Here's your Web allowance. Don't use it on porn

Try to Google "Internet is for porn". It really says it all.

The internet is really really great....

By the way... couldn't you just use a proxy server to get through the filter?

You can bet that it will be the porn industry who gets that proxy going.  After all, this would be a whole new market of untapped customers.  If someone really wants to get to it, it is impossible to stop them.

this has nothing to do with our rights. free internet is not a right, free tv is not a right. what is broadcast on "free tv" is regulated because it is more or less public. free internet would be free public access--just like in the library.

if people want to look at porn on the internet, then they should pay for the right to do so, we already have this. its called broadband from a provider such as comcast, or earthlink, or sbc. you know the good old $50 a month broad band?

people who want free everything need to stop asking for a handout and then crying foul when that free stuff is regulated. is there any wonder why it needs to be regulated? do you all doubt that our addiction to keeping up with the joneses, and all this grocery store womens magazines selling sex and al the crap on publicly broadcast free TV is doing to American Values?

it is eroding those values. for anyone who has studied, the family is the basic unit in any society. a society cannot exist without that unit. with climbing divorce rates, teenage pregnancy rates, and deadbeat dad rates, dont you think that it is time to do something?

its not about free speech, its about decency. free speech was not set up to allow indecency everywhere just for the sake of freedom does it?

when you are at your kids' school, can you just up and yell out profanity? I know you all answered NO, because you know that that would be improper, yet you champion free speech to allow indecency. there is really no such thing as free speech, just very careful speech, and it all depends on the social context.  

lets all show some consideration for others.

I agree the filtering is very offensive just for the fact it's the govrnment again trying to infrindge on our freedoms, If they don't want to filter it then just don't make free and public. It seems these days many are all to willing to give up their freedoms, to bend over just because the government says so.

They need to give us our rights back not make more restriction on the ones we have left!

I don't see it that way. I'm usually against censorship but in this case, it's not preventing you from buying uncensored Internet. Providing a free censored Internet would be nice so I could use a laptop in an airport or on a bus. With a free uncensored Internet, you would have to pay a lot more for additional enforcement due to idiots who want to view porn in public places. Common sense and common courtesy seem to be in short supply these days.

 With a free uncensored Internet, you would have to pay a lot more for additional enforcement

That doesn't even make sense. Its FREE... you are not paying at all, but yet its censored. Common courtesy in public places is social issue, not a censorship one. The same common sense about not taking your pants off in public should apply. But trying to lock up the Internet in a 'free' version is just plain stupid.

If you are given something for free you have no right to complain about the stipulations on it.  You cant complain to a soup kitchen that you wanted apple pie for dessert and make demands on what type of meal you get.

If you dont like the free basic service without porn you have to opportunity to pay for other services or go buy a magazine.  No one is restricting your right to that if you really want it.  Whine, whine, whine - even when something is offered for free. 

Harry,

From a technical standpoint, how would you go about creating the world's largest internet service provider and then filtering off all dirty images?

Technically speaking, I mean. How would you do that? I'm really curious, because as someone who tinkers around with the internet on a semi-professional basis the entire propositions strikes me as ludicrous. There's simply no intelligent way to do it.

If you can think of one, then by all means, explain it to me - otherwise, talk to China about how to set up a few thousand people scanning every single piece of data on the entire internet to determine if it's "appropriate" or not. Suddenly the "free" service costs the taxpayers millions of dollars in utterly useless upkeep.

The issue is not "can it be done" but "should it be done".  And as far as filters go, this is a simple process and would block 90+% of the porn.  Should it be done?  Why not?  No one has said "Block all porn!"  They have said we are providing a public serice and will block porn.  Just like at my libary.

I'm not exactly gunho for porn

You should really rethink this position, but I like the rest of what you had to say. :)

Harry,

From a technical standpoint, how would you go about creating the world's largest internet service provider and then filtering off all dirty images?

Technically speaking, I mean. How would you do that? I'm really curious, because as someone who tinkers around with the internet on a semi-professional basis the entire propositions strikes me as ludicrous. There's simply no intelligent way to do it.

If you can think of one, then by all means, explain it to me - otherwise, talk to China about how to set up a few thousand people scanning every single piece of data on the entire internet to determine if it's "appropriate" or not. Suddenly the "free" service costs the taxpayers millions of dollars in utterly useless upkeep.

So if you can't block it, don't try? I take it that's your logic. Well, you can't stop rapists so we might as well not try and just let them go about their business. We can't stop murder, so we might as well stop trying to do that also. After all, it is just a big waste of money.

