StevoTheDevo

I surf the internet daily and have never unknowingly entered a site that I would describe as damaging to children. Safe sites do not ordinarily link to unsafe sites.. Since the government's argument for Net Filtering is based largely around safety for children, where is the evidence that children are "stumbling" onto inappropriate sites? Following from that, if, as I suspect, children are entering such sites out of curiosity, and knowing that the proposed filters are easily bypassed, how can the government prevent children knowingly using the loopholes to continue to access the unacceptable content when mandatory filtering is activated? In my opinion, if children are deliberately accessing unacceptable content now, they will be the first to learn the loopholes necessary to continue to do so, leaving the children still exposed to the content and the rest of the population with slower (than it already is) internet and a false sense of security that the children are protected from themselves. If it can't be done properly, why waste the money doing it?