"Keeping children safe" is a job for parents/legal guardians. And not just online.
UK.gov hiring folk to watch smutty vids? All hail our blind censors...
Government proposals to force websites serving up adult content to verify users' ages has been criticised as an "unworkable proposal" by Open Rights Group, which today launched a spoof recruitment campaign to raise awareness of the Digital Economy Bill. Youtube Video The campaign (hosted at newgovernmentjobs.co.uk/) notes …
COMMENTS
-
-
Wednesday 1st February 2017 22:46 GMT JimboSmith
If only someone had spotted this job before and posted about it
This law is Daily Mail politics and hopefully the madness will be stopped. That or it's a good time to apply for a job at the BBFC who will be making decisions on content. The job application will include
To apply for the position you will be required to submit a 1500-word essay on ‘What are the challenges involved in regulating online pornography?’.
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/compliance-officer-vacancy
And they haven't even passed the law yet.
https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/3078076
I'm not one to brag though I am tempted to apply. I have to go and do some research first though.
-
-
-
Wednesday 1st February 2017 13:28 GMT Haku
Re: Not a toy
This one might have been fun to play with for a short while until the novelty wore off:
https://www.amazon.com/Resident-Evil-Chainsaw-Controller-playstation-2/dp/B000FVC6H4
-
-
Wednesday 1st February 2017 13:38 GMT Rol
"Hello there ISP...
I have a proposition for you"
"Err, OK, we're listening"
"Due to the huge amounts of easily accessible porn on the internet, we have concluded the only viable means of stopping your customers getting access to it by default, is for you to offer a very limited portal to your customers. Basically a white list."
"I'm sorry, but our customers come first"
"We are of a mind to make this legislation"
"On behalf of our loyal customers we will resist you all the way"
"We're not suggesting the limited access is universal, you could allow some of your customers through to the big wild,wild world, provided they meet certain criteria"
"No! No! and No! Our customers rights are sacrosanct. Never., I tell you. Never!"
"Part of that criteria would involve the payment of an escalating fee to access a wider and wider spectrum of the net"
"Come to think of it, protecting our customers from the ravages of pornography is just as important as protecting their freedom. Yes your right. So...Just how high does this fee escalator go?"
"All the way to the penthouse floor"
"ooh er missus. I think I've just had an off white portal experience. Where do I sign"
-
Wednesday 1st February 2017 13:58 GMT allthecoolshortnamesweretaken
John Cleese once wrote a sketch about censorship. It got censored by the BBC.
-
-
Wednesday 1st February 2017 23:33 GMT James O'Shea
Re: I've said it before, I'll say it again.
If you're irritating the pig you're holding it wrong.
Now, what would be interesting to see would be Ms. May vs a spotted hyena. Given spotted (but not striped) hyena anatomy, it can be quite difficult to tell male from female, except that the girls have very short tempers. You would, too, if you were stuck with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoris#Spotted_hyenas
The only thing better than spotted hyenas would be elephants ("What's an elephant's main sex organ? His feet. If he steps on you, you're fucked.") or dolphins. Apparently dolphin and whale sex involves holding your breath for a long time.
And, no, I wouldn't advise trying this on the Mango Mussolini. In the first place, he'd probably like it, especially dolphin sex given his liking for, ahem, water sports. In the second, the hyena or whatever probably wouldn't, and would hunt down who-ever was responsible.
In any case, should the UK government really need someone to be paid to watch porno, I'm available. 100 GBP/hr., as many hours as necessary. Double time for weekends.
-
Thursday 2nd February 2017 11:54 GMT jake
Re: I've said it before, I'll say it again.
If you're holding the pig at all you're doing it wrong. Pigs absolutely hate to be held. Don't believe me? Try it. Report back. :-)
(I'll leave the value of "it" up to the experimenter, who am I to decide? But my basic premise holds; pigs hate to be held.)
-
-
-
Thursday 2nd February 2017 14:07 GMT Anonymous Coward
I used to run an adult site - it was a free community site and so you could view stuff for free without signing up. The content was uploaded by members - their own photos (and volunteer moderators ensured that was the case as much as possible).
So as there was no requirement for credit cards, the only way to stop kids from looking at the site was to display on the landing page: "You must be of the legal age in your country to view pornography."
There used to be a couple of voluntary services that allowed you to categorise the content of your site in the headers so that anyone using content filters wouldn't have the site show up. They stopped those services years ago. At the time I couldn't find an equivalent anywhere else; I don't know if they've yet replaced them.
The point is, I didn't want kids to stumble across the site. I agree that you should be 18 or whatever age you need to be to look at that stuff. But there's no real mechanism to allow responsible site owners to easily screen their sites from kids. The only option is a paywall, and not many payment companies are willing to work with adult sites due to the amount of fraudulent cards used.
Those that do make you pay through the teeth. Therefore the only adult sites that can use that option are those making enough money to laugh at the high processing costs or have their own merchant account etc.
There's no way community sites can do this, so basically this law will close down small sites that have perfectly legal content. It's not as if the vast majority adult site owners are deliberately trying to corrupt kids. That's a job for schools!