To save yourself the effort of replying, I'll give your response for you "You can't compare it to that, it's not the same thing."

How about this then, since porn should be avalible from pubic internet and have easy access it should also have easy access at the grochery store. Next to the Opera magazine and Good Houskeeping they should put out the Hustlers without any coverings. Why put it behind the counter covered in colored plastic so you can't see it? OMG That's Evil Big Brother Censorship!!!!!!!

They are not blocking porn from the internet, just from the FREE access. Do you always complain about free stuff if it does not have all the bells and whistles of stuff you have to pay to get?

No they can't hope to block it completely, but they can make people try and that's better than not trying at all.

...for real? We're on the verge of the worst economic crisis since the depression and you see no problem spending millions of dollars in tax money in a largely symbolic gesture to build an infrastructure that's doomed to cause more problems than it solves and fail in any meaningful way to accomplish its goals?

I mean, wouldn't you rather that money be spent on education, or health care? Or maybe, since I'm sure it would just go to Defense anyway, buying armor plating for military vehicles so soldiers stop dying from bombs that could be prevented with a bit of armor?

The Internet Exists. On the Internet are many things. One of those things is pornography, and you will not defeat it. That's not a value judgment - I just mean that any 8th grader with the will to do so will find a way around your system. Not to mention the countless debates and lawsuits, not to mention trying to come up with a meaningful definition of pornography.

Couple that with the fact that any time you create a massive filter you are going to have false positives - lots of information that's not at all pornographic will, due to the fluke of someone's name or an ambiguous image tag, be qualified as porn and be blocked. That's how these systems works.

So. You advocate an expensive system that admittedly won't accomplish the impossible task you want it to accomplish, but will succeed in generating a lot of problems and eating up increasingly scarce financial resources. You advocate this in an unstable economy and without, it seems, even the remotest grasp of the technology involved. You wrap it in some weird moralistic hyperbole and then spew it like so much outraged vomit. And apparently a great many people agree with you.

This is very upsetting. I just don't understand.

Mykola,you seem to be the only sensible person on this discussion.Why does the government feel like it has a right or obligation to legislate morality?Personally,I think that internet porn provides a public service.It gives people the freedom to explore their sexuality in a safe way in a safe place.It keeps them out of strip clubs and porn theaters.What a person does in their own home is no one's business,as long as they are not hurting anyone else.

I agree with everything said. I have to go clean off my monitor too as I laughed while drikning soda. What a load of crap this article is.

From a technical standpoint, as a computer nerd, I just have to wonder whose job it's going to be to enforce this. If such a rule passes, someone is going to have to sit there and manually remove "bad" information from "good" information on the internet.

Not only is that a mere step away from Chinese-style technological dictatorship but it also means that the FCC is going to have to hire Porn Inspectors. Which is really funny.

Capn, you're demonstrating a gross misunderstanding of how this works. This airspace wouldn't broadcast specific signals like a TV station. It would give the user connectivity to the internet. The FCC is either going to have to censor internet content (good luck, @!$%#ers) or, as I say, there's going to have to be a massive, expensive and immoral system in place to filter which content gets through to users connected to that particular network.

So...when is the Author going to get on their soap box for broadcast TV and radio? By God with free speech I should be allowed to watch High-Def porn on my HDTV over the air, and listen to porn while I drive to work on the local radio station!

The Internet model isn't exactly the same as the TV and radio model, as Myk said. This seems a bit unnecessary (porn sites are required to have age authentication and though there's an argument that kids can bypass them, a significantly determined kid could bypass this filter as well).

Mykola, I agree whole-heartedly with your comments - and I would be classified as someone who is "against" porn usage.

The truth of the matter is the government should stay out of this. Award the spectrum to somebody (hopefully Google) and back the hell away.

Award the publics airwave spectrum eh?

The Internet model isn't exactly the same as the TV and radio model, as Myk said. This seems a bit unnecessary (porn sites are required to have age authentication and though there's an argument that kids can bypass them, a significantly determined kid could bypass this filter as well).

So... a link that says "Yes" is age verification? I didn't know that...

Not only that, but most libraries are required by law to allow people to view porn.

Yvonne, I've often had to wipe coffee something from laughing as well.

  The question is, are you permitted (through freedom, or a lax library assistant) to logon to the computers in the public library ANONOMOUSLY?  Are you required to sign in on a log sheet or possess a library card (i.e. some method of tracking 'who did what')?

