What I haven’t seen is how is porn going to be defined - and by whom? The old joke about not being able to google Scunthorpe is a good example.
What I particularly don’t like about the proposal is the idea you have to opt in to see 18+ content. It’s almost like they want to make people feel guilty about what should be their right by having to go to their ISP and request to opt in. It smacks of moralising and trying to embarrass people for wanting to have access to such things. It feels very puritan.
The default should be opt out not opt in.
Just what they are going to block anyway is a minefield. Recently a video for the song Blurred lines was removed from Youtube for being too explicit. Just where and who is going to draw the line? What some people call porn is not even remotely what I would describe as porn.
It’s hard to say anything about anything better than Charlie Brooker says it.
My most recent favourite Q: How do you spoil a five-year-old for ever? A: Buy him a convertible
And by “worst” you mean, for many, “best”.
Crazy. Whats the UK cumming to?
No, of course it isn’t. Pretty inflammatory headline there pal.
One speech by one person who’s looking to grab some headlines (hey, it worked), and you think the whole country wants to start putting covers back on piano legs?
We just legalised SSM, in case you hadn’t noticed.
As Brooker says, Cameron just wants to be re-elected - he has no interest in policies.
He also thinks the electorate has a limited attention span, and is scared stiff of Boris Johnson replacing him.
Cameron doesn’t speak for the country - just rich white businessmen.
Just wait till the autumn the teachers are going to be royally shafted by new contract, payment by results .. return to Victorian values, your kids fail the exams you don’t get a pay rise! In convinced they have no interest in making anything better.
If the next PM is Labour, will that be any improvement?
Unclench, mate. I’m well aware Great Britain is not a hivemind. I saw this headline and was gobsmacked that any represented official could begin laying down censorship plans for a policy that didn’t already have wide support. He was speaking as though this were a done deal, not suggesting an abstract concept to the citizenry. So I thought I would ask the question.
“Covers back on piano legs”?
Yep, those crazy Europeans with the sexual hang ups and socialism.
Cameron also has to shore up particular voter demographics which are under threat from UKIP - conservative/right/nutters, basically. So this can also be seen as pandering.
I don’t think anything will come of this, but on the subject of whether it’s possible to censor the internet…
I’m typing this from china and I can tell you websites are blocked pretty effectively here. You do need to be pretty savvy to get around the wall, and few people have the requisite tools / knowledge (so I’m told…I have no first-hand experience of any of this, officer).
And that includes young people – the stereotype of “all kids are tech wizards”, is just that.
Vitreous China! 
He doesn’t speak for rich white businessmen any more than he speaks for rich black businessmen or rich Asian businessmen. I’m tired of “white” being a byword for “right-wing selfish shit”.
That’s only an interim contract too - there’s another one in the pipeline, due to implement more changes a year after.
Did you know that there are 10,703,654 rich white businessmen in the UK? Me either.
My understanding - and I could very well be wrong - is that in China the state owns the ways in and out, whereas in the UK it is a mixture of private companies, state and educational things. Thus it is far easier for the Chinese Government to block, what with having total control.
We certainly don’t have that many here. Nevertheless, W didn’t speak for the country, only for rich white businessmen. Politics works out funny sometimes.
Pandering to the Daily Mail and its readership particularly.