Censorship of the Internet and Opt out options by the ISP.
 

For those who don't like it being imposed.

Think about the question before you reply.

Think Internet and mobile phones.

no one cares.

So I decided as so many were nit picking whether it should be opt in or opt out. Heres how I should of worded it. I expect all the guys who think it should be opt out to come in in and vote Yes.

I'm afraid most of them will find another excuse. Which is why self regulation of the online porn industry isn't an option.

You changed the title but the poll question is still the same.

"Should parents be given the choise to opt in for porn on their Internet connection?"

If we're going with opt out I think you'll find most here do not care. Of course it's your choice what you want in your house and only a handful of assholes would want to take that choice from people.

That said, this is not 1999. There are not porn popups on Disney typos, there are not 1000 dirty tricks to get kids clicking because banners are 10 cents per click etc. I would feel sorry for the panty waisted men that would just let their wife opt out of porn being available to avoid confrontation. Porn is healthy and keeping it away from young kids is great, controlling ass people keeping it away from their spouse is fucked up.

just spit out what you want to say stop fucking around.

Sorry I just did a copy and paste of the original post. My mistake.

Sex eduction is good for youngish children. They will get it at school from classmates, who get it from older siblings. So sitting down and talking with them is good. We have a 9 year old daughter and we have already discovered she knows more about sex than we thought. So I have sat down with her to talk and tell her I'm here when ever she needs to ask a question. She has already.

However we all know how sex is portrayed online and that's not healthy for children. Its mostly a brutal act with little reality or affection. Often women are used as sexual objects for a mans pleasure. Not something a pre pubescent child boy or girl, should be exposed to.

So I will expect you to come back back and vote yes it's up to parent to opt out of porn in the home.

As for a controlling wife, do you really think these husbands are spending much money on online porn? Yes you sell clicks and losing clicks whether they spend or not isn't good for you. Think beyond your own greed.

Please don't put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. I don't give 2 shits about lost clicks from families that want to opt out of porn being available to their children. You are just making this black or white when it doesn't have to be. If they can let you opt out of porn completely then they can also let you password protect it so mom and dad could still log in but Junior could not. They do this with TV already.

Wriggling out of giving a straight answer is your style. So now the question isn't right because it doesn't include a password for adults to opt in while blocking children. Well parents that savvy will have Net Nanny or another program that allows password protected areas. What if savvy kids get to know the password?

The simple truth is many online pornographers want 0 regulation because they know it will effect their business. Exposing children to scat, bestiality, child porn, BDSM, or even a free tube video of a girl being used as a piece of meat or screaming out abuse is fine. So long as it leaves them free to sell some more clicks.

This isn't a new stance. The stance of many over 2257 was that shooters should be responsible for 2257 documentation. Great if the shooter is outside the US. That negates the website from any responsibility. Put the Shooter in places like Russia and the problem of keeping records disappears.

Exempt "user uploads" and again the problem disappears.

Does this form of self regulation work? No. Self regulation = no regulation for those who choose to not bother in their attempts to squeeze a few bucks out.

Does this form of self regulation bring in more money to online porn? No. It allows the bottom of the barrel to dominate. Sites to give away so much free porn, the need to buy is gone. Yes it put's more money in stocktrader's pocket. but not into the industry as a whole. An enforced properly worded 2257 would remove most Tubes. Remove most porn piracy hosting sites based in the US. It would mean that they couldn't throw up free porn all day long to get a few clicks so they can bill people for a faster download.

A properly worded law against piracy would, if it included advertisers, have a big effect on the rest of piracy sites. All this would bring more revenue, more investment and better development of the Internet. And the economies of countries who adopted these laws.

Those unable to adapt, would die. Don't ask me for sympathy. I've seen offline porn shrink to a skeleton of what it was by the lack of regulation of online porn. We all know how other industries feel. Music, Films, Programming, etc. Are all against this idea of little regulation.

The probability is online porn will be regulated like offline porn and would return to being the industry it was. Real businessmen will rejoice, others will hate the idea.

The good thing about opt in or opt out is dotxxx would be on an automatic blocked list. Think of the good things regulations can bring. :)

Do you care about protecting children from the excesses of online porn?

Thanks for the bump. Can you keep bumping so I can reply hours later, if the thread needs it. :thumbsup

no one still gives a fuck about you or your thread.

:2 cents:

Guys who buy porn would be a good bet.

Guys who surf for free, kids, married men doing it without their wives knowledge (so not risking a CC bill) will avoid it.

Of course if the upbringing of children is less important than making a few bucks, then I suspect these guys will oppose it.

Let's be honest with ourselves 10% of what's online on free porn sites. Shouldn't be viewed by children. You might dispute the % but that's nit picking again. So do we, as a society leave it up to parents to be Internet savvy, or do we take a stronger view?

