Monday, October 20, 2008

And here we go again ...

The next phase in the drive to regulate the internet is kicking off:

According to a recent survey nearly 75 percent of kids in UK have been disturbed by images which they saw on the Internet.

75%? Sounds a bit high to me.

The survey undertaken by NSPCC, a leading charity promoting the cause of children, was based on the polling done on the children’s website

Ah! So a completely impartial and trustworthy source, then!

NSPCC has urged computer manufacturers and retailers to install mechanisms in computers that would prevent children from being exposed to inappropriate content.

Expressing the view of the organisation, NSPCC policy advisor, Zoe Hilton remarked “Children are just a few clicks away from innocently stumbling across upsetting or even dangerous pictures and films such as adult sex scenes, violent dog fights, people self-harming and children being assaulted.”

Gosh, really? Adult sex scenes? Violent dogging? I'd hate to see your bookmark file, Zoe!

Ms Hilton also stress on the need for incorporating advanced parental controls in computers.

The survey has also brought to light the need of video hosting and social networking sites to monitor content posted on their sites and become more proactive in removing any offensive material.

Blah, blah, blah. The world is a strange, cruel and unforgiving place, Zoe. An abattoir is infinitely more disturbing than anything I've ever seen on youtube (apart from 2 girls 1 cup, maybe.) You're never going to stop kids from exploring the world out there.

Pain and distress are there to teach you lessons. Didn't like seeing that donkey porn? Don't fucking look at it. Do something stupid and get a scar? A much better lesson than some smarmy cunt patronising you.

Stop fucking cosseting the kids. Stop trying to ban them from exploring the virtual world. And if it really bothers you, don't give the fuckers a PC. Chase them out into the parks and streets to ride their bikes, play games. Let them enjoy real life. Let them skin their knees and interact with each other and exercise and get fresh air.

And play hide and seek with Gary Glitter.


Anonymous said...

Government (and charities are, for practical purposes, an extension of the government) have a vested interest in demanding that manufacturers and retailers do the parents' job for them.

You see, when people have spent decades being told that it's not their responsibility to raise their kids, they start to believe it. They start to say "Hey, why should I have to raise my kdis? Why should I have to pay for my kids? Why should I have to do anything for my kids? Why won't someone else do it?". And, y'know, there is someone out there who's willing to step in and do your job for you. That someone is called HM Government.

Whatever it is tha you don't want to do, the government'll do for you. Don't wanna pay your rent? No problemo, amigo - that's what Housing Benefits for. Don't wanna get a job like the rest of those suckers? Hey, we don't blame you - have some Jobseeker's [wink wink] Allowance. Can't be bothered signing on? Friend, that's why we have Disability Living Allowance.

The Government will do anything and everything for you....and all they ask is that you become their willing slaves. Stop thinking for yourself and you'll get a free flat and weekly cash handouts. Stop questioning the socialist experiment and you can sit on your fat arse shooting bastard children out of your diseased snatch while inhaling Big Macs five at a time.

In this particular case, it's the NSPCC and protecting children from the dangers of Teh Intarwebz, but it could just easily be any other issue and it all boils down to the same solution: surrender both your responsibilities and your rights and the state will give you free treats paid for by those stupid bastards who actually waste their lives working for a wage.

Aristotle wrote, in the Athenaion Politeia, that Greek democracies failed the instant the people realised that they could vote themselves money from the public purse. Nowadays our democracy has failed because a growing lumpenproletariat have realised that a vote for Labour is a vote for ever greater treats for themselves paid for not by the public pure but by our purses through exorbitant taxation on our earnings and purchases at every level.

BigLig said...

AS Cory Doctorow points out in a different context, making a piece of software that can detect donkey porn every time is several orders of magnitude harder than making a bit of software that can detect spam every time.

Do you see Google making billions with a guaranteed spam free gmail service? No? Ah, well, then they probably haven't found a way to reliably detect donkey porn either.

whoops said...

OF COURSE! its donkey porn. silly me, there i was thinking that the powers that be wanted to restrict the intenet to shut down the alternative media and stifle independent political debate, when it's really to protect the children! boy do i feel dumb.

Alan Douglas said...

I do understand where they are coming from. I'm no child, but get VERY disturbed by images I see on the internet.

Mainly of Gordon effing Brown. Makes my skin creep.

And watching his mouth when he speaks, that very odd sucking motion he does after every few words. It's him saying "Ooooh, another whopper I just got away with.

Alan Douglas

Anonymous said...


Henry Crun said...

The govt and children's charities have been wittering on about this for years. How they expect compute manufacturers to prevent anyone typing sex into google is beyond me.

I remember about 7 or 8 years ago a phone in debate on the rdio on exactly the same subject and one very wll spoken woman came on to complain about the "filth on the internet".

"I typed Horse into one of those search engines, andyou should have seen the pictures"


Anonymous said...

People need to realise that the virtual world is a direct reflection of the real world in which we live. Of course parents need to influence the exposure to aspects of both as children are developing but allowing them unmonitored internet access effectively means you consider that they no longer need such protection.

I would never consider looking at the search history on my children's computers because I respect them as individuals and I respect their right to privacy.

Pogo said...

According to a recent survey nearly 75 percent of kids in UK have been disturbed by images which they saw on the Internet.

Serves the dirty little fuckers right for going looking for it then!

whoops said...

yep i have been using the internet for yearsand i've never come across anything indecent except when i've been looking for it.

pink for danger said...

I remember a brave new world on the horizon when a program was devised to measure the amount of pink pixels on a monitor and thus determine it was porn.

Well, the problem of Tinternet porn wasn't resolved; the pink was worse when it was red, and anyway, poor Duncan Goodhew never got any hits.

Like when someone (reportedly) tried to ban the word breast from search engines. Out went breast cancer, chicken breasts, breastplates... though I suspect people were still finding breasts aplenty. They probably typed in "tits" and after getting Ms Hilton, found what they really wanted.

John Pickworth said...

We should also remember that the internet is a force for good too. Insert pieces here about killing golden egg laying geese and babies in bathwater etc.

Channel4 has just run a major series on sex education but I'll wager far more teenagers are self-educating themselves via the internet on such matters. Yes there's good and bad out there but let people see both and decide where the appropriate lines should be drawn.

The seedier side of the internet may titilate sad little men like Gary Glitter... but look at the monsters like Sidney Cooke who existed before such a technological relief was widely available? I'd suggest the 'charities' think about that before killing off the geese and emptying the bathwater.

Anonymous said...

Me and my siblings were watching porn on tv when we were brats, as well as gory films and all manner of filth. We weren't scarred by any of it and grew up just fine. Granted, that wasn't finding it on the internet, but still. If they really wanted children to be safe from this stuff, they should advocate increased parental responsibility.

It is no longer looking out for the children, it is protectophila and coddleporn.

Steve said...

Complete fuckin bollox. This is another attempt to stifle freedom by people scared of their own perversions hiding behind the chiiiildren.

I mean, we have recently been protected from terrorists, or was it Icelandic banks? A fine demonstration of what they are really up to if ever one was needed.

Besides, it is duplicitous to criticise democratic countries, such as China, (vote for any party you like as long as it is the communists) whilst attempting to enforce the same rules here.

Who will protect the adults from over zealous child minders?