FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » I want my internet Porn-Free (not to be confused with free Porn) (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: I want my internet Porn-Free (not to be confused with free Porn)
ambyr
Member
Member # 7616

 - posted      Profile for ambyr           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Chris's post
::applauds wildly::
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
Chris, your satire just keeps getting better and better.

[Big Grin]

Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
I hadn't even brought up that there are plenty of domains hosting large swathes of perfectly acceptable content and some adult content (for instance, there are adult LJ communities). Granted, content like this is at least theoretically segregable, but it would be very difficult to pull of in any reasonable way and would significantly disrupt such sites' business plans.

Or then there are sites like flickr, which allows some fairly sensuous stuff on it, where the potentially objectionable stuff is not at all segregable. These sites are then either forced to censor their stuff further so as to remain on the "normal" web, or move their entire site onto the "porn" web, despite having very little "porn". That's censorship, and stupid censorship at that, as such sites provide very useful free services that many people not interested in porn at all take advantage of.

There is no viable legislative solution forcing the separation of objectionable or adult sites into a particular technical side-alley.

Now, as mentioned before, having a way for, say, particularly kid friendly sites to be evaluated and receive an appropriate domain would be perfectly possible. I suggest having a "kids" tld. Heck, make it .kids .

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Will B
Member
Member # 7931

 - posted      Profile for Will B   Email Will B         Edit/Delete Post 
I've heard the claim that pornographic web sites regularly try to lure people in with trickery, but still no evidence. I guess that's ok. I don't really have a dog in this fight.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Epictetus
Member
Member # 6235

 - posted      Profile for Epictetus   Email Epictetus         Edit/Delete Post 
myarro, you mentioned earlier that a parent has no control over a curious child. This to me shows a considerable amount of ignorance on your part. I think you are forgetting that a child, regardless of parents, age, sex, upbringing or education, is still a human being, capable of making decisions, having opinions and acting on their impulses.

No matter how good a parent you are, a child's actions are his/her responsibility and completely out of your control. As a teenager, I was not of "legal-age," in the sense that I could not smoke, drink, or register to vote...I was, in a sense, not a full ciizen of the US. Despite that, I could still choose my path in life. The freedoms that people like Locke, Mill, and Jefferson talked about are freedoms that everyone share. They aren't freedoms that we acquire when we gain enough wisdom in life to make good decisions, they are ours whether we want them or not.

As a parent, I think that the best you can do is set a good example on how to live responsibly and honorably, and then hope that enough of it sinks in. Children and teens rarely have the wisdom of an adult, and as such their decisions may not be as smart or as good, but they can still make them. No amount af legislation, argument or regulation is going to change that.

Creating two channels for would further define adults as "responsible" and all children as "irresponsible" as well as "immature." In a very general sense, this may be true, but consider some of the "adults" you've been around in your life. Exactly how different are we, aside from having a larger database of memories, from a teenager, or a child for that matter?
I went to a party once where a 23 year-old man drank six beers, three shots of Bourbon, smoked two cigars, and shotgunned two more beers to top things off. I participated in a high school group that discussed societal problems like drugs, bullying, sexual harrassment, rape, and suicide more frankly and honestly than just about any other group of "adults" I've been around.

But, in addition, how many of us adults have ever done something, while not irresponsible, but just childish? I can't pick up a broom-stick without wielding it like a sword for at least a moment. I still enjoy reading comic books and popular fiction. Yet, I am an adult, so it is okay for me to "choose" to be irresponsible and childlike. So I just have to ask, what difference is there?

Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
myarro
Member
Member # 8547

 - posted      Profile for myarro   Email myarro         Edit/Delete Post 
>>How could it not? It WOULD affect my Internet experience, if for example something I don't consider porn but which your imaginary legislative body decided was porn was put on the porn-only port.

That is a great point, honestly. A line in the sand would have to be drawn and undoubtedly, there would be people who either want access to something that is on the porn channel, or who have access to something that is not on the porn channel. Either way, they would be unhappy, such as yourself.

However, I want to point out that CP80 does not force people to get the CP80 solution. You can still get a standard Internet connection. You would still get everything.

