As if the UK’s “opt-in” internet filtering system wasn’t bad enough, the British government has now taken a step forward in censoring porn video producers.
Recently I wrote an article about porn censorship being introduced into British public wi-fi access points, in an effort to prevent kids from watching the porn that they can literally watch anywhere in the world at anytime using their smartphones.
Porn filters have been implemented in home internet packages in Britain since 2013, all part of Prime Minister David Cameron’s attempts to ‘protect children’ or something like that. When Cameron implemented the porn censorship reform, he was met with a whole pile of criticisms and protests – people were concerned that this was another step towards the full censorship and government takeover of the internet.
Though most internet subscriptions seem to come with these filters built-in, you do have the ability to opt out of any censorship measures, and the Brits seem to be opting out – in droves!
The numbers back up the claim that people don’t want to filter their own internet connection:
“Of the top companies running the scheme, TalkTalk has the most users making most of [the porn filter] at 36 percent. However, a paltry four percent of Virgin Media customers are switching off the porn, followed by five percent of BT customers and eight percent of Sky customers.”
Is this shocking? Is this surprising? Almost everyone who can readily access the internet uses it to watch porn at one point or another. Even if you only watch the stuff once in a blue moon, do you really want to disable your ability to check it out entirely? I totally understand not wanting to expose kids to pornography, but here’s the simple, honest truth. No matter how difficult you make it for kids to do something, if they want to, they’ll find a way.
Haven’t you ever heard of reverse psychology, you dumbos? If you tell them they absolutely CANNOT look at porn, what’s the first thing they’re going to try and do when they have a chance? How about getting over yourselves instead and spending some time talking to your kids about the pros and cons of pornography, how it relates to actual human sexuality, and how to safely browse the internet?
Porn censorship ain’t the answer, you old geezers.
Just a thought.
Well, it begins.
A little while ago, The Mirror, a UK based newspaper, did a little investigative journalism. They toured around the UK, attempting to access pornographic websites like Pornhub from various free wi-fi zones. You can probably guess what they discovered: about a quarter of the free wi-fi zones did not have any filters for adult content. They were apparently able to access Pornhub from 32 out of the 129 zones that they tested.
Doesn’t seem like a big deal, unless you take into account the fact that kids can access porn from public places. I remember when I was a young man, before wi-fi even really existed. I had to be a super careful ninja when it came to accessing porn from my family desktop. If I knew that I could simply walk to the local bookstore with my cool iPad or whatever and spend all day looking at porn, well then fuck, my parents would have hardly ever seen me around the house.
So what does the UK propose as a counter-measure?
Makes sense. Basically, this seems like a pretty non-intrusive way to make sure that people know that the network they’re accessing is secure, and that their kids won’t accidentally be stumbling upon Tasha Reign’s My Little Pony themed butt-plug tail site.
But, wait a second, is it really non-intrusive?
“The Mirror can continue its campaign of shame by outing public places that fail to implement the new program, though it’s doubtful the paper will expend similar resources looking into why the government’s “overzealous” porn filters are blocking 20 percent of all websites.“
What else is new with censorship though? You block a couple things, you block a million.
What do you think about this? Is the UK government abusing power by censoring content on free and easily accessible free wi-fi networks, or is this an appropriate measure of control to prevent people from accessing adult/illicit content in public places?
Personally, I’m never down for censorship!
Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo is pushing to have “racy” ads for fake boobs removed from New York City’s subway system.
New York transit officials are agreeing to reconsider their advertising standards after a top aide to Gov. Andrew Cuomo objected to a cleavage-baring ad for breast enhancement. Howard Glaser, Cuomo’s director of state operations, wrote to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority on Tuesday asking the agency to take action after the New York Daily News wrote about the revealing advertisement.
The reason Glaser is going after ads for fake boobs is because the MTA has a $190 million annual state subsidy, plus a over a $5 billion in dedicated taxes. Glaser wrote in a letter that, “The public has a right to expect that the MTA will strive for a family-friendly environment.”
And advertisements for fake boobs are what’s making ruining the “family-friendly” vibe of the MTA?
