Censorship of the Internet and Opt In options by the ISP. - GoFuckYourself.com

Paul Markham · 12-03-2011, 01:37 PM

Think about the question before you reply.

Think Internet and mobile phones.

Paul Markham · 12-03-2011, 01:42 PM

I voted yes. It's 100% down to parents what they allow into their home or for their children to watch on TV.

If the Father wants to do it secretly without his wife knowing. Tough shit, deceit no way to run a marriage.

But are you honest enough to vote, your main concern is your income?

porno jew · 12-03-2011, 01:46 PM

oh shut up.

Paul Markham · 12-03-2011, 01:58 PM

For the guy who voted, No it's censoring. So you're against Net Nanny and parental control?

Steve Awesome · 12-03-2011, 02:20 PM

Really difficult not to vote yes because of the way the question is worded. However, if the "children" happen to be 21 or over and still living at home, their parents using this option would be kinda sorta super lame. Context.

ErectMedia · 12-03-2011, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Awesome

Really difficult not to vote yes because of the way the question is worded. However, if the "children" happen to be 21 or over and still living at home, their parents using this option would be kinda sorta super lame. Context.

or the kids would be kinda sorta super lame, get a job and get the fuck out

CYF · 12-03-2011, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

For the guy who voted, No it's censoring. So you're against Net Nanny and parental control?

there;s a difference here...

NetNanny is something the parents can CHOOSE to install. There's nothing wrong with parents choosing to use it.

ISP censorship is imposed upon everyone.

FUCK CENSORSHIP.

Paul Markham · 12-03-2011, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Awesome

Really difficult not to vote yes because of the way the question is worded. However, if the "children" happen to be 21 or over and still living at home, their parents using this option would be kinda sorta super lame. Context.

That depends on whose paying for the connection, rent or mortgage, electricity, etc. Money is power.

Eyeball · 12-03-2011, 02:35 PM

Too many of todays parents are not responsable enough to vet what their kids do up in their bedrooms. Moan all you want, if you didn't peddle smut you would think differently.

Besides, 14 yr old mikey and many of the 60 million others should be doing their homework instead of clicking on ppc banners on certain tubes.

Mr Markham, you asked this question to a bunch of agoraphobic 'adults' who would fall apart at even the thought of them picking up the telephone to ask their ISP to turn off the adult filter. It's an unfair pole.

stocktrader23 · 12-03-2011, 02:40 PM

What point are you trying to make? I can feel the wall of text coming.

signupdamnit · 12-03-2011, 02:52 PM

I have to vote "No, it's censoring" as a result of how you have written the question. It should not be opt-in but instead opt-out. ISPs should preferably show it all by default until the parent decides to opt-out. People shouldn't have to call up and have the "I'm a perv" conversation with the 18 year old customer service girl to view the porn.

Jarmusch · 12-03-2011, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

For the guy who voted, No it's censoring. So you're against Net Nanny and parental control?

With parental control software you OPT OUT not IN.

Big difference.

porno jew · 12-03-2011, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stocktrader23

What point are you trying to make? I can feel the wall of text coming.

he edited out his wall of text first post.

paul thinks he's being clever here and trying to trick people in to saying the internet shouldn't be regulated.

as you know from previous walls of texts he thinks the internet should be regulated. maybe they will regulate paying too much for old crappy content again.

stocktrader23 · 12-03-2011, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

he edited out his wall of text first post.

paul thinks he's being clever here and trying to trick people in to saying the internet shouldn't be regulated.

as you know from previous walls of texts he thinks the internet should be regulated. maybe they will regulate paying too much for old crappy content again.

I've seen content that would give the elderly heart attacks. Should have to get a checkup before browsing the internet if you are 50+.

Paul Markham · 12-03-2011, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eyeball

Too many of todays parents are not responsable enough to vet what their kids do up in their bedrooms. Moan all you want, if you didn't peddle smut you would think differently.

Besides, 14 yr old mikey and many of the 60 million others should be doing their homework instead of clicking on ppc banners on certain tubes.

Mr Markham, you asked this question to a bunch of agoraphobic 'adults' who would fall apart at even the thought of them picking up the telephone to ask their ISP to turn off the adult filter. It's an unfair pole.

I know it's unfair. Like all of life. The option is to turn on to adult if they feel their home is appropriate place for porn or many other subjects. Like extreme violence, terrorist sites, etc.