I'm glad most here want children protected.

It's not nitpicking. It makes a very big difference whether it is opt-in or opt-out. Like night and day. If it's opt-out I have no problem with it. If someone doesn't want to watch porn why shouldn't they be able to opt-out? It's not like I'm in the business of pushing porn on people who don't want to see it.

Mine already is, for 3 different mobile phones.

The filters never block just porn either - they block gambling sites and other things arbitrarily decided to be adult. The adult content block on a T-Mobile simcard won't even allow access to Facebook and YouTube so many remove it just because of that.

Why are you repeating yourself, Paul?

Think about the question before you reply.

NOTHING is going to stop underage people from finding porn and other vulgar things online
NOTHING!

Which is why I started the new poll.

Should parents have the right to decide what enters their house via the Internet?

For that matter, should a householder have the rights to decide what enters their house via the Internet. That is a much better question.

It's not day or night, opt in or opt out is the right to choose. Most people will choose not to have their Internet connections with porn content. Parents should be 100%.

It's still tough today to keep kids away from it, but that doesn't mean giving up.

If it's really about protecting children, wouldn't be a opt out option for religious and military propaganda more important?

I do not see what all of the fuss is about here honestly if you're a businessman.

1. Kids under 18 should not be buying porn. So this should help eliminate those CB's.
2. Only those who 'opt-in' are willing to pay/view porn. Meaning real potential customers.

Eliminate or "opt-out' anyone who can't or won't buy porn. Sure, there will be less traffic, but who fucking cares. I do not sell traffic. I want to sell porn memberships or whatever. That requires people of legal age, with credit cards, and willing to pay for it.

None of which is underage children. Make them "opt-in".

:2 cents:

It's simple. Kids click links, if you sell traffic, which is king, it's more clicks to sell. Protecting kids for some comes second to protecting incomes.

Otherwise this would a 100% yes vote, assuming those clicking no aren't under 18. :winkwink:

I'd rather see an opt out option, than an opt in option.. People are able to make their own decission or even control their own computers if they want. It's not the isp or governments job. That's in effect censorship.

maybe google needs to do age checks for sex related searches LOL

I sometimes wonder how much people here think.

Look at the three options and think.

Yes, it's up to parents what they want to see or their children to see.

Sounds entirely reasonable to me and should go beyond parents. All householders have the right to determine what enters their homes or buildings.

No it's censoring.

And do they really think very hard when answering No for this reason. Are they thinking a porn industry shouldn't be censored? So that makes the publishing of scat, bestiality, CP and even snuff movies legal. The Answer isn't so black and white, it's grey. Of course porn should be censored, the question is where is the line of what's acceptable. Because an uncensored porn industry lets in the scum of the world to prosper.

There are people and places in the world that will sell their children, no questions asked. Imagine the publication of a CP snuff movie. The act is illegal, censoring stops the publication of it. Yes we live in a bad world where good people need protecting from the bad people by laws.

No it might result in less sales for me.

This is probably what is governing most people's vote. The profit they can make. Is that an industry that should have no censoring?

The question is where is the line drawn, not yes or no to censoring. It will always be yes in a civilised society.

Arguing with a retard makes you a retard. Some of you still need to learn this lesson. :winkwink:

So I won't argue with you.

Scat IS legal and it should be legal because it's between consenting adults. If you want to reflect the UK law on this: yes scat is illegal in the UK but so is normal boy-girl porn. So the UK law is not relevant. In Czech the people are very open minded and scat is legal there too.

Bestiality, CP, snuff, animal crushing and violent should be illegal: production, distribution and posession. But all this is not relevent for the poll becuase kids shouldn't be explosed to any pornography at all because pornography is for sick losers who can't build normal sexual relationships with other people, not for children who are still developing themselves and therefor having the chance to become normal healthy sane people, a process that can only be frustrated by exposing them to pornography.

In the US and UK scat is illegal, plus probably a few other places. Normal BG porn is legal in the UK. Not sure where you get your facts from.

The rest would be allowed online if the 5 who want no censorship had their way. I guess they didn't think that deeply. :1orglaugh

You couldn't keep up codger.

I'm getting old Paul lol. When I was distributing porn in the UK in the 90s, we had to smuggle a mastertape to London where a guy dupicated and shipped them to customers in the UK and he told me in the early 90s he got raided and sentenced to a few months in jail. A lot must have changed since then. The porn I shoot is probably still illegal there which is good because it means less competition, lot of my online customers are in the UK.

Is LiveJasmin getting blocked anywhere? That site is famous for having camgirls doing scat shows. There is no excuse for making or keeping scat illegal. It's consent and doesn't harm anybody. Same goes for menstruation. I agree with you on hard SM and self mutulation, animals, and of course cp. IMO scat is now where watersports was 5 years ago. It was almost impossible to get a card processor for it. Now card processors are standing in line to process for watersports. People who get upset about scat content need to watch some animal crushing videos so they know where the really nasty stuff is, let alone cp.