Not only that, but most libraries are required by law to allow people to view porn.

Really??? Am I the only person who did not know this or what? 

Ah, not true, they by law must block porn.  Except maybe San Francisco.  I think they are required to have the top rated sites bookmarked when you log on.

Ah, not true, they by law must block porn.  Except maybe San Francisco.  I think they are required to have the top rated sites bookmarked when you log on.

Do your research, libraries in many areas are not allowed to block access to any information. This includes the internet, and everything on it.

"Do your research, libraries in many areas are not allowed to block access to any information. This includes the internet, and everything on it."

The majority of libraries in the country contain a filter very similar to that found in the workplace, one that bars based on the most basic of keywords, as well as a filter blocking the ability to download, and in some libraries with less bandwidth available, stream audio and/or video.  Libraries in every single county in the country ARE allowed to block access, same as any business.  You can easily work around most of it, since so many sights simply avoid the basic keywords, but the filter is still there.  For example, type porn.com and you'll most likely find the site blocked, regardless of whatever the content may have within.  Try listening to Internet radio, and in many areas the streaming ability will be blocked.  That said, I completely 100% disagree with the FCC's potential decision on this.  On a public system filtering makes sense, such as a library or local coffee house wi-fi hot spot, but filtering an individual's private system does not.  The parents should be the ones establishing filters for the children, the government should not be establishing filters for the adults in the privacy of their homes.

Bravo. Well said.

Yes, and we saw how well deregulated banks work. And a deregulated market. Oh, and deregulated energy costs.

While we are at it, lets deregulate safety standards in everything. After all, as responsable adults we don't need anyone telling us what we can or can not sell to the ignorant mass.

Yes, and we saw how well deregulated banks work. And a deregulated market. Oh, and deregulated energy costs.

I'm interested in the rationale you use to connect flawed deregulation of business concerns to a necessary regulation of content.

I am interested in that rationale too.

Your right the government is elected to server the public.  If you want supervision, join the miltary.  I as a citizen of a supposedly free coutry, want the freedom to make my own decisions right or wrong based on public opinion.  Also, giving free broadband is stupid.  Someone needs to pay for it.  There have been many, many wireless internet companies that have gone under because they cannot compete with wired or cell service. Also regulating TV is easy because there is only a few hundred network broadcasters that need to follow the law or get heavyily fined.  With the internet you have billions if broadcasters all around the world which means its an impossible feat to regulate unless you regulate everything like China.

"Yes, and we saw how well deregulated banks work. And a deregulated market. Oh, and deregulated energy costs."

We did?  Well, I must have missed that time period then, but from what is happening right now we sure know how well regulated banks work.  Forced loans using forced no down policies which have lead to forced foreclosures.  I've seen how poorly a regulated bank works, look around and we can all see that.  I've see how poorly a regulated market works, again simply look around, here in the states or in England or France.  I've seen how poorly regulated energy costs work, as seen by how today's US regulated energy costs (FERC, CERA, the Energy Policy Act) have led to heavy job loss and waste, leading to continued regulated higher costs. 

We did see back in the day how well deregulated banks, deregulated markets, and less-regulated energy costs worked, and that was much, much better than we have today with our regulated system.

Well in that case, I would like all mention of religion (any kind) and Republican propaganda eliminated from this free internet too. It's hard enough monitoring how much of that content my kids are exposed to on TV and at school... it would be nice to just let them sit in front of the computer and only have it show them exactly what I want them to see.

"Well in that case, I would like all mention of religion (any kind) and Republican propaganda eliminated from this free internet too."

Well then we hit a problem, because I would like all mention of religion (any kind) and liberal propaganda eliminated from this free Internet too.  As a strong atheist Republican, it would be nice to turn on the TV or sit in front of the computer and not have some of the most slanted garbage thrown in front of me on every screen in the house.  Actually, that's not true, all facts should be presented from both sides, all religions should be available for analyzing and studying.  I'll change my statement to just the ridiculous amounts of liberal propaganda on the airwaves nowadays, trying to convince the younger generations that taking from one group magically won't affect everyone else.

Also keep in mind that "free" wireless just means that it comes out of taxpayers pocket and porn is the number one way to swamp any network into an agonizingly slow connection and becomes very expensive to maintain.

So for a practical and cost effective free service, keep the porn off.

And you have evidence to support this? I'll presume you also advocate for the filtering of the use of hulu, youtube, and any kind of streaming video such as that used by NBC, ABC, and CBS to stream their shows.

