wizzi

Whilst I do agree with the aim of the filter, I don't believe it should be mandatory.

ISP-level SPAM filtering through some (most) ISP's is enabled by default with the freedom of being able to opt-out if it's not desired. Why can't this type of approach be adopted by the Government with this filter? Why does it have to be mandatory?

Surely, this opt-in/opt-out approach would give the less tech-savvy parents (who wish to protect their children) the chance of better controlling their children's internet usage whilst also allowing the people who do not wish to be affect by the filtering the freedom of browsing any/all content they so desire.

What one person deems to be unsuitable content may be the subject of another person's research or hobby. I don't believe any one person/group/organisation/body is able to decide on behalf of the nation.

If all supposed illicit content and websites are blocked, how is the wider population (or even research groups) supposed to learn about and learn from it? Surely this learning aids in the protection of those who are at risk of being affected either directly or indirectly by predators who mis-use the privilege of being able to access the blocked material/content.

Although it seems that the Government has (regrettably) already made their decision as to the outcome of this proposal, it would be good to see them adopt a more sensible approach to ISP-level filtering rather than a 'blanket' that affects all Australians. This is not the way the majority of the population agree with which is why there's such a huge uproar about it. More acceptance would be received for an enabled-by-default-with-the-option-of-opting-o solution. At least this way the efforts, time, money and input that has been contributed to this idea can be used without going to waste.