If the ads for fake boobs looked like something you’d see in the Big Tits category on Sex.com then yeah they should be banned, but they’re not. There are standards and practices in advertising that won’t allow them to make the ads too racy. They should provide scientific evidence that ads for fake boobs are ruining the lives of New Yorkers that ride the subway, otherwise we should totally forget all about this story.
Rather than going after ads for fake boobs, maybe the Governor and his director of state operations should be focusing on reducing the number of deaths in the MTA. Just last year, New York City was on pace to set a new record for MTA-related deaths. Maybe it’s just me, but for me, people dying is way worse than ads for fake boobs.
Now you already know that I’m not a proponent of fake boobs. But if there’s one thing that’s more important than natural breasts, it’s free speech. And plastic surgeons should be able to advertise their fake boobs wherever they please. Especially since people just aren’t down with fake boobs nowadays.
Because Canada has historically been the UK’s lil bitch, it’s no surprise that the Canadian government might soon be introducing a bill that would introduce an internet porn filter not unlike the one in the UK. Continue Reading
Check out the Twitter rant ERW went on slamming Hollywood censors for promoting a double standard: Continue Reading
Last week, I asked you if internet censorship were coming to your country (like in the UK), would you opt-in for unfiltered internet?
1,705 people voted and helped me win some free beer from some naysayers in the office. Continue Reading
The last two weeks were crazy with all that talk of the UK Internet Porn Ban.
While we’re waiting to see how David Cameron implements his internet filtering system, the Sex.com staff is divided whether or not an internet filtering system will have a huge impact on internet porn.
I mean, if the internet filtering works as it should and filters out only “harmful content” like internet porn, gambling, etc. some of us believe that our regular visitors are so committed to quality pornography (as evidenced by the pictures and videos on Sex.com) that they will click “Yes” when they’re internet service providers ask them if they want internet porn.
But of course, that’s IF the internet filtering system works as it should. It’s more likely that you’ll need to opt-in to see anything of a sexual nature. That includes sex tips, sexual health news, and porn.
The other half of the Sex.com office believes that our users won’t tell their ISPs to opt-in them in to internet porn because it’s embarrassing and they don’t want to the ISPs to know that they’re using the internet for porn (even though they totally already know).
So Sex.com users, help us settled this debate.
If your country was throwing your freedoms out the window and instituting a nation-wide internet porn filter, what would you do? Continue Reading
Since last August, there’s been a long “Will they?/Won’t they?” of whether or not David Cameron’s Conservative government would take extreme measures to protect their citizens by the end of 2013.
Protect their citizens from what exactly? War? Famine? Pestilence? Death?
No, no, no, and no. The greatest threat to citizens of the UK is internet porn, which is why David Cameron is planning to instate an automatic internet filtering system that will stop people from accessing internet porn in the UK. Continue Reading
As you can see from this “official” chart, roughly 33% of people use Google to find porn.
While finding porn is still behind spellcheck in terms of usages for Google, using Google to find useful information (its intended use) still ranks dead last.
This chart is a joke that someone made. But with Google’s recent vendetta against internet porn, you have to wonder if someone at Mountain View saw the joke chart and decided that Google is too good for internet porn. It would explain Google’s recent offensive on internet porn.
Google’s latest attempt to stifle internet porn began yesterday when Blogger (formerly known as Blogspot) users received messages saying that the free blogging platform will no longer allow the monetization of adult content. Here is a copy of the message for those of you who are interested: Continue Reading
Europe is largely regarded as the sophisticated continent, however the European Union is voting on a proposal next week that could ban all pornography in its states.
The proposal that could cause this large scale porn ban is cleverly titled, “Eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU.” Eliminating gender stereotypes is obviously an admirable cause as the proposal mentions issues such as women carrying a “disproportionate share of the burden” when raising a family, violence against women as “an infringement of human rights,” and gender stereotypes that develop early in life.
But in the pursuit of gender equality, the proposal is looking to infringe on the civil liberties of 500 million people.
Egypt is already in a state of turmoil and unfortunately it’s about to get worse. The ultra-conservative Salafists are trying to to ban internet porn…again.