O by the way Barry, our opinions differ but I always find you a pleasant person to read. One of the few people who remain constructive in here most of the time. :thumbsup

EukerVoorn should be banned from the internet and polite society. /thread closed.

Nathan speaks of hits of 60 million a day, how many of them would actually be clicking on ppc ads if they had to be age verified to access the tubes?

It should be the bill payers responsability to what is being viewed via their internet connection and by whom.

Yes you are. What was illegal were films that were obscene, liable to deprave and corrupt those they were intended for. Which is a law that hasn't changed and IMO a good one. It says the community makes the final decision. Most would call your porn obscene, so it's censored.

As for acts between consenting adult. Go think that one through properly.

If they made money we still would advertise them. This industry has that level of ethics. Therefore giving it the right to self regulate or self censor is ludicrous.

Wouldn't have problems with anything you've written to date. You' never really say anything except I'm old and stupid. Which is right and your opinion, which doesn't carry any weight.

Then Barry needs you to send him proof and you need to copy it here.

Scat is obscene and harms my feelings to see it. It's something that might change in time, but today under the UK law of obscenity, it doesn't stand a chance. And as for harm it causes to those who watch it. Have you got proof of this? For all you know it might harm people who watch it.

Some might try eating it, go look up why this shouldn't be done.

I've given you the link.

An uncensored Internet = https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1048663

You can't be voting for that the 6 who did. The act is illegal, the publication is censorship.

Let's all imagine a society where porn on your internet connection is opt-in, the average household has not the slightest clue the specifics of what they're getting when they order internet service, all they know is they're getting online, so chances are they're going to miss the little opt-in checkbox and/or the operator setting up the account over the phone is going to very briefly mention something along the lines of "would you like to opt-in for access to adult content?" upon which the person gets immediately uncomfortable and nonchalantly says "no thank you" even if they would like to opt-in. So due to this we have shrunken or completely destroyed the mass of traffic and sales that adult internet generates and those who were too embarrassed to opt-in from the get-go or didn't know they had to (the majority) will be looking for porn and easily find their way to the FREE porn sites that sneak through ISP's filters.

People can't even be bothered to notice an obvious pre-checked cross-sell in their face charging them $100+ how in the world are they going to notice that they have to opt in for porn? And just because someone opts in for porn does not mean they're more likely to be a paying customer, how do you come to that conclusion? As soon as they opt-in it's going to be just as likely that the members of the household know the free porn sites and the underage kids are also going to then have access to it, as if the kids didn't already know how to find it before they opted in.

Are you drunk? I don't need to send or proof anything. The only thing I care about is cp, rape and animal crushing. There's enough double faced backstabbers in this biz already, I'm not going to join that club.

O well, in Holland and France, it's legal. And I wouldn't promote eating scat but having unprotected sex with an HIV+ person is more dangerous. And people who would get harmed by being exposed to scat porn already must have issue already, wouldn't you think? I worry more about people being exposed to extreme violent movies, or that dead horror crap on sites like dailymotion.com

Then it's just an accusation he can't act on or put right. You can send him proof privately.

Do all of your movies carry a health warning or do they give the impression that it's not harmful?

I see you're in favor of censorship, just not what you like. Which is why no one will allow the porn industry to have a say in what is legal or not. Pedophiles will tell you children enjoy being sexually abused, so that makes it right. In their heads. :upsidedow

I wasn't accusing LiveJasmin of anything, I was complimenting them for the fact that many of the girls on there do scat shows, I think that's fantastic :)

No my movies don't carry any warnings, I can't be bothered to worry about retarded adults who might get damaged by them. I can't imagine it, you told me and if there are really people who are that volnurable and still stupid enough to watch extreme porn then maybe they're better be off dead anyway. If you worry about them, educate them on how to stop playing a movie they don't like watching, or teach them how to turn their heads.

For the rest, you're mixing everything up, you start this thread about protecting children against pornography, the discussion then derails to what kind of porn should be legal, two totally different things and then you conclude that I'm selective on what I think should be consored. Which is total bullshit.
Scatporn and any other kind of porn and violent crap should not be accessable for minors. That has always been my point of view on this subject and I have stressed this view in this thread.

.................................................. .......

from freedom to fascism.

:thumbsup

Actually, that's not an example of censorship, but of breaking a site's term of services.

You know what the problem with free speech is? That it protects not only views you agree with, but views you disagree with. It's really easy to say "free speech fuck yeah" until you have to defend views which you hate.

And that is the true test, else you're a hypocrite.

The under 18s in Brno should be made to watch porn, than at least they will be prepared after 18 when the they go to work for Paul Markham.