Peer Pressure Porn Filter

Highwayman writes "Wired magazine presents one man's approach to stopping online pr0n 'Instead of relying on filters, the approach, which NetAccountability has been pitching primarily to religious groups, calls for Web users to share records of their online activity. Users pick a friend, spouse or other confidant who receives a regular report showing which sites they visit, highlighting potentially objectionable material.'"

It's been done

[dopefish3]

http://www.thehuns.com/

Just for the record. Don't shoot me! ;P

Re:yeah, but...

[CrazyDuke]

I was going to say much more, but others have posted much of what I thought while reading yours. I do have one thing so say.

The lust I find most destructive, the most perverse, and the most evil is the lust to prove to yourself and others that you are better than someone else.

But, this is my observation, I do not know about others.

Re:Big Difference

[Cplus]

Hmmmmmmm, I'm not generally a stickler about things I don't care much about, but you started it and were wrong.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" - The Princess Bride

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

The "Dear Dr. Laura" post wasn't original (as I'm sure you've guessed) - it's a response to an episode of her show in which she quoted Leviticus as the reason homosexuality is wrong. Whether it's relevant to this discussion (due to the Old Testament/New Testament differences; most Christians ignore the "law" portions of the OT) is left up to the reader.

Objectivity

[jbolden]

Absolutely we should be objective in reading the bible. That's why we ignore the thousands of laws about mixing fabrics, not lighting fires, when to eat certain types of bread that are all in black letter law and instead based on vague arguments construct entirely new laws that aren't even mentioned.

Roman society had way more pornography that American society does, yet the bible mentions it explicitly exactly 0 times.