Opt in or opt out, is nit picking and you guys proposing that are nit picking. ISPs will sell it as an opt in service, you won't be asked if it's opt in or opt out and you all know this.

Paul Markham · 12-03-2011, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CYF

there;s a difference here...

NetNanny is something the parents can CHOOSE to install. There's nothing wrong with parents choosing to use it.

ISP censorship is imposed upon everyone.

FUCK CENSORSHIP.

What are you drinking?

Have one for me and come back in the morning, when you're sober. The parents CHOOSE to allow porn into their homes. So nothing but the right to CHOOSE is being imposed.

raymor · 12-03-2011, 03:28 PM

There's a big difference between opt-in and opt-out. Also of course there is the fact that filters just plain don't work. Even if Netnanny were 92% effective, let's say, that would still leave 400,000 sites for teenagers to wack off to.

Jel · 12-03-2011, 03:47 PM

Send me a login, and I'll do a review

CYF · 12-03-2011, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

What are you drinking?

Have one for me and come back in the morning, when you're sober. The parents CHOOSE to allow porn into their homes. So nothing but the right to CHOOSE is being imposed.

I read your first post before you edited it, and that's what I was replying to. My reply still stands, and I'm not drinking or smoking anything.

Net Nanny is fine, because the parents choose to install it on their computers.

Having ISPs censor porn and having to opt in to receive porn inflicts censorship upon everyone, and I'm against that.

How was that so hard for you to understand?

Jakez · 12-03-2011, 07:19 PM

Do you really believe parents can stop their kids from viewing porn, whether they're under 18 or not, when just about everyone in the house has a personal computer in their bedroom and the kids know their way around the 'net 1000x better than parents do?

This type of shit would only hurt us and make free porn more rampant.

Paul Markham · 12-04-2011, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor

There's a big difference between opt-in and opt-out. Also of course there is the fact that filters just plain don't work. Even if Netnanny were 92% effective, let's say, that would still leave 400,000 sites for teenagers to wack off to.

Exactly. This is about protecting children, not making sure some pornographers can get a few more clicks.

Opt in makes it an actual choice to have porn in your home. Opt out leaves the possibility that some will slip through. In reality few will slip through, as parents and couples fill in the forms for Internet connections the box will be there and most will opt out. Some husbands might be aggrieved, but are these the same husbands who want a $30 bill on their CC statement every month for their wives to see?

When it comes to children, we don't have opt in for baby seats in cars or other things. There should be IMO more than porn as an opt in, there are many things online I don't want my 9 year old to see.

Nothing is 100% effective, no one expects it to be. 92% would be a much better target than 0% which we have today.

I still say the difference between opt in or opt out is nit picking by pornographers who are scared they might lose some clicks. Those selling traffic per click would hate this development. 10% or 30% of their traffic would disappear over night.

How many sign ups would be lost?

Jarmusch · 12-04-2011, 05:18 PM

Bump so we can have two identical threads on the 1st page.

Jakez · 12-04-2011, 05:45 PM

Lol @ ending back up at the "people selling traffic". C'mon Paul give it a rest. What does selling traffic per click have to do with something like this any more than anyone else working in adult online? Less traffic overall = less sales for everyone.

You want to make it so that it blocks all the legit porn sites if you don't opt-in correct? What about the porn sites that don't get caught by the ISP's filters? They would take over control of the traffic from computers that "don't have porn access". Do you get it?

porno jew · 12-04-2011, 05:56 PM

paul somehow thinks if the government censored the internet somehow we would go back to the betamax era and people will be willing to pay wildly inflated prices for his crappy content.

he thinks he is being clever with these polls and is trying to trip people up, but no one really even cares to respond. so whatever.

View Poll Results: Should parents be given the choise to opt in for porn on their Internet connection?
Yes, it's up to parents what they want to see or their children to see.	11	50.00%
No it's censoring.	7	31.82%
No it might result in less sales for me.	4	18.18%
Voters: 22. You may not vote on this poll

12-03-2011, 01:37 PM	#1
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	Censorship of the Internet and Opt In options by the ISP. Think about the question before you reply. Think Internet and mobile phones. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70 Last edited by Paul Markham; 12-03-2011 at 01:40 PM..

