Incorrect. Threatening companies into doing immoral things is immoral, unjust, and undemocratic.
What's immoral about offering your users more choice?
If I can't access content without making a choice, then as far as I'm concerned, it's default on.
So that means any setup screen is censorship.
Maybe not to companies looking to secure their bottom line, but it is a big deal when the government can just make threats as it pleases to subvert the democratic process and get companies to do whatever they want them to.
They were being threatened with the democratic process! The free press was promoting the idea. The Prime Minister suggested that the democratically elected government might legislate if they didn't roll over.
A default on filter is simply intolerable.
It's not default on! It's active choice! That's what the article is about. People are seeing the screen that asks if they want to enable the filters. They can literally do nothing else without making a choice.
It's easily worthwhile. You don't need to go after everyone. Even if something is indeed popular, that doesn't mean it isn't a social taboo.
If over 90% of the population do something it's not a social taboo!
You don't think it's a big deal when worthless government thugs coerce companies into implementing filters they didn't want to implement in the first place?
If they just roll over then it was never a big issue in the first place.
You don't think it's a big deal that they have all the names of the account holders who opt out of this nonsensical filter
That's over 90% of their customer base. It's hardly worthwhile information.
I demand that all religious websites be filtered, because I find them harmful.
Seems fair. Get onto your ISP. Request a "religion" filter.
Which is pretty clear proof that pretty much no-one wants their Internet pre-censored.
Only if the free market works perfectly. Given that 4% of customers have turned on the filters, clearly there was some demand for this. This is much higher uptake than any software solution, so evidently that was not the solution the 4% wanted, and this is.
And, last I read, something like 4% of people had chosen to have their Internet censored.
So, 4% of the customers wanted filters. 96% did not. We now have a situation where the 96% get what they want, and the 4% get what they want. Why is this seen as a problem? Why do you want to remove the choice from those 4%?
They're probably the ones who clicked 'Yes' by mistake, thinking it meant 'Yes, I want the Internet, not Davenet'.
Or maybe they wanted the filters. If not, I have little sympathy for people who are that stupid.
Conservative parents might disagree.
They can turn the filters on. So the ISP provides a service that is useful for both those who so and those who don't want filters. The article is suggesting that the ISPs have a vested interest in tailoring their service for the smaller and more expensive of those groups.
Intentionally running a MITM attack against your customers aside, there is a huge problem with the legislation to begin with.
Yes. The fact that no such legislation exists. This is a voluntary ISP scheme
Cybersitter and NetNanny are not for me, but if I had young kids I may use that type of service if I was worried about their access.
Or you could use the service the ISP provides you with for free, that's easy to set up, available in the UK, and works with all network connected devices.
These companies get paid to manage content for you, and are _completely_voluntary so don't impose restrictions on everyone.
The UK ISP filters are completely voluntary as well.
And if those services are not available in the UK, or not good enough in the UK, why not create the company and let the free market do the work?
We tried. No suitable product became available. David Cameron pushed the market into providing such a service. The market obliged. If you really have a problem, you can always choose one of the dozens of ISPs that doesn't offer this service.
As bad as the US has become, I'm glad I'm not from the UK.
Why? You don't even have a choice of ISP in a lot of the US.
Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer