thing, you ended up with BDSM fans taking their pictures and videos to the local police station to have them verify whether or not what they had was now illegal or whether it was OK. They realised very quickly that the whole thing was unworkable.
The more you filter or restrict people on what they can do and how they can do it the more screwed up they become, if you go into Europe where they're much less conservative about skin or alcohol/smoking or whatever they don't really seem to have all the problems and hysteria we do over everything.
TBH, I'm far more concerned about the access children have to guns (in a violent, rather than sporting context) and violence in films and video games.
Granted teen pregnancy is an issue, but there are other contributory causes for that anyway; not least ignorance (poor education) about contraception and the state-sponsored single mother programme.
Granted teen pregnancy is an issue, but there are other contributory causes for that anyway; not least ignorance (poor education) about contraception and the state-sponsored single mother programme.
RYH64E said:
I don't really care if they ban it or not, my observation was more to do with the impossibility of supervising children to the extent that they don't find anything bad on line.
In my opinion there is something approaching zero chance of stopping kids finding dodgy stuff on the internet, so little chance that I'm not going to waste my time trying. Mind you, I'm not a great role model for a parent, my kids have been free to have wine with their dinner since a very early age (they don't like it), and my daughter thought vodka shots were cool so I gave her a glass (neat) to try - she won't try it again any time soon.
Well it depends on age doesn't it? I'd certainly expect 6 year olds to be supervised and not having unfettered access to the web. 14 year olds less so.In my opinion there is something approaching zero chance of stopping kids finding dodgy stuff on the internet, so little chance that I'm not going to waste my time trying. Mind you, I'm not a great role model for a parent, my kids have been free to have wine with their dinner since a very early age (they don't like it), and my daughter thought vodka shots were cool so I gave her a glass (neat) to try - she won't try it again any time soon.
The alchohol thing sounds like a very sensible approach to me, though I imagine it's less likely to work with porn.
The State has to start stepping back from policing everyone's children.
Sure, there is some ghastly stuff out there but what the State should be doing is nothing.
It really is down to parents to deal with this. Competent parents will be and the more incompetant people are spoon fed the more incompetant they become.
Sure, there is some ghastly stuff out there but what the State should be doing is nothing.
It really is down to parents to deal with this. Competent parents will be and the more incompetant people are spoon fed the more incompetant they become.
ds, there would be no internet as we know it today if it wasn't for pr0n...qube_TA said:
it doesn't have to be something like the 'pro-anorexia' sites as you suggest, if you're paying for a service that blocks 'inappropriate' content then who's to say that your ISP's view is going to match yours? For some people http://www.victoriassecret.com is hardcore porn. If something you disapprove of got through then could you sue your ISP for breach of contract?
That you're paying for the service is what says your ISP's view matches yours.Sounds far more likely to work for varying views that a one-stop government shop which businesses can lobby and spend the cash fighting through the courts.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff