ISPs BT, Sky, Talk Talk and Virgin are to offer web users the opportunity of banning pornographic websites from their smartphones, laptops and desktop PCs. But it's not clear exactly what this means in real terms, as web providers all currently offer packages enabling known pornography sites to be blocked. This is, of course, something of a dark art, as not even the most solitary teenager knows where all the pornographic sites reside on the web. The four ISPs are promising that parents will be able to block all pornographic sites, forever.
(There's no mention of tablets, incidentally, which may offer for hope for iPad-owning porn fans, trapped within the puritanical confines of the App Store.)
Today's announcement comes as Prime Minister David Cameron announces a raft of 'child protection' plans, including the launch of a website called Parentpoint. Parentpoint will offer parents the opportunity to complain about inappropriate web content. Ofcom welcomed Parentport, saying it would make it easier for parents to complain.
Cameron will also back a ban on advertising billboards displaying adult images near schools, and meet with internet industry representatives in response to concerns over the sexualisation of children.
Web porn ban: why is it happening?
The government is driving all of these actions in response to a Mothers' Union report from earlier this year, that attacked the use of sexualised images and other children to market products to children. (It's also hoping for some Daily Mail-friendly headlines that distract attention from the fact that the economy is going to Hell in a handcart and eveyone apart from the close personal friends of the Secretary of State for Defence is feeling the pinch.)
Commenting on the report the surprisingly gendered head of the Mothers' Union Mr Reg Bailey said that UK childhood was now beset by "commercialisation and sexualisation", on TV and the web. Bailey will enjoy his Mary Whitehouse/Lord Longford moment in the sun later today when he goes to meet Mr Cameron at Downing Street.
At the industry summit Bailey will demand that what he refers to as 'steamy' pop videos to be restricted to older teenagers on the web, and post-watershed slots on television. He will suggest covering up magazine covers on shelves that feature sexualised images. Rumours that Mr Bailey will also demand 'spectacles that don't steam up' are almost certainly not true.
Responding the Bailey's report earlier this year, Cameron said: "As you say, we should not to try and wrap children up in cotton wool or simply throw our hands up and accept the world as it is.
"Instead, we should look to put 'the brakes on an unthinking drift towards ever greater commercialisation and sexualisation'."
Web porn ban: what does it really mean?
It's fair to say that the Mr Cameron's government is not looking to gain votes from the tech savvy readers of PC Advisor. This type of announcement - thin on policy, high on headlines and gimmicks - is aimed squarely at people for whom the internet remains a scarcely presence on the outside of their daily lives. People whose children are much more web savvy than they are.
It's virtually impossible to block an entire genre of websites, unless you completely unhook from the web. Most parents who have been through this process suggest that education and openess is the only way to address these concerns, as terrifying as the content on the internet can be. And although Parentport is - on the face of it - a great idea, the concept of simply blocking out unwanted material is a dangerous panacea.
See also: Govt to force ISPs to block porn sites
Comments
owne said: I know i meant to say Matt need to remove comment likeEqualityWorksBothWaysI didnt say to remove Matt Egan comment
Matt Egan said: Fair point I must confess to making snide digs from the comfort of my own sense of being right For the record what hacks me off in this situation is call me Dave trying to garner votes by playing on the fears of all parents I have no time for porn and I shrink at the idea of defending freedom when it comes to mean allowing terrible opinions But still the idea of the government defending innocents in this respect is a long way from freedom And Cameron is hunting votes and talking ass
David said: Thanks for making that clear Matt But I still dont like the snide digs at that Bailey chap Hes putting the opinion to a large and influential group of the public to the government not blowing his own trumpet And my experience of the MU is anything but prudery collectively as well as personally
David said: Freedom comes only with responsibility Dave Total freedom is a myth because everybodys free choice will restrict some other person Thats why Humanity lives in Societies which impose the rules more or less successfully that give us reasonable freedom I reckon our own society is moving too fast towards I can do what I like and forgetting the I need to do my bit for all
David said: In other words nothing will ever work so why bother trying - and youre all wrong anyway Try some positive useful comments
David said: So youre saying that anyone can post anything no matter how horrible and parents should spend hours a day checking and filtering everything their kids might see No Controlled opt-in is the democratic way with basic filters standard but cancellable and heavy filters available Even then curious kids will find a way round - they always have But its no excuse for a corrupt Web Most people want their favourite tipple to be no-trouble accessible but other peoples equivalent that they dont like banned - just like parking banned outside my house but I can park where I like
David said: Hope youre joking owen - but it should be opt in not stuck where kids cant fail to find it Same goes for anything else addictive
David said: They are Nomail in any civilized country as well as the closed ones No-one should have the right to force hateful or violence-fomenting stuff especially where kids can easily see it and be influenced Thats where most suicide bombers get groomed
David said: Matts right - such comments are paranoid No seller would want to be caught breaking the rules - its expensive If you saw this it will be a customer flipping through the mag then - probably - putting it with the kiddy stuff just for mischief Tesco has shelf back labels in most stores so go and see
owen said: You need to remove comments like these one
Matt Egan said: It isnt Youre paranoid
EqualityWorksBothWays said: Very strange how gay male porn mags are allowed to be displayed right next to the kids comics in Tesco stores though isnt it - when the Nuts FM etc are up on top shelf behind cardboard sightscreens Why is this allowed
Derekdouglas said: for a load of tech savy people no one has mentioned the fact that browsers have parental control built in and win dows does allow you to be the admin of your childrens accounts
John Moore said: That depends on your point of view If you need porn to fulfill your life whats difference whether you opt in or out You still have the freedom to dribble over porn if yo want
Dave said: You shouldnt have to opt in for freedom Freedom should be the default restrictions should be the opt in
John Moore said: If you did a bit more research instead of giving a knee jerk reaction you would know that you can opt IN to recieve these sites So adults can in fact Choose to watch whatever they want Its not a case of censorship at all but just another version of how YOU choose to access the internet
Jonnyspam789 said: True but it should be up to each adult to watch it if they WANT to
ReallyMadhamish said: The ghost of Mary Whitehouse haunting Whitehall Who gave the government of any colour or hue the right to censor what I thinkwatchsaybelieve It should be up to the parents at the home level to decide what their children have access to
Nomail said: Next it will be dangerous religious or political ideas that need to be censored
Jonnyspam789 said: What No no I cant live without porn