However, if I wanted to avoid porn, I could atleast use the CP80 solution as a first step. I am able to get the protection I am looking for without infringing on anyone else's choices.


>>I fail to understand why you think pornographers across the planet would passively submit to "legislation" that would have this effect.

Legal porn business may not have a problem with it at all. But illegal pornographers will definitely have a problem with it.

Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
myarro
Member
Member # 8547

 - posted      Profile for myarro   Email myarro         Edit/Delete Post 
>>The other persistent problem is that this requires an easily quantifiable definition of "porn," and I have yet to hear of such a thing.

There is a legal definition for pornography and for obscenity. They already exist.

There would definitely be gray areas--there's no doubt about it. But there is plenty of content out there that could be easily categorized.

Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
So you're expecting there to be a central database of whether or not every single website in the world is pornographic, and for ISPs to redirect (at the IP level) traffic on websites which are deemed pornographic to differing ports for certain customers?

Are you mad?

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
myarro
Member
Member # 8547

 - posted      Profile for myarro   Email myarro         Edit/Delete Post 
>>And its not that the rest of the world "wouldn't want to market their products and services" its that they'd look at your delusional little piece of legislation, laugh, and wait for ISPs and businesses to fight it to the death, because our large businesses depend on being able to connect to the whole internet.

Once again, a business could simply request a standard Internet connect. Nobody has to use a CP80 solution.

However, individuals and company that wanted to, have a choice.

Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, and I await your "solution" for websites which host both pornographic and non-pornographic content, but by far predominantly non-pornographic content.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
See, all along I thought you were proposing a server-side approach, which is delusional if technically feasible. The approach you're proposing is not technically feasible.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
You know, it would have to be on the IP level because otherwise people would circumvent the "filtering" just by typing in the appropriate IP . . . but then you've got hosting companies who put large numbers of sites on one IP! Suddenly those sites become inaccessible when one is pornographic.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I am able to get the protection I am looking for without infringing on anyone else's choices.
Or, you could just control which content you request and not bother anyone else about it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
There is a legal definition for pornography and for obscenity. They already exist.
And a fine definition it is. All you do is take the work, and try to determine:

Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

That leaves -- as it should -- an amazing amount of wiggle room. It still boils down to "It depends."

I'd still like to know the ruling on sites with explicit content that aren't commerical pornography sites.

Museums. Written erotica sites. Rape crisis sites. Sex ed sites. Mainstream photographers who include nudes in their portfolios. Laurell K. Hamilton's site, for that matter, especially if she posts excerpts [Smile] .

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
myarro
Member
Member # 8547

 - posted      Profile for myarro   Email myarro         Edit/Delete Post 
>>What? Why do you have to parent your child at all? Why don't we pass legislation making everyone else in the world parent your child? That's the most ludicrous question I've heard in this forum maybe ever.

So why they have laws against children smoking, drinking or using drugs? If it is so easy to simply be a parent, why are those substances regulated?

Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
myarro
Member
Member # 8547

 - posted      Profile for myarro   Email myarro         Edit/Delete Post 
>> Why not stop arguing technical crap and just tell the truth, "This is going to make it harder/more expensive for ME to get pornography and is therefore evil."

I am not sure that it will cost more at all to get either "channel".

Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
myarro
Member
Member # 8547

 - posted      Profile for myarro   Email myarro         Edit/Delete Post 
>>So you're expecting there to be a central database of whether or not every single website in the world is pornographic, and for ISPs to redirect (at the IP level) traffic on websites which are deemed pornographic to differing ports for certain customers?

Let's say only the US is interested in CP80, no other country. Porn sites in the US have to make the decision for themselves-there would be a transition period. Once the transition period is over, they can be legal accountable for pushing porn over port 80.

A porn company could have a presence on port 80, but it would have to be a cleaned-up version. Everything else would exist on another port--as determined by law.

If a porn site wanted to push the limit, they run the risk of litigation. If they win, they push the limit of what can exist on port 80. If they loose, well I would imagine most legitimate porn business just would run the risk.

They still have as much access to consenting adult customers as before. Just not to non-consenting adults or children.