Because the people with the morals are giving this away? Lets look at it in a more mathematical way. No internet connection = 0. Free internet w/o porn = 1/2. Internet w/ porn = 1. While 1 > 1/2, we must consider that 1/2 > 0. Basically:  Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Exactly.

but because the system would be free to use and paid for by taxpayers.

What are taxpayer footing the bill for here? The FCC is auctioning of currently unused wireless frequencies with the caveat that 25% be used for free wifi. The government didn't buy this airspace, nor does it pay rent on the airspace. The cost for the business to utilize these frequencies for commercial purposes is donating a portion of it to the public good.

Obviously almost everyone here barely even knows how to use a computer.  Millions of website developers around the world cannot be regulated.  For TV, the couple hundred of network broadcasters the operate in this country can be easily.  I am for the freedom of choice.  You have your opinion to regulate this, great. step up to the plate, excercise your freedom of choice to supervise your kids when they use the internet, to have internet at all, or to PASSWORD PROTECT YOUR COMPUTER.  It's not the governments job to raise your kids, thats your job.  The job isn't easy, but you should have thougt about that before you had kids.  I'll guarantee you that this free internet will not happen for a very long time.  Running an ISP is extremely expensive especially a wireless one.  Someone needs to pay for it and if it is free they will never make a profit because it has been already been proved that wireless internet cannot compete with the alternative and this was without the added cost of regulation which for what this article talks about will fall on the ISPs shoulders.  Also to make money from advertising, a system would need to be developed to carry advertising content to these users and only these users. Then the ISP will need to spend more money to try to entice companies to buy expense add space that is only going to reach a very small select audience.  So I'll say again this will never happen at least for the long term.  DSL, cable, cell tecnology is taking over the rural markets very fast as it gets cheaper to offer services to these areas so this topic is stupid and a wast of time.

J,

As an administrator for NMCI, currently the world's largest WAN, I can tell you in fact it's not that difficult. We content filter worldwide using websense metatags and proxy servers.

Now the question to ask is: forget the bandwidth, who's going to pay for all of the servers and hardware needed to make this actually work ?

"I personally think that the filtering is a good idea; not because I think porn is a bad thing (I couldn't care less if it stays or goes), but because the system would be free to use and paid for by taxpayers."

Free to use but paid for by taxpayers.  Riiiiiight....

Well, that's the methodoligy that got this new administration voted in, it just doesn't make much sense.  If you pay for it, whether in taxes or a direct bill, either way that's NOT free.  Here's ten dollars.  Oh, but we're going to take twenty dollars from you to afford to mail everyone that ten.  That's losing ten dollars, not gaining ten, no matter how it's looked at.

"Now the question to ask is: forget the bandwidth, who's going to pay for all of the servers and hardware needed to make this actually work?"

That would be the people supposedly getting it for free, meaning that they in fact aren't getting anything for free.  They're only paying for it through the tax system instead of direct billed.

Seems like a slippery slope too. If they can ban porn in rural areas for whatever reason they feel like and use anyone's definition of porn they want to use... then it seems like banning it in big cities wouldn't be too far around the corner. Who knows what would be next... whatever they feel like, probably.

Also - I would love to have a porn-free environment for my kids to use. In reality, a mostly porn free environment.

You have the Internet now, that isn't by default porn filtered. Do your kids currently watch gads and gads of porn? This is the problem I have with the "for the children" arguments against this. It's not like as soon as you start up your browser, porn pops up (unless you have it set to that on purpose, I guess.) Hundreds of thousands of kids are surfing the Internet these days on pay connections that the FCC is not filtering porn from, and are *gasp* not looking at porn.

The bandwidth argument makes a bit more sense, but even then you'd have to restrict any and all streaming video, not singling out porn.

Now THAT would be interesting. I would like to see a serious proposal to see free universal internet with no graphics or video. It'd become its own sort of thing. We'd see a renaissance in ASCII art and a sharp spike in erotic fiction, but all things considered it would be a really good way to preserve the bandwidth.

Of course, this runs into some only slightly less complex technical concerns. I mean, an image is just a stream of 1's and 0's just like anything else digital. Are you going to have some sort of way to filter binary transfers? That seems impractical. I guess if you want to make it so that .jpg/.png/.bmp/etc simply don't display in web browsers thanks to some sort of proxy server you could do that, but I figured out how to work around that in 8th grade and I was a relative technological nobody at the time.

