fred

On the topic of the filter, it simply will not work.

Since time immemorial mankind has worked its way around oppression. The French had thier underground in ww2, the Russians made vinyl records on old xray film, the Chinese find their way around their great firewall.

It simply cannot work, and if it APPEARS to work, it will merely be driving those sad people who indulge in this even more underground.

That's not to say that trying to stop it isnt admirable. But at what cost?

The cost of ignoring those poor children who ARE being abused by hiding them from view. It's a simple but effective way of putting your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and saying lalalalala! See no evil, hear no evil, there must be no evil. Right?

Wouldnt the more appropriate response be to create an international task force to take down the producers?

After all, this is the approach we take with drugs. Even though that policy is questionable in its merit, it is the only approach deemed acceptable to those in charge. How is this any different morally?

From a different angle, this is the thin end of the wedge so to speak. It's quite obvious to anyone with more than a smattering of brain cells that this is emotional manipulation intended to get a system put in place that can and most likely will be expanded on.

It's the age old first they came for the pedophiles, and I said nothing for I was not a pedophile. I think we all know how that ended.

Whos responsibility is this problem - a problem that to be frank, does not affect 99.99% of legitimate users? To back that claim up, in all my travels on the internet, way back to the days before google where the first 20 pages of ANY search were porn related, and in later times, even deliberate attempts to view porn I have not once accidently stumbled on child porn. Not once. I'd argue that yes, perhaps the government should intervene. But not by simply putting the technical equivalent of a flyscreen on a submarine, but by actively hunting these people. Also, I'd state that it is a parents responsibility to monitor their children. Lets face it, there are a LOT of things on the internet that a child could easily misinterperet or even interperet correctly. Without context, discussion and guidance there are vast numbers of topics, media and writings that could be deemed bad for children. Maybe they are. But we dont live in an ideal world. It's a mess, and bubble wrapping our youth and pretending that everything is roses will only lead to a lesser understanding of how to deal with life. The christians had it right eons ago, I have to wonder how they've managed to get it so so wrong lately. Read the bible some time. It's full of disgusting stories of human nature's most vile side, and yet we're happy to have these stories preached to children. Why does it morally work in this context and not in the context of the internet? Perhaps because we realise deep down that explaining that yes, this scenario is bad, these people are wicked, they victimise others with their behaviour, and please child, dont be like this person; is the better way to deal with evil. Providing evil with real context in a parable helps people deal with life. Pretending it isnt there doesnt make it go away. In summary, this issue I'd argue, been deliberately blown out of proportion to generate hysteria and push an adjenda beyond the initial scope of the project. Simultaneously it will have no real impact on the problem at hand and could well make it worse by forcing the perpetrators outside. Into the streets and playgrounds.