Now an end user in the US could subscribe to either channel, both or use a standard Internet connection. If they subscribe to the non-pornographic channel, it is fairly porn-free compared to where the Internet is today. Furthermore, only those people who chose the porn-free channel would be blocked from accessing IP addresses in non-conforming countries.

The solution sits at the ISP. So an individual, parent or employer doesn't have to spend time, money or resources trying to manage his own content filtering, whitelist, proxy settings, etc. It's just on or off.

Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
I am sure it will raise the costs of providing internet connectivity. The question is, who will pay the extra cost. The likely answer: everyone who uses the internet.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
myarro
Member
Member # 8547

 - posted      Profile for myarro   Email myarro         Edit/Delete Post 
>>How about if they created a "G" channel for people who are unable or unwilling to deal with a less restricted internet. Access to publish on that channel would be strictly controlled and no content deemed unsuitable for children would be allowed. It wouldn't restrict anyone's freedom to publish on the "real" internet and it would provide a "safe" place for those who are unable to adequately filter content themselves.


We actually look at this and still consider it a possiblity, but you have the same problems. Who controls what goes where. There would still need to be laws in place. And even if the US passed legislation that restricted porn, etc. from being published on the G channel, how do you prevent foriegners from pushing porn onto the channel.

As we approached the solution, we discovered where one would require fewer companies from retooling their servers but a greater battle of acceptance, the G channel approach was the opposite.

Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chungwa
Member
Member # 6421

 - posted      Profile for Chungwa   Email Chungwa         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm rather pleased that what you're suggesting is not going to happen. At least, not unless technology changes rapidly in a very odd direction.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
myarro
Member
Member # 8547

 - posted      Profile for myarro   Email myarro         Edit/Delete Post 
>>myarro, you mentioned earlier that a parent has no control over a curious child. This to me shows a considerable amount of ignorance on your part. I think you are forgetting that a child, regardless of parents, age, sex, upbringing or education, is still a human being, capable of making decisions, having opinions and acting on their impulses.


All I am suggesting is that if you took two children and one had access to all the vices he could desire and the other did not, there would be a greater chance of the child with access to the vices of having those vices adversely affect him--and more importantly adversely affect him before he had a chance--as an adult--to make a decision for himself. For example, I have a niece today that is a chain smoker because she picked up the habit at 14. Even though her mother doesn't smoke, her father doesn't smoke and both forbade smoking.

Now, preventing access to vices doesn't guarantee a child won't find it. But it increases the chance that a child will grow up to adulthood and then make a decision that suits him or her.


>>No matter how good a parent you are, a child's actions are his/her responsibility and completely out of your control.

Yes an no. Ultimately everyone grows up--and I mean that they start to take control over their own lives; however, you are what you eat. If you allow someone to ingest garbage into their system, they will become a result of that garbage.

>>The freedoms that people like Locke, Mill, and Jefferson talked about are freedoms that everyone share. They aren't freedoms that we acquire when we gain enough wisdom in life to make good decisions, they are ours whether we want them or not.

Correct. But once a child becomes an addict of a substance or has had their behavioral patterns changed because of exposure to something, they have lost part of that freedom. And when they become an adult, it is harder for them to exercise that freedom.


>>As a parent, I think that the best you can do is set a good example on how to live responsibly and honorably, and then hope that enough of it sinks in.

Agreed. But if I found my kid with some crystal meth, I sure wouldn't hope that he "figures that one out too," because he never saw me smoking.


Children and teens rarely have the wisdom of an adult, and as such their decisions may not be as smart or as good, but they can still make them. No amount af legislation, argument or regulation is going to change that.

I understand what you are saying and agree. Children need to learn how to make good decisions, and not always have someone make the decision for them--or you end up with a society of robots. But there are some substances and materials that can be so harmfuland dangerous it becomes a compelling interest of a government to do something about it.

That's why alcohol, tobacco and drugs are regulated. And pornography in the real world. We are just trying to apply those same standards to the Internet.


>>Creating two channels for would further define adults as "responsible" and all children as "irresponsible" as well as "immature." In a very general sense, this may be true, but consider some of the "adults" you've been around in your life. Exactly how different are we, aside from having a larger database of memories, from a teenager, or a child for that matter?

