NOW CLOSED: Help us talk about ISPs and children accessing adult material online - £50 Amazon voucher to be won

[AnnMumsnet]

Mumsnet have been asked to attend a Parliamentary Inquiry (set up by a group of MPs and Peers from all political parties) into online child protection next week and we wanted to know your thoughts on the topic. It is obviously quite a wide header, but the terms of reference are as follows:

"1. To understand better the extent to which children access on-line pornography and the potential for harm that this may cause

1. To determine what British Internet Service Providers have done to date to protect children online and the extent and possible impact of their future plans in this area
   

1. To determine what additional tools parents require to protect children from inappropriate content
   

1. To establish the arguments for and against network level filtering of content that would require an 18 rating in other forms of media
   

1. To recommend to Government the possible form of regulation required if ISPs fail to meet Recommendation no.5 from the Bailey Review."
   

Please take a few minutes to complete this short survey. Our focus will be to represent Mumsnetters' (and kids') experiences, broadly responding to points 1 and 3, but there is also space for any other thoughts you may have, and we'll also reference discussions that have already taken place on the site.

NB: Your ISP is the company who sends you the bill for your internet usage at home

It is open to all UK Mumsnetters with at least one child. Everyone who takes part will have our grateful thanks and if you enter your details at the end you will also be entered into a prize draw to win a £50 Amazon voucher and a copy of The Mumsnet Rules.

Thanks and good luck with the prize draw!

Here's the link again

MNHQ

[ChaosTrulyReigns]

Hi Ann.

There's a typo in Q5.

[ChaosTrulyReigns]

No there's not.

Ignore me.

Please.

[5GoMadOnAZ650]

Done :)

[lubeybooby]

done :)

[huffythethreadslayer]

done :)

[Hulababy]

done

[magicmummy1]

Done. :)

[belledechocchipcookie]

Done.

[TheFeministsWife]

Done.

[twotesttickles]

Done (albeit under regular screenname). But can I ask, what on earth gives the govt the impression it can do anything given that they are not the ones with the money, the pornographers are. Blaming ISPs is not the answer. It's like blaming the toilet manufacturer if your water supply becomes polluted. Yes there are murky things in there, but it's not the fault of Armitage Shanks for presenting them to you.

I'd give the whole concept a were I not feeling slightly ill now with all the talk of loos at this ungodly hour!

[ellisbell]

of course the government can do something - they can insist pornography sites have to limit access to those who sign up to use them and pay for the cost of regulating their industry. Water companies are held liable if they supply polluted water, pornographers can pay for their pollution. We don't allow pornography on billboards, it can be limited elsewhere if the will exists to do it.

[PlentyOfPubgardens]

Here's some links to some of the conversations that have been rumbling on since last december ...

Internet porn may be blocked at source

recent decision by MNHQ

Mumsnet in favour of continuing to provide porn to children via the internet

KalokiMallow's post here sets out very clearly why ISP level filtering simply won't work.

I'm pleased these previous conversations will be referenced as part of this exercise.

[gillybean2]

Done

Is adult materially only considered to be porn? I get really annoyed with the level of swearing on U-tube clips my ds can access. And we have filters on.
The filters take no account of the actual content of something once you get on there.

Also feel under enormous pressure as ds is the only child in his year who has no facebook account and has never been on it. He is not 13 yet.
If parents allow their children to have facebook and lie about their age to get it, then they can't expect to keep them safe and not to lie about being 18+ to get on aldult sites...

[belledechocchipcookie]

There's a difference between an adult site and an inappropriate image on a site that is not aimed at adults. Children can innocently look at a site, google images for example, and ask to see a picture of a flower to be shown something that shouldn't be there. Filters won't prevent this.

[TheMonster]

Done.
I agree, gillybean, about the inappropriate things on YouTube. Too many children's cartoons have dubbed over adult versions as well.

[AnnMumsnet]

All comments on here are welcome....so thanks for them and thanks for taking the survey so far

[inmysparetime]

Done, but surely if parents trust their kids with Internet phones they should have taught them a little about Internet safety.

[PlentyOfPubgardens]

Could anybody clarify - 'network level filtering' - is this the same as ISP level filtering or is this something you install on your own home network?

Also, could anybody tell me exactly what recommendation no 5 from the bailey review says? I've found a link to the review but it's 108 pages long.

[solidgoldbrass]

Done. Well done MNHQ for allowing enough room to give comments and not slanting the questions stupidly as most surveys of this nature do.
Let's hope this doesn't become the same sort of fuckup as that ridiculous Let Girls Be Girls business - hijacked by Christian bellends with an entirely anti-feminist agenda. Because that's what always happens when well-intentioned non-thinkerspeople get behind a pro-censorship cause.

[twotesttickles]

In the recent past I negotiated access to China for a few websites. They vet everything. Yet they also have problems with porn. There is a lesson there re the effectiveness of filtering. It doesn't work because (1) It's not clearly defined; (2) it's endemic and cannot be sensibly deleted without destroying a whole body of work which is actually worthwhile and should be openly viewed; (3) No-one really has a stomach for it.

We play this silly 'ooh isn't it terrible' but actually if you canvass the population and say 'specifically do you want YOUR internet usage to be curtailed or censored' you will get a firm negative. People object to interference and disagree on what is pornography. You'd actually get much better results running interference and teaching kids that this is some sort of fantasy and not what real life is like. Also teaching them about the industry which is pornography. And the industry which packages up the idea of sex as a saleable concept. It'd teach them great maths skills. Also science, they can learn about the use of hard drugs to facilitate the production of porn etc.

[AnnMumsnet]

thanks SGB...we do try (very hard!) - it is such a big issue though

[Doobydoo]

Done

[KateMumsnet]

Hello PlentyOfPubgardens

Hmm, yes - the terms are sometimes hard to pin down, which doesn't exactly help to clarify one's thoughts...

As far as I can see, there are two different levels of filter which could be termed a 'network filter'.

There's an ISP-level filter, which means that the users of a particular ISP are, en masse and in theory, unable to access specified types of content.

Then there's a 'household network' filter, which only acts on the internet-connected devices in one individual household. So it "sits" on top of your house, and filters the types of content which you've decided you don't want to be accessible from any of the broadband-connected devices in your home (it doesn't work on 3G devices).

As far as I know (may be wrong!), the 'HomeSafe' option from TalkTalk is the only household filter available right now. It can be over-ridden with a password, and according to the ISP, doesn't slow down either the household network, or the ISP's network as a whole, which is one of the key criticisms of other forms of filtering.

[PontyMython]

Done :)