Think about the question before you reply.
Think Internet and mobile phones.
Think Internet and mobile phones.
-
22Yes, it's up to parents what they want to see or their children to see.0%11No it's censoring.0%7No it might result in less sales for me.0%4 -
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? -
oh shut up.Comment
-
For the guy who voted, No it's censoring. So you're against Net Nanny and parental control?Comment
-
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.Comment
-
-
Webmaster Coupons Coupons and discounts for hosting, domains, SSL Certs, and more!
AmeriNOC Coupons | Certified Hosting Coupons | Hosting Coupons | Domain Name Coupons
Comment
-
Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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."Comment
-
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.
You don't like my posts? Put me on ignore or fuck right off. I'll say what I want.
Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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."Comment
-
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.Comment
-
Comment
-
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 steroidsComment
-
Send me a login, and I'll do a review
Comment
-
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?Webmaster Coupons Coupons and discounts for hosting, domains, SSL Certs, and more!
AmeriNOC Coupons | Certified Hosting Coupons | Hosting Coupons | Domain Name Coupons
Comment
-
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.Last edited by Jakez; 12-03-2011, 05:32 PM.Comment
-
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?Comment
-
Bump so we can have two identical threads on the 1st page.Comment
-
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?Last edited by Jakez; 12-04-2011, 03:50 PM.Comment
-
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.Comment
Comment