Agreed. Some adults act like kids and vice versa. I suppose one of the more important defining factors is the law, for better or worse.

>>So I just have to ask, what difference is there?

The law is the difference. I agree that I have meet plenty of minors that were far more mature than some adults and some adults that were completely irresponsible. But the law defines who is an adult and who isn't.

However, event he law bends. Kids can emmancipate themselves from their parents or be tried as adults for particularly violent crimes.

Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
myarro, can you explain to me why your "solution" -- especially with all the conditions you've applied to it by this point -- is superior to a TLD filter?

The technical limitation of your port solution -- that, for example, it would be impossible to create a truly "G" (i.e. whitelisted) port, as users could always just broadcast on whatever port they wanted until they were caught -- would not apply to a TLD, and would especially not apply to a dynamic whitelist.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
You still haven't addressed my critiques which point out how your solution is completely infeasible in a technical sense.

In fact, you seem to keep switching which solution you're proposing. In order for the internet to "remain the same" for people who don't subscribe, its necessary that all ports be available and that internet sites be almost entirely on port 80 (some sites redirect to other ports for various purposes, typically related to multiple purposes at play).

Yet above you again talk about porn sites switching which port they serve on. If you have people do this, it is infeasible technically to provide a "normal" internet experience for those not interested in your approach.

Which is it?

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
myarro
Member
Member # 8547

 - posted      Profile for myarro   Email myarro         Edit/Delete Post 
>>myarro, can you explain to me why your "solution" -- especially with all the conditions you've applied to it by this point -- is superior to a TLD filter?

The actually implementation of a TLD or Port to categorize content is similar. We think that the technology required to check a packet and see if it were coming from a different port vs. a .xxx domian would be more efficient.

Either way, an initiative/solution would still need to exist at the ISP (larger businesses are their own ISP to their employees), have laws in place to enforce its use, deal with foriegn web sites and get buy in by the public at large.

And unfortunately, because .xxx failed to approach these additional problems, it has cast doubt and uncertainty for all TLDs as to whether or not they could be effective.

Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
myarro
Member
Member # 8547

 - posted      Profile for myarro   Email myarro         Edit/Delete Post 
>>In fact, you seem to keep switching which solution you're proposing. In order for the internet to "remain the same" for people who don't subscribe, its necessary that all ports be available and that internet sites be almost entirely on port 80 (some sites redirect to other ports for various purposes, typically related to multiple purposes at play).

For example: example-of-a-porn-site.com would be on port 80. The site would be porn-free per the laws. If I had a standard Internet or the porn-free connection, I could view that site.

A link on the page is for "HotPix" which is pornographic material. The HTML syntax would be http://www.example-of-a-porn-site.com:##/hotpix/pic1.html

The ## us the port number that law requires pornographic content to use.

If I have a standard connection, I am still able to follow that link. If, however, I have a porn-free link, that port number is blocked at the ISP. I cannot access it.

If I had both the porn-free channel and porn channel, I could access the link.


>>Yet above you again talk about porn sites switching which port they serve on. If you have people do this, it is infeasible technically to provide a "normal" internet experience for those not interested in your approach.

The porn sites could configure their webserves to publish non-pornographic content on 80 and pornographic content on port ##.


Which is it?

Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Belle
Member
Member # 2314

 - posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle         Edit/Delete Post 
I am not someone who likes porn or looks for it, in fact I try to avoid it, and I have stumbled across banner ads that not only advertised for porn channels but contained extremely explicit imagery.

A child searching for infomration for a school report could easily stumble across the same thing and it would have nothing to do with my abilities as a parent. They wouldn't even have to click on the ad or go to the site to see something disturbing, it's in the advertisement itself.

That's the kind of thing I'd like to see stopped - I think every adult site should have a safe front page, that clearly tells anyone who sees that page exactly what it is, and all advertising banners that are offsite should also be safe for viewing. By safe I mean they shouldn't contain anything that wouldn't be publishable on the front page of a newspaper that any child would see. Heck that goes not just for sex, but for violent imagery as well.