I guess you'd have to create a new protocol, like httpf:// or something. If you really want to restrict content in the interest of bandwidth, then, connecting to this info-net would only allow that protocol - no http, no ftp, no telnet, etc. httpf wouldn't need some kind of proxy per se, it would simply refuse to display certain types of files. It could only be used for browsing text.

Still, the whole thing seems silly to me. I don't even think that the bandwidth would be much of an issue, but if you show me a study to the contrary I'll believe you. That at least takes this discussion from an idiotic "moral" debate to something of some substance, and creates an interesting technical problem.

Just my two cents.

my goodness people.  Internet without images will not sell and internet without images will not be able to sell advertising.  That web professional above either admins a geocities page or calls himself a web professional because he uses a browser other than IE.  Also, you want internet without images, set your browser so that it doesn't download images.  It will significantly increase your speed without costing any one a dime and it will not oppress peoples different opinions.  There problem solved.

"The bandwidth argument makes a bit more sense, but even then you'd have to restrict any and all streaming video, not singling out porn"

Exactly, if this had ANYTHING to do with saving bandwidth and not pressing morality, then there would simply be a user cap on streaming audio and video.  This would mean a simple cap (that would cost nothing instead of the millions upon tens of millions to regulate specific content and update on a daily basis) that would restrict the bandwidth allocation to each computer.  Problem solved, everyone needed gets online, and the "free" Internet still only costs the taxpayers a small amount (still meaning not free of course) instead of the extremely high costs we'd all be forced to pay, including those supposedly getting it for free.  The argument used that blocking porn helps to lower the amount of bndwidth used so that everyone can get on is easily debunked.  It takes nothing to set a bandwidth cap without the expenses of regulating the bandwidth used.

Exactly.  This service will probally give you all .gov and .edu with "selected" .org, .com, & "other international sites"

Wiki may get in without Wiki having to pay to "broadcast".

Most you-tube .. you won't be able to see it.  Not due to "porn" but due to bandwidth oversubscription.

If you don't think there will be a problem there... How hard is it to get cable out to rural areas and how many legal battles did it take to get cable into low income areas? 

This "free" internet will be limited.

I've never voted on a diebold machine... but I did vote online once. :o)

Clearly when you were making thousands of dollars a month selling your porn comics online, you should have saved some money.  Then you might still be able to pay your bills.  What the hell did you blow it all on?  Assuming you ever had it, which I doubt...

Funny, there are so many hundreds of pay porn sites on the net and so many thousands of free ones, I can't imagine that your entire business dried up overnight just because of a banking rule.  It was probably illegal file sharing that did you in.  It's a shame a true artiste can't make a living off his work anymore.

LOL,

Garyroberts, really, without the internet and your SMBD movies we are all doomed? WOW, I suppose the Gov will be at my garage telling me how to build the china cabinet Im building next...Geez. there never was an internet that "died" this system wasnt created by you, nor do you install the large server buildings and wires, comapnies do, for profits, and like telephones and cable TV it was all monitored, like TV 20 years ago, nudity was not allowed, now you act like everything has been taken away? really you had freedom granted, and you took too many liberties and pushed it to far, not everyone wants this stuff to be avaiable, and everyone complaing is sad because SMBD is being regulated..the original internet of fraud, online theft, porn targeted to minors, online drug deals, and such can be and needs to be regulated, maybe the best thing is build your own server system. the companies built it, porno sites are not what it was intended for,,,too bad, go outside and take a walk and mourn your internet while you can still walk...my 20 mins of sitting around wasting time is up, thanks for your entertainment...

Well technically you don't have the freedom to speak on this website, it's not public property. The bandwidth belongs to Newsvine. That's a concept that is SO misunderstood...

Not all people who look at porn are sex addicts, and who exactly is going to say what is and what isn't porn? For some people, a little clevage is pornographic. How about those National Geographic images of tribal women in Africa. To someone, that's pornographic. I don't think either of those images is, and I certainly don't think they're immoral either. It will actually probably cost more to have people decide what is and what isn't "porn" than it would if they offered the service with porn included to twice as many people.

If you didn't care what people thought... why bother posting?

One parting comment... if you think that the only people who look at porn are non-hardworking tax evaders (or I'm guessing you were actually just referring to welfare recipients), you are wrong.

They rely on the ignorance of the masses.

Sorry to hear about your loan and your business. It's businesses like yours that we need to support the most, yet it seems like they are getting the least. :(

the hatched comment made me LOL :o)

To answer your last question... yes, though honestly I felt that the hidden agenda had more to do with getting votes than actually getting anything done. (sort of like a few other pet issues of the far right)