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

31–40 of 49 posts

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#31

Post by wjoe »

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 don't think such a database would mean anything though. If these new filters are anything like the filters that mobile networks currently have, there will be a bunch of false positives, and sites blocked that are sort of "for adults" but not actually pornography. So chances are any adult will want to turn off the filters fairly quickly.

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#32

Post by b0ing »

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…

Uhhh, but what are the images of? Abused children who probably didn't want to be in pornography at the age of (not 18).

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#33

Post by _mulder_ »

harrytuttle wrote: post #14
_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 sor…

More 'laugh at Daily Mail readers' fodder: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPlEIryW8zA

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#34

Post by beaker52 »

People may find these links interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisexualism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_repression

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libido_(Psychoanalysis)

"It is this need to conform to society and control the libido that leads to tension and disturbance in the individual, prompting the use of ego defenses to dissipate the psychic energy of these unmet and mostly unconscious needs into other forms."

Say... consuming material goods?

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#35

Post by harrytuttle »

_mulder_ wrote: post #33
harrytuttle wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sor…

More 'laugh at Daily Mail readers' fodder: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPlEIryW8zA

Good find. Charlie Brooker is the only public voice of reason I've seen in the UK media. His work is hilarious and thought provoking and nothing in between.

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#36

Post by agilebyte »

martswite wrote: post #23
ancarda wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unfortunately the Daily Mail is one of the most read newspapers in the U.K. How the D.M gets away with preaching about this kind of thing baffles me though, especially because of their "side-bar of shame"

Maybe you preach about it so no-one attacks your "sidebar"?

To me this OTT response from the leadership is a sign that moral conservatives are dying off and fiscal conservatives are not replacing them.

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#37

Post by agilebyte »

lcedp wrote: post #2

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

I think the font shadow kills it. There is no sense in having it there. It is not like the white font needs to stand out from the background more by adding more semi-transparent white...

Sometimes I see the same thing when selecting text that I read (for some reason I select the text I read with a cursor...).

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#38

Post by rahoulb »

moocowduckquack wrote: post #12
_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.

Unfortunately, the Daily Mail is very influential - their demographic fits extremely closely to the membership of the Conservative party.

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#39

Post by clicks »

b0ing wrote: post #32
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…

Uhhh, but what are the images of? Abused children who probably didn't want to be in pornography at the age of (not 18).

One possibility is having it be CG. Under current law that is illegal.

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#40

Post by mappu »

erikstarck wrote: post #17
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.

I don't even think that would be possible to enforce. What would you do, just block 1723/500? How about ssh -D? Going to block all TLS traffic?

"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

Post reply on HN