I actively parent my children. I do control their internet access, and they must get permission from me before logging onto the computer or accessing the internet - they do not know my passwords and they can't get on the internet without my help. But I will let my 12 year old surf if she's looking for info for a school project and I'm always afraid of what she might stumble onto. Yes, I've talked about it with her, yes she knows what sex is and yes she knows there is content on the internet that is inappropriate and that she is to get me if she sees anything disturbing. But I do not sit over her shoulder watching every site she goes to. And I don't want to have to do that in order to protect her.

I don't care how it's done, whether it's a G channel or an R channel, I really could care less. I just don't want my kids exposed accidentally to things that could be disturbing like explicit sexual or explicitly violent imagery.

As for email that is the main problem area and because of the massive amounts of adult-content spam I don't allow my kids to have email addresses.

Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

I just don't want my kids exposed accidentally to things that could be disturbing like explicit sexual or explicitly violent imagery.

Who are you willing to let decide what constitutes "explicit," Belle?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
Actually she already mentioned that - "anything that wouldn't be publishable on the front page of a newspaper that any child would see." Those decisions are already made by every newspaper in the world, although they can have differing standards.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
I probably seem like I'm flip-flopping, but I'm really not.

-- I have no problem whatsoever with easily-available pornography, and I think it should be readibly accessible for adults who want it.

-- I think sites that may or may not be considered pornography, depending on the viewpoint of the person considering it, would bear the brunt of any anti-porn regulations and I am highly suspicious of anything that would act to define such sites with too-general terms.

-- I have no problem with the restriction of explicit nudity or sexual descriptions in ads appearing on search engines, particularly those that advertise themselves as popular and useful for everyone, i.e. Google, Yahoo, etc. But I think that those sites should make those decisions themselves -- and I note that both Google and Yahoo seem to be moving towards text-only ads over banners these days, anyway.

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
myarro
Member
Member # 8547

 - posted      Profile for myarro   Email myarro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by adam613:
[QUOTE]

1) There is nothing to stop anyone from serving porn on port 80

2) If I were a kid looking for porn, but my ISP was blocking the porn port, I could access it through a proxy that had access to the port and was redirecting to me on port 80. The software to do this is already widely available for other purposes.

1). That's the legislative part. Publish porn over 80 and face civil and possible criminal charges.

2). That proxy would be held responsible for being a publisher of porn, by proxy, on port 80.

Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
myarro
Member
Member # 8547

 - posted      Profile for myarro   Email myarro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:

I just don't want my kids exposed accidentally to things that could be disturbing like explicit sexual or explicitly violent imagery.

Who are you willing to let decide what constitutes "explicit," Belle?
Along with Chris' post, decisions about what is or is not pornography are made in all media every day: television, cable channels, books, radio, magazines, live performances, packaging, etc. and newspapers.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
myarro: as anyone can set up a generic proxy, I'd love to see you try to enforce that. Moreso, I'd love it when the supreme court struck down the part trying to make proxies responsible for the choices of the people using them.

Of course, the supreme court would likely strike down the attempt to legislate port 80 as well (freedom of speech and the press, combined with how the judiciary has chosen to interpret internet sites and computing in precedent, would smack the notion down right quick).

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
myarro, I don't think you quite understand the difference between something centralized like products made by businesses and something as decentralized as what you propose.

Not only that, but you haven't thought out the social consequences, even if what you were proposing were technically feasible. Large swathes of sites which occasionally host potentially questionable content would switch over to the "dirty port". Sites that offered good, non-pornographic public information, like on breast exams and birth control, would switch over because there would be people suing them otherwise. Many huge content-hosting sites would switch just to avoid having to audit all their content, adding another significant cost to already strapped budgets. A fair number of sites would switch out of protest. Eventually, the internet would pretty much all be on the "dirty port".

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

Along with Chris' post, decisions about what is or is not pornography are made in all media every day: television, cable channels, books, radio, magazines, live performances, packaging, etc. and newspapers.

Hm. Perhaps you are unaware of the existence of local decency laws?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
myarro
Member
Member # 8547

 - posted      Profile for myarro   Email myarro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by adam613:
quote:
1)

2). That proxy would be held responsible for being a publisher of porn, by proxy, on port 80.