ThePure Netcampaign was launched by Abdel Maguid Mahmoud who said that internet porn is, “inconsistent with the values and traditions of the Egyptian people and the higher interests of the state.” This may indeed be true because when I used Yahoo to Google “Hieroglyphics porn” I did not see any pornographic hieroglyphics. The results were images of a young man masturbating. And let me tell you, he didn’t look Egyptian.
As always with these crazy notions of banning porn sites, the free speech card gets played. Once the state censors internet porn, where do you draw the line?
Since our relaunch in May, Sex.com has often been dubbed the “Pinterest for porn”. To be fair, the two sites are similar the main difference being that Sex.com is focused on sex and Pinterest is focused on cute crafts, cute shoes, cute mittens, cute cupcakes, cute babies, cute motivational posters, and other things that people find cute.
Over the summer, our web team noticed that Sex.com users were pinning adult content to boards on Pinterest. We were worried at first thinking that Pinterest’s official policy didn’t allow for anything that would not be deemed cute by the general public. However, there is a vibrant but hidden adult community on Pinterest that Sex.com users were participating in.
Our website was not only excited to see some users crossover, especially a female audience. A few days ago our crossover was shutdown by Pinterest. They have banned Sex.com, declaring our site to be spam.
England has proposed an internet pornography opt-in system, if Mitt Romney is elected as President of the United States he is promising to crackdown on obscenity laws which could affect internet pornography, and Palestine has banned internet pornography all together. What is the world coming to?
Yesterday, the Sex.com Blog found out Iceland is in danger of depriving their citizens of the only good thing in their bleak little lives. Instead of enjoying high quality adult entertainment, the Icelandic people would be forced to walk around in wool sweaters, overlooking beautiful countryside while Sigur Ros or Bjork plays faintly in the background.
Unlike the other three motions to limit internet pornography, Iceland’s decision is being proposed not by government officials or lobby groups but internet service providers (ISPs). Vodafone and Siminn are considering blocking access to adult sites to keep users safe from viruses and malware.
British conservative tabloid The Daily Mail reported today that that ChildLine, a free telephone counseling service for children and teens, has had a spike in calls for kids calling after seeing “disturbing” pornography online. They are up to about 50 calls a month on the subject.
ChildLine founder Esther Ratzen says that pornography is warping the minds of young people because they emulate the “disturbing” and “dangerous” behavior. This is precisely the reason why we have age restrictions on pornography. Even as a very sexually active adult I see things on the internet that I cannot possibly understand. However, because I am much, much smarter than a child or teenager I know not to mimic things that are strange and confusing to me.
Childline and National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) are both campaigning for better education on the dangers of pornography exposure to feeble, young minds (which is good and Sex.com fully supports that campaign). They are also working withThe Daily Mail to pressure the UK Government to introduce an automatic block on online pornography.
Here’s where we don’t see eye to eye.
Public libraries are invaluable to the small percentage of the population that don’t have internet access or even own a computer. Being able to surf in the privacy of our own home is something that can be easily taken for granted. Would you not be too embarrassed to pin your photos on Sex.com in a public place?
The internet-less people of the world are only human. Public place or not, they do the same surfing as us. And more often than not they are looking at pornography. It is discouraged but the silent atmosphere makes public disgrace a difficult movement to spark.
San Francisco’s Main Library has come up with a creative new solution that combines the interests of perverts and prudes. Plastic privacy screens have been installed on the monitor so passerby’s aren’t offended by something they see on the monitor.
Today, China’s State Administration of Radio, Film, and Television issued new rules that forces webmasters to pre-screen and censor all violent and vulgar content. Not surprisingly, that includes porn. The Chinese government said that the rules are being implemented to protect, “young people’s physical and mental health in accordance with the law.” via ZD Net
Just when you thought the Communist threat was over…Censoring porn from the internet is one of the most radical and offensive things I have ever heard. How do you protect young people’s physical and mental health by banning porn? You know, I don’t care to find out. I’d rather be physically and mentally ill than live in a world without internet porn.
WARNING: By viewing this Top 10 board, you risk contracting yellow fever. You will find Asian girls completely irresistible if you contract this strange disease. There is also a risk of turning japanese.