• The development of any software program, including, but not limited to, training a machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) system, is prohibited using the contents and materials on this website.

Australian Nanny Net

Im betting someone here is going to say that is restricting people's rights to certain things...
 
Technically you can "opt-in" or whatever, but should parents do the parenting?

Let's extrapolate for a moment then. What is to be deemed "appreopriate"? What is to stop political views from being filtered? What is stopping everyone who "ops-in" from being put on a list?

I can think of another country that does this:
chinese%20flag1.jpg


I think it's sad that people want to government and industry to raise thier children because they can't be bothered.
 
I think it's sad that people want to government and industry to raise thier children because they can't be bothered.

I think theres a difference between raise and protect. Since there are many parents who are not able to watch over their children 24/7, I think that the government should help protect children from smut. I don't think any sensible parent would want their children looking at porno whilst they are at work. The government should help parents protect children from things like that. The parents can use age ratings for video games and movies, but its difficult to control what their children see/do on the internet. Especially if the are circumstantially out of the home.
 
Bloody Coalition.

If they don't want kids looking at porn then urge parents to buy blockers or block particular sites, put the blocking thing on google too.

The coalition shouldn't do what the parents are meant to be doing.
 
There are plenty of examples of filtering software and parental control software from ISPs and independant vendors, why can't they use that?
 
Because if its done on a national level it is taken more seriously and sometimes works better and sometimes not. But why not have the gov. help protect the kids, the parents do pay taxes. Besides, if kids don't have internet access at home, they can go to other places: i.e. public libraries, internet cafes, friends house. Places where the parents are powerless to set up parental controls. Wouldn't the parents want the knowledge that no matter where their kids go online, they are protected from smut.
 
If the parents can't teach thier kids decent vaules and control where they go, then they obviously aren't very good parents.

There was a man who sued a theatre near me because his 16 year old daughter saw a rated R movie. She snuck out while she was grounded, with people she wasn't supposed to hang out with and saw a movie she wasn't allowed to see. This isn't even a law, it's a guidline. This man couldn't be bothered to pay attention to his kid and sued a theatre after she disobeyed him in the first place. Many parents don't mind if thier 17 or 16 year olds see rated R movies, so why are theatres supposed to do the job of the parents?

this to me is on the same level. Parents can't be bothered to raise thier kids themselves, so they ask governments and businesses to do it for them at other's expense. Public libraries are already filtered, any government establishment is.

What is being done about the privacy of the people who opt in? No amount of filtering at any level will stop kids from seeing objectionable things, this is just another piece of useless cumbersome legislature. Not only porn will be blocked, but violence. That means news can be blocked. Reports on various conflicts etc. At the school my brother attends they have that sort of filtering district wide, but it blocks them from viewing political material and news sites not sanctioned by the school. same thing?
 
The problem with blocking sites is that a site that is "appropriate" may get blocked out by accident (happened all the time with my HS's proxy server).

There are plenty of software and educational tools to teach the parents how to block websites like these. Most ISPs and browsers come with tools to block sites...

I agree with zenki, Parents need to stop relying on others to raise their children. Parents need to be parents. My parents never needed an internet blocker. They had two things to their advantage, education about the software and they knew how to be parents and discipline their children (myself and my brother. Believe me, when they found out my brother was surfing for porn, that ended very quickly...)


Maybe if parents would stop being children and asking the government to step in everytime their child acts up, we'd have less taxes...or maybe our taxes could go to better use...
 
I agree that the parents should be held highly responsible for they way they raise their kids. And I have many problems with the government taking control of raising kids. But on a national level, dont you think that it is beneficial to protect kids from pornography, racist/hate websites, violent material. And what about all the orphans that are placed in the care of the government, shouldn't someone also be watching out for them? And no, not all libraries are filtered. Take the highly respected Tacoma Public Library System. It's, as a matter of fact, does not have any filters on the main internet pc's.

I think news and political sites are a different issue than porn. Being informed is way different than being horny.
 
news sites contain "violent" materiel, and also things that are "controversial" can be banned as well, whether or not it would be "damaging" to a child or not.
 
See, then it makes two issues. Blocking porn to protect kids, and blocking violent/controversial news. I'm split on the controversial news issue because there are different levels of controversy and its up to the country to decide what kind of controversy they are going to block. Like china working with google to block searches for words like democracy, individualism, etc... which are highly controversial in China.
 
who decides what to protect them from?

orphanages protect children from DEATH. this "protects" children from IDEAS, now that is a slippery slope if i have ever seen one.
 
Obviously the govt. had decided to protect kids from porno. And I don't think kids get good ideas from reading/watching violent news stories.

I agree though, that if governments start to block info from getting to the people, it is a very slippery slope: what next: conservative websites, religious websites, finalgear forums, etc...

My main beef is that the govt should take steps to protect children from pornography.
 
Simply put - parents should be doing this. If the laws of my country permit me as an adult to view certain material I should be able to freely view it, without having to opt-in. Let the parents opt-in to a restricted internet if they feel they can't control what their kids do and see.
 
sounds like teenagers have always been saints, until the internet came along!?

i got a pc with 13 and internet with 15 and managed to avoid the smut all by myself...sure, i played duke nukem 3d and blood with 14 and watched some porn with 15, but has it done me any wrong? no, in fact i have become a lot more peaceful than most others...despite playing the shooters for hours, i strongly oppose any real violence and i really can't harm a fly, let alone people. and the porn surprisingly did not turn me into a monster that degrades women to sex objects and gets someone pregnant with 15, because i knew all about it before anyway.
besides, i have always avoided the really sick stuff that floats round the net all on my own. i never understood what people liked about vids were someone is plown over by a car or whatever stuff gets downloaded in tons...something like this really disgusts me and i have no respect for people who like that whatsoever.

see, if you raise your children properly, some porn won't suddenly turn them around. but if you screw up, all the filter software in the world won't help...
 
Let the parents opt-in to a restricted internet if they feel they can't control what their kids do and see.

fbc, That I disagree with, it makes the parent be pro-active in raising their children and the parents that weren't doing their job will continue to do so. Do you think that all parents will opt-in? Especially the ones that are already doing a terrible job, do you think this is something that crosses their minds? No. They aren't parenting and having them opt-in is the equivilant of saying, do your job. Nothing gets done.

besides, i have always avoided the really sick stuff that floats round the net all on my own. i never understood what people liked about vids were someone is plown over by a car or whatever stuff gets downloaded in tons...something like this really disgusts me and i have no respect for people who like that whatsoever.

ryosuke, Would you want your child viewing some of that?
 
So what if you as an adult leave your opt-in house, go to a hotel, wifi hotspot, whatever, then you're stuck with a censored internet.

I think it would be best to let parents opt-in. That way this control isn't forced on everyone, and those who want it can have it. Make sure that ISPs have a notice about it in thier agreement and allocate some government funds for commercials telling parents what thier choices are.

IMO if your 10 year old is on the internet all the time you are already doing a poor job. By the time they are teenagers they have already seen pornography almost guaranteed, and viewing news sites and political interest and things like that won't harm them.

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT RAISE YOUR CHILDREN AT THE EXPENSE OF EVERYONE ELSE JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO DAMNED LAZY TO BE BOTHERED TO DO IT YOURSELF.

This also touches on another issue I think is hurting our country, the fact that some people think that if you cover your ears, shut your eyes and shout, "LALALALALALA" nothing can hurt you.
 
Top