Only if the publisher or proxy is in the US. Anyone in any other country can and will do what they want.
Correct. But if I am a CP80 user, they will also have their IP blocked. I won't be able to access them and they cannot access me.

quote:
quote:
Along with Chris' post, decisions about what is or is not pornography are made in all media every day: television, cable channels, books, radio, magazines, live performances, packaging, etc. and newspapers.
The decisions made every day by the media have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.[/qb]
Care to elaborate on this?


quote:
There is no central authority that tells them what is and isn't pornography; All they have is the FCC to fine them after the fact if they cross the line.
Yes and no. The FCC fined Janet Jackson for her half-time show stunt (I think it was $550000). But when a adult gives pornographic material to a minor, that is a criminal offense.


quote:
What you are proposing is a barrier for entry for would-be publishers. That barrier must by definition be administered by some central authority. Therefore, someone must decide. [/qb]
Actually there is no barrier. The publisher needs to decide for himself where his content should exist. If he is wrong, he will face the consequences of his decision.

Maybe, similar to the Fax law, an illegal post of material on the wrong port costs $500 per person who stumbled upon it. Cleaned up the Fax spam quick enough (for those of you who can remember that)

Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

But if I am a CP80 user, they will also have their IP blocked. I won't be able to access them and they cannot access me.

But what's the upside here? People who are so desperate to never ever see porn that they would, for example, voluntarily sacrifice their own ability to ever visit any site hosted in a foreign country are going to be people who could get by with a whitelist.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Maybe, similar to the Fax law, an illegal post of material on the wrong port costs $500 per person who stumbled upon it. Cleaned up the Fax spam quick enough (for those of you who can remember that)
Which perfectly illustrates the difference here. No one calls up your browser and splashes porn on it. Ultimately, you have to request the porn from your browser. Granted, you can be tricked into doing just that, but legitimate publishers aren't forcing you to view anything. "Fax spammers" were doing exactly the opposite.

It's the difference between a 1(900) sex line and a pervert calling you at home. One of them is a legitimate business, the other is a crime.

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:

But if I am a CP80 user, they will also have their IP blocked. I won't be able to access them and they cannot access me.

But what's the upside here? People who are so desperate to never ever see porn that they would, for example, voluntarily sacrifice their own ability to ever visit any site hosted in a foreign country are going to be people who could get by with a whitelist.
Exactly. And, as adam613 said, "It's a lot easier to let people in than keep them out."

I identify as pro-porn. I think most of it is crap, but I think the good stuff is important and enriches life. I'm also all in favor of people who want to opt out of a given sphere going ahead and opting out on their own. Makes more sense to set up a regulated channel which could be subscribed to by those who want it than to try to keep people out. More feasible, certainly.

Edit: And, uh, what KarlEd said. *grin

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
myarro
Member
Member # 8547

 - posted      Profile for myarro   Email myarro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:

But if I am a CP80 user, they will also have their IP blocked. I won't be able to access them and they cannot access me.

But what's the upside here? People who are so desperate to never ever see porn that they would, for example, voluntarily sacrifice their own ability to ever visit any site hosted in a foreign country are going to be people who could get by with a whitelist.
That is a choice that each individual must make. Not afraid of all the world has to offer? Get a standard connection. Want to be more conservative? Get a CP80 connection--with all its limitations.

But at least there is a choice on the table.

Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
There's a choice on the table now. Don't go to sites with porn. If a site displays porn, don't go there again.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
myarro
Member
Member # 8547

 - posted      Profile for myarro   Email myarro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
No one calls up your browser and splashes porn on it.
They do. And you point it out yourself...

quote:
Granted, you can be tricked into doing just that, but legitimate publishers aren't forcing you to view anything.
Except that legitimate publishers are using some of the same tricks and traps to force images onto your browser.

[QUOTE]It's the difference between a 1(900) sex line and a pervert calling you at home. One of them is a legitimate business, the other is a crime. [QUOTE]

Correct. But just recently, a large porn publisher did a completely unsolicited snail mailing advertisement for their magazine. So don't think that legitimate business are above tricks.

Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
I still don't see why opting-in to a preset whitewash list is a less preferable choice to what you are proposing, myarro. Not trying to yank your chain -- honest! [Smile] -- but I just don't get it.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
myarro
Member
Member # 8547

 - posted      Profile for myarro   Email myarro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
There's a choice on the table now. Don't go to sites with porn. If a site displays porn, don't go there again.

That's fine. But what do you do about misrepresented links, ads, popup traps, etc. How do you avoid those when you can't see them coming.

If I do my very best to avoid porn, and then am lead to a hijacked domain that redirects to porn site that pops a couple a dozen porn windows open, have not my rights to free speech been attacked?

Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
Do you have a pop-up blocker, myarro? They are quite useful.

I've set up my computer to only go where I tell it to go. Often I turn off images, and I manually open the ones I want to see. It's a small price to pay for my own piece of mind, and I like the low-tech, streamlined approach. *smile

Edited to add: I'm pretty choosy about where I spend my time on the net. I just don't have a lot of time to waste, you know?

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post 
The whole porn issue aside, I have no idea how people function without pop-up blockers. No site should be able to open a couple dozen windows on you computer, period, because you shouldn't let them. But I don't see how that has anything to do with your right to free speech.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by ElJay:
The whole porn issue aside, I have no idea how people function without pop-up blockers. No site should be able to open a couple dozen windows on you computer, period, because you shouldn't let them.

I get surly when other people give orders to my machine. Luckily current technology is sophisticated enough that I don't have to give up that control.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
myarro
Member
Member # 8547

 - posted      Profile for myarro   Email myarro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
I still don't see why opting-in to a preset whitewash list is a less preferable choice to what you are proposing, myarro. Not trying to yank your chain -- honest! [Smile] -- but I just don't get it.

Its because the current solutions/technology doesn't work well enough. Any teenager could probably work around a filter in seconds.

Some parents who do not have the technical capability, time or money to purchase/manage the exisiting solution need something more solid.

And the only way to do that is to manage the content, to regulate it more. Otherwise, it remains uncontrolled and unregulated.

Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
myarro
Member
Member # 8547

 - posted      Profile for myarro   Email myarro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
Do you have a pop-up blocker, myarro? They are quite useful.

I've set up my computer to only go where I tell it to go. Often I turn off images, and I manually open the ones I want to see. It's a small price to pay for my own piece of mind, and I like the low-tech, streamlined approach. *smile

Edited to add: I'm pretty choosy about where I spend my time on the net. I just don't have a lot of time to waste, you know?

I understand that. And maybe you are willing to have to do that--but why should I have to have a pop-up blocker and turn off my images. Why should I have to impact my free speech.

Doesn't it bother you that you might be missing a pop-up that is actually useful? Or that you have to make a few more clicks to access content?

I understand it is a small thing, but it is the priniciple of the fact that you have to experience the Internet differently.

If there was a solution that allowed you to not have to have a pop-up blocker on or turn off you images--why wouldn't you want it?

Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Its because the current solutions/technology doesn't work well enough. Any teenager could probably work around a filter in seconds.

Some parents who do not have the technical capability, time or money to purchase/manage the exisiting solution need something more solid.

And the only way to do that is to manage the content, to regulate it more. Otherwise, it remains uncontrolled and unregulated.

Couldn't a parent sign up for an AOL-ish whitewashed list of sites if it were offered? (i.e., the "Clean ISP" would only carry preregistered sites)

How could that be worked around easier than what you propose?

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
myarro
Member
Member # 8547

 - posted      Profile for myarro   Email myarro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:
Originally posted by ElJay:
The whole porn issue aside, I have no idea how people function without pop-up blockers. No site should be able to open a couple dozen windows on you computer, period, because you shouldn't let them.

I get surly when other people give orders to my machine. Luckily current technology is sophisticated enough that I don't have to give up that control.
Because, people have the right to say anything under the protection of the law. And people also have the right to determine whehter or not they want to listen to it. Both are examples of free speech.

When someone hijacks my system and forces me to see something I didn't want to see, that violates my free speech.

Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2