12-03-2011, 01:42 PM	#2
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	I voted yes. It's 100% down to parents what they allow into their home or for their children to watch on TV. If the Father wants to do it secretly without his wife knowing. Tough shit, deceit no way to run a marriage. But are you honest enough to vote, your main concern is your income? __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

12-03-2011, 01:58 PM	#4
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	For the guy who voted, No it's censoring. So you're against Net Nanny and parental control? __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

12-03-2011, 02:20 PM	#5
Steve Awesome Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Mid-West! Posts: 1,575	Really difficult not to vote yes because of the way the question is worded. However, if the "children" happen to be 21 or over and still living at home, their parents using this option would be kinda sorta super lame. Context. __________________ *The AbbieCash Porn Network. Billing processing by CCBILL. Join our affiliate program today*. RealDollSex \| AbbieTeen \| GamerChicks \| ModelTexans \| HottieCams Nintendo 3DS Porn Blog \| Steve's Adult Industry Blog \| Abbie Bueller's Porn Blog

12-03-2011, 01:46 PM	#3
porno jew Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 10,166	oh shut up.

12-03-2011, 02:35 PM	#9
Eyeball Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 552	Too many of todays parents are not responsable enough to vet what their kids do up in their bedrooms. Moan all you want, if you didn't peddle smut you would think differently. Besides, 14 yr old mikey and many of the 60 million others should be doing their homework instead of clicking on ppc banners on certain tubes. Mr Markham, you asked this question to a bunch of agoraphobic 'adults' who would fall apart at even the thought of them picking up the telephone to ask their ISP to turn off the adult filter. It's an unfair pole. __________________ VideosZ

12-03-2011, 02:40 PM	#10
stocktrader23 Let's do some business. Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: The dirty south. Posts: 18,781	What point are you trying to make? I can feel the wall of text coming. __________________ Hands Free Adult - Join Once, Earn For Life "I try to make a habit of bouncing my eyes up to the face of a beautiful woman, and often repeat “not mine” in my head or even verbally. She’s not mine. God has her set aside. She’s not mine. She’s His little girl, and she needs me to fight for her by keeping my eyes where they should be."

12-03-2011, 02:52 PM	#11
signupdamnit Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 6,697	I have to vote "No, it's censoring" as a result of how you have written the question. It should not be opt-in but instead opt-out. ISPs should preferably show it all by default until the parent decides to opt-out. People shouldn't have to call up and have the "I'm a perv" conversation with the 18 year old customer service girl to view the porn.

12-03-2011, 03:28 PM	#17
raymor Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 3,745	There's a big difference between opt-in and opt-out. Also of course there is the fact that filters just plain don't work. Even if Netnanny were 92% effective, let's say, that would still leave 400,000 sites for teenagers to wack off to. __________________ For historical display only. This information is not current: support@bettercgi.com ICQ 7208627 Strongbox - The next generation in site security Throttlebox - The next generation in bandwidth control Clonebox - Backup and disaster recovery on steroids

12-03-2011, 03:47 PM	#18
Jel Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 6,904	Send me a login, and I'll do a review

12-03-2011, 07:19 PM	#20
Jakez Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: oddfuturewolfgangkillthemall!!!!!!! Posts: 5,656	Do you really believe parents can stop their kids from viewing porn, whether they're under 18 or not, when just about everyone in the house has a personal computer in their bedroom and the kids know their way around the 'net 1000x better than parents do? This type of shit would only hurt us and make free porn more rampant. __________________ [email protected] - jakezdumb - 573689400 Killuminati Last edited by Jakez; 12-03-2011 at 07:32 PM..

12-04-2011, 05:18 PM	#22
Jarmusch Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 12,464	Bump so we can have two identical threads on the 1st page.

12-04-2011, 05:45 PM	#23
Jakez Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: oddfuturewolfgangkillthemall!!!!!!! Posts: 5,656	Lol @ ending back up at the "people selling traffic". C'mon Paul give it a rest. What does selling traffic per click have to do with something like this any more than anyone else working in adult online? Less traffic overall = less sales for everyone. You want to make it so that it blocks all the legit porn sites if you don't opt-in correct? What about the porn sites that don't get caught by the ISP's filters? They would take over control of the traffic from computers that "don't have porn access". Do you get it? __________________ [email protected] - jakezdumb - 573689400 Killuminati Last edited by Jakez; 12-04-2011 at 05:50 PM..

12-04-2011, 05:56 PM	#24
porno jew Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 10,166	paul somehow thinks if the government censored the internet somehow we would go back to the betamax era and people will be willing to pay wildly inflated prices for his crappy content. he thinks he is being clever with these polls and is trying to trip people up, but no one really even cares to respond. so whatever.