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

David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

guardian.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 369 posts

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#291

Post by mseebach »

computer wrote: post #274
flexie wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As if Britain didn't have real problems to deal with: - Long term unemployment is at a 17 year high. - Government debt is at 90 percent of GDP. - Violent crimes is worst in EU. For years Britain has feared loosing sovereignty to the European Union. To me it seems like they should maybe worry more about American influence with all the wars they fight, the spying on their citizens and now the neo puritanism.

> "- Government debt is at 90 percent of GDP." Describing debt as percentage of GDP is a subjective anti-debt framing of the issue. Here's why: Units of debt: $ (here pounds). Units of GDP: $/year. So, units of debt/GDP: years, not percent. Since "100%" sounds like a high number, this way of framing the numbers is useful for scaring people. Putting it mathematically correct "11 months" sounds much less scary.

GDP is a measure of the size of the economy to allow comparison between different years and different countries. Putting things in fractions of GDP allows the same comparison to be made meaningfully.

> Putting it mathematically correct "11 months" sounds much less scary.

Yes, and for exactly this reason it's dishonest: It implies that you could, if you wanted, repay the debt in 11 months - which is impossible.

Anyway, 90% debt is only scary if we decide that there is a threshold below 90% that is un-scary. If the threshold was 150%, then Greece is scary but UK isn't. If it's 10% then everywhere is scary.

Personally, I'm more scared and/or outraged by the way the money is wasted than by the exact size of the debt.

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#292

Post by saljam »

conroy wrote: post #54
Sven7 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they have taken a good step in the right direction. Kids are exposed to too much crap these days. Kids growing up with involved parents and teachers turn out alright, but there are a whole lot of kids who aren't that lucky.

These laws will not help. Outlawing content will not make it suddenly disappear, it will just be a bit harder to find. Any attempt to filter content will be circumvented. Australia's attempt failed miserably back in 2007[1]. I agree that children are exposed to too much "crap" today, but using children as an excuse to censor material is a political move. [1]: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/08/australian_p…

I grew up in a country with mandatory web filtering. ("For pornography", but naturally, dissent forums always end up in that list.) Virtually every kid I knew was comfortable using Tor, Bittorrent, or a plain old web proxy (in the early days) to get around it.

These filters are just an inconvenience, and if your child is too stupid to work around them then you've got worse problems.

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#293

Post by lazyjones »

We've had similar attempts in several countries before, mostly argued for with the fight against child pornography. This has nothing to do with pornography, Cameron wants a censorship infrastructure so he can prevent access to sensitive "leaks" and other content that his regime might find dangerous.

Just don't get dragged into a for/against pornography discussion, it's pointless in this context. Even if you're naive enough to believe Cameron is actually trying to censor pornography, ask yourself whether such an infrastructure can and consequently will be abused.

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#294

Post by netcan »

fsniper wrote: post #24

Same tactics everywhere, Mandatory internet Filters on every ISP as a precaution against pornography or child pornography. Same crippled laws as Turkey. Nobody is prevented reaching porn. But most of the time filters are used against so called "piracy", "extremist" political or "regional" views and these kinds of political agendas. Currently websites pro-evolution are struggling censorship.

Nobody is prevented reaching porn

I think we need to stop thinking of censorship as an on off switch. Total prevention of information transfer to motivated parties is not possible in this day and age. What is possible is making content more marginal, less likely to be stumbled onto, etc.. That doesn't mean it's not powerful though. It's a different type of power. You will not prevent hardcore political dissidents from learning relevant news through internet censorship. You can however influence mainstream views. You can increase the publics exposures to one view and decrease exposure to another view. You can make certain positions feel safe, mainstream. This works particularly well within the context of a "tribe" you identify with.

Censorship's influence on political opinions is similar to its influence on sexual morality. The influence is strongest near the mainstream, weakest at the extreme. If you have to call up and request access to porn, use special software, etc., it will feel like you are doing something slightly abnormal. Like walking into an adult cinema in the 70s.

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#295

Post by mseebach »

eru wrote: post #288
computer wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "- Government debt is at 90 percent of GDP." Describing debt as percentage of GDP is a subjective anti-debt framing of the issue. Here's why: Units of debt: $ (here pounds). Units of GDP: $/year. So, units of debt/GDP: years, not percent. Since "100%" sounds like a high number, this way of framing the numbers is useful for scaring people. Putting it mathematically correct "11 months" sounds much less scary.

Yes, though of course, the numbers should get their scare value from something more objective. I.e. some kind of study about how much debt is actually harmful (or not?).

