Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

b0ing.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 49 posts

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#11

Post by throwaway_87234 »

> I’m completely behind David Cameron being vehement about keeping children and rape out of pornography, by the way. I don’t think anyone on earth is arguing “pro” for that one.

I'm "pro" both of those. I believe that people that have a liking for these things will seek to satisfy their desires, and I think it's preferable they do it through porn to them doing that in real life. In other words, I would prefer that perverts jerk off using images of kids, not actual kids.

I also see no reason why that kind of porn would not be digitally generated (except for the fact that it's illegal).

Also, due to the online surveillance and the general political atmosphere, I feel uncomfortable posting this using my real account.

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#12

Post by moocowduckquack »

_mulder_ wrote: post #9

I'm annoyed that all the attention is now directed at Cameron as if this whole thing was his idea. It isn't! The Daily Mail have been running a very vocal anti-porn campaign for the last 2 years (at least). Forget child-porn, the Daily Mail have taken it upon themselves to rid the country of every sort of porn imaginable and have proceeded to flood the public concious with their weekly anti-porn propaganda. The funny…

If you think that this policy is not from Whitehall, but was drawn up by a newspaper with a circulation equivalent to ~3% of the UK population and then forced upon an unwilling Prime Minister, then surely that actually paints Cameron in an even worse light.

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#13

Post by _mulder_ »

ancarda wrote: post #10
_mulder_ wrote: post #9

I'm annoyed that all the attention is now directed at Cameron as if this whole thing was his idea. It isn't! The Daily Mail have been running a very vocal anti-porn campaign for the last 2 years (at least). Forget child-porn, the Daily Mail have taken it upon themselves to rid the country of every sort of porn imaginable and have proceeded to flood the public concious with their weekly anti-porn propaganda. The funny…

It's probably because the Daily Mail is a newspaper. David Cameron is a prime minister. Those are two completely different things. A newspaper can sit and rant all it wants and be ignored[1] but if an MP/PM says they want to block porn, far more people take notice, likely because it can actually be enacted. [1] Especially if it's the Daily Mail, a crazy, backwards newspaper nobody takes seriously.

But Cameron is just doing this because the Daily Mail have whipped up such a storm. He even credits them with being responsible for this issue...

‘The Daily Mail has campaigned hard to make internet search engine filters “default on”. Today they can declare that campaign a success,’ Mr Cameron said.

Source taken from a bizarrely self-congratualtory DM article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2372833/Net-porn-blo...

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#14

Post by harrytuttle »

_mulder_ wrote: post #9

I'm annoyed that all the attention is now directed at Cameron as if this whole thing was his idea. It isn't! The Daily Mail have been running a very vocal anti-porn campaign for the last 2 years (at least). Forget child-porn, the Daily Mail have taken it upon themselves to rid the country of every sort of porn imaginable and have proceeded to flood the public concious with their weekly anti-porn propaganda. The funny…

This is the same daily mail which regularly features almost pornographic images of children as well right next to their "kill all pedo's" articles.

The reason the DM is like it is stems from the fact that this country is full of vile moronic excuses for humans that will mindlessly buy and promote the shite that spews out of the mouths of that paper's writers (if you can call them that).

The politicians like these sort of people a they're easy to manipulate into voting for them.

Edit: apparently there was a nazi equivalent! http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_St%C3%BCrmer

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#15

Post by harrytuttle »

ancarda wrote: post #6
Permit wrote: post #4

What will be extremely interesting is when one of these databases of people who have opted in to receive pornography is leaked. Especially if it contains the names of politicians and other high profile individuals. I believe that's when the issue of privacy will start to be publicly debated and taken seriously.

I wonder what will happen if David Cameron is found on that leaked list.

Or placed on that list?

We haven't discussed the security of the aforementioned lists as well either. It could be ruinous to be on it couldn't it!

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#16

Post by colinhowe »

some_guy_there wrote: post #8

I hope it leads to more use of VPN and like. The added advantage would be that your ISP and GCHQ can not easily tap into your online activities, and you'll always have plausible cover of using VPN to hide your pornographic habit.

Join the pervert list or the suspected terrorist list. Great options, both :(

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#17

Post by erikstarck »

some_guy_there wrote: post #8

I hope it leads to more use of VPN and like. The added advantage would be that your ISP and GCHQ can not easily tap into your online activities, and you'll always have plausible cover of using VPN to hide your pornographic habit.

It is of course only a matter of time before the use of VPN becomes a regulated service, maybe similar to gun control. If you can prove that you need it professionally you will be added to a government registry and allowed to use a VPN. Otherwise, no.

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#18

Post by bandushrew »

throwaway_87234 wrote: post #11

> I’m completely behind David Cameron being vehement about keeping children and rape out of pornography, by the way. I don’t think anyone on earth is arguing “pro” for that one. I'm "pro" both of those. I believe that people that have a liking for these things will seek to satisfy their desires, and I think it's preferable they do it through porn to them doing that in real life. In other words, I would prefer that pe…

There are not enough studies into the effect of pornography consumption:

This one claims no effect - ie, that consumption of pornography does not appear to increase the likelihood of rape: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2032762

The one mentioned here claims that cases of rape are decreasing with the availability of pornography: http://voices.yahoo.com/online-pornography-helping-lower-rap...

Clearly nobody likes to think of perverts masturbating to pictures of children, but so long as no children are harmed to make that possible, who really cares?

I would love to see more studies done on the effects of pornography on violent crime - if we can decrease actual cases of child abuse by allowing, for instance, computer generated pornography of that type, then why not?

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#19

Post by marshray »

anonymous wrote: post #5
lcedp wrote: post #2

I can't read text of this font and colors.

It's almost the exact same scheme as Turbo C.

Oh you're right. Wow, that's a blast from the past.

Time to go reconfigure my terminal windows. I know what my next website is gonna look like heh heh :-)

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#20

Post by basicallydan »

Regardless of whether this is the prime minister's idea or the Daily Mail's idea, it's a slippery slope that we're being placed on here.

If we treat pornography as something inherently wrong (morally) and something which people should be shamed for, sooner or later we'll end up with a society which names and shames people who, quite rightly, exercise their right to view pornographic material, even the most 'softcore' of it.

Post reply on HN