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?