The problem with that is that it's very hard to get a substantial body of empirical evidence in which you can isolate the variable. There was incredibly high debt during and after WW2, and the UK survived that, but then there's the elephant in the room of the uniquely united nation having just fought off a very real and direct existential threat. We don't exactly have that level of common sense of purpose today.

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#296

Post by antninja »

conroy wrote: post #12

> Every household in Britain connected to the internet will be obliged to declare whether they want to maintain access to online pornography These declarations will only be used to shame public figures once the list is leaked. > The possession of "extreme pornography", which includes scenes of simulated rape, is to be outlawed. Video footage of two consenting adults, acting out a scene, will be illegal to own. With t…

> These declarations will only be used to shame public figures once the list is leaked.

LOL. On my Twitter account I have a public list for porn. It used to be a private list but most of those girls are pretty cool so there's no reason to be ashamed.

I'm not a public figure of course but I think this shame toward sexuality is a generational thing. It's only taboo for older people.

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#297

Post by Tichy »

Sven7 wrote: post #245
MichaelGG wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have kids, and I was a kid. My parents let me run quite unchecked, and at 12, a friend and I ran a BBS. This helped me learn about interactions and technology. My daughters, since they've been a couple years old, have had unrestricted access to the Internet via tablets and laptops. Quite frankly, I'm far more worried about the impact of shitty cartoons and crap Disney productions than I am them watching porn. Indee…

There are a lot of assumptions here. (1) You know (or can tell) what content your kids are exposed to on the internet. Most kids I know are quite adept at keeping what they are upto hidden from their parents and that isnt unique to the current generation. (2) Parents have a much better sense of content, kids are exposed to on TV (where content is regulated and rated for the most part) than on the internet. (3)Even if…

Kids aren't exposed to anything on the internet. It is not a push medium. I have used the internet for 20 years now and I don't think I have ever involuntarily encountered a porn site.

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#298

Post by mseebach »

espadrine wrote: post #268
bigiain wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the inevitable google-bombing and re-definition of various words. Anyone googled "santorum" recently? The Wikipedia article has a nice rundown on how a US Senator's name ended up thus: 'The word santorum, as defined, has been characterized as "obscene", "unfit to print", or "vulgar".' I eagerly await the day a Google image search for "David Cameron" starts returning furry-rape-sex pictures, and "Conservative Part…

Beyond redefinitions, it turns out people are really good at creating codes. The french Argot was such a code, designed by thieves and criminals. It created a whole new wealth of dangerous words. Instead of Internet search tracking, they feared eavesdropping. That law is pointless. You're supposed to use Internet searches as bait as long as it works, not force criminals to create a new language immediately! There wer…

This reminds me of the last days of Napster when they started filtering on lists of artists' names and you had to iterate over various misspellings to find the "consensus" on how to "properly misspell" names.

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#299

Post by Udo »

Sven7 wrote: post #249
bandushrew wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have 4 children. I fear a world where my children cannot express themselves freely FAR more I do a world where I have to explain to my children that some people are just kind of weird... Censorship of the internet is NOT ok.

answered here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6082643

I never said this before on any occasion, but I really hope you get banned for this and the other things you have done in this thread.

  > answered here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6082643
bandushrew didn't ask you a question, nor can I think of a case where mindlessly posting links to one's other posts in the same thread like you did could ever be considered OK. The post you linked to does not answer anything, it's just your way of pointing people to the inane things you already said. Clearly you believe people will have to agree with you if only you repeat yourself often enough.

Furthermore, you posted this exceedingly stupid "Do you have kids?" one-liner at least four times in this thread, simultaneously managing to portray yourself as accusatory, lazy, superior, and spammy at the same time.

This thread has degraded in quality due to your participation, both in form as well as in content. You mastered the invoking of the infamous "won't someone think of the children" rationale and somehow topped it by assuming only people with children should have a voice in these censorship discussions and this voice would somehow automatically be bound to agree with you. While I find your opinion personally disagreeable it's really your (to use the term broadly) discussion style and tactics that are offensive in the extreme.

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#300

Post by hide_nowhere »

And like usual, we'll find the public figures responsible for pushing such regulations on morality will be those most likely to be the biggest offenders.

But this isn't about "protecting the children" from porn, is it?

I'm on the wrong side of 40, and I've been online for 28 years. Professionally involved in the software and bitplumbing of "the web" for all of my adult life. I saw jwz's camo cube and montulli's fish tank with my own eyes, and years before that, wrote software alongside visionaries guided by the promise of building online communities and the freedom of information.

It wasn't supposed to turn out like this.

The people making these rules are incapable of building the surveillance apparatus without our involvement. Take this opportunity to look hard at what you're creating, and examine the motives of the people you're building it for.

Post reply on HN