Please try to see that restricting information when someone is young deforms their worldview for the rest of their life. We as parents hope that the deformation is a positive one, but this isn't necessarily so. We're biased into thinking we've made positive choices for our children regardless of any evidence to the contrary. The bias is hardwired, and unless we take conscious steps to evaluate whether our behavior makes sense then it's easy to get swept up in a "think of the children" argument.
Why?
Note I'm truly not trying to start a fight here, but I do try to stay open-minded and question assumptions. To me, this:
>I can't see how viewing porn would be good for her worldview
is not only not terribly convincing, it's also not a reason to censor something.
What would your 11-year-old do if she saw porn? How would she think about it? How would it affect her worldview? Would it really be negative?
How would you have reacted at that age? Would it have changed your worldview in a negative way? What kinds of information does she not have access to that she should? When should she be sexually educated?
Just some things to think about.
If the concern is accidentally viewing porn... well, I have a few thoughts on that:
1) How often does that actually happen? My office does not have content filters on the internet, yet I have never accidentally viewed porn at work. I can't actually remember the last time I accidentally viewed porn at work. I strongly suspect that 95% of the "accident" cases are excuses that people make when they get caught.
2) If the concern is popups and she won't stop going to shady sites that have porn popups, use adblock. Problem solved. Also, tell her not to go to those sites, before you get the UK equivalent of a DMCA notice from your ISP...
3) Accidentally viewing a few naked people in popups is probably not going to damage her worldview. Would it be good for it? No. But I don't think it will cause any damage either.
Right now websites have no way not to deliver inappropriate contents. The best they can do is to ask "are you 18+?" (see for instance Reddit), which a 3 years old could bypass.
A basic protection against accidental view and/or kids a bit too curious could be as simple as:
A) Have the adult sites to insert a HTTP header marking them as such. They have no reason from doing it, plus not delivering porn to kids is a legal requirement in most countries (or I guess so). This is a flexible solution for sites with mixed contents such as Reddit, because the mark is per-page.
B) Have browsers not to show these sites if the 'adult content' is not ticked in the user profile.
C) Make a tutorial that explains how to create restricted user profiles on their computers (so they can prevent their kids from using browsers that don't support this policy).
Alternatively, but it would impact too much websites I guess, is to use a "safe for kids" header and have browsers to only show such sites etc.
It's admittedly unlikely, but on the other hand, it's just one example. Everyone should be free to parent how they see fit, but it's probably important to spend time meditating on the full implications of taking actions that align with our own preconceived moral systems. Such actions often have unforeseen consequences, and it's so easy to convince ourselves that the good outweighs the bad when we really have no way of knowing.
Can you understand how that is different from "access to information"?
This post makes you sound deranged. Unless you're just talking about pointless filtering of wikipedia articles?
Often, it's the most obvious and deep-set assumptions that need to be challenged most. Above all, I'd appreciate it if you'd spend less time calling other people deranged, and more time civilly arguing your case.
Do you agree that those restrictions aim to serve a useful purpose? (We can ignore flaws in implementation here because we're just talking about the principle of restriction). You might agree or disagree on some of the restrictions but do you even agree with the general practice of restricting some things from children?
I'm aware of that. That fact alone (that some restrictions are widely-adopted) doesn't justify them.
>...do you even agree with the general practice of restricting some things from children?
First, I think that "children" needs a more rigid definition. And of course my response varies depending on the particular restriction (as you've already acknowledged). But it's not terribly difficult for me to imagine some situation involving some child which I would find undesirable in some way.
And because I can easily see your vague, unfocused question leading a bit more off-topic than I'd prefer to stray, I think I'll leave it at that.
> Can you understand how that is different from "access to information"?
There is no difference. Access to undesire-able or icky information is no different from access to desire-able information when it comes to filter software, what is blocked is blocked.
My 5-yr-old says she's looking forward to playing Go online with her own account. I'm not in the slightest bit worried that she's at risk by being in the chatrooms on KGS. Both girls like Reddit (/r/roomporn and /r/aww and stuff like that).
My kids don't need the government protecting their innocent eyes. They need intelligence on how to understand what they're doing, and the drive to inquire and be open about things bothering them.
It's like parents that worry about their kids going somewhere because of "pedophiles", yet have no problems driving them many miles each day, which is absolutely a higher risk to their safety. These parents are not acting rationally, they are not improving safety, they just feel like they're doing something.
What's the real threat model that I'm trying to prevent as a parent? Kids viewing porn? Really? As my kids age, if they decide they want to start watching porn, I hope we're able to speak intelligently about it. Sexual maturity can be difficult for people, and porn is only one small aspect of the whole thing.
So what's the real threat? People attacking them? But retarded URL filters won't help. And teaching them general savvy and critical thinking will help more against that threat, and in life in general.
I'm not sure what threat a stupid filter is supposed to address. In 3 decades, I haven't accidentally run into any life-scaring materials on the Internet (or BBSes), and if I actively wanted to find something, I'd find it regardless of restrictions.
The only filters I've wished for is to remove "dumb" content, but that's just my failing as a parent to get my children engaged with more intelligent stuff.
Why impose your choice as the default on an entire nation?
What I don't get is delegating this to the government rather than using something that's under your control.
It is your router which is supposed to be doing that, not your ISP. What you are essentially doing is giving the government and the ISP an excuse to monitor the your interests and communications and those of your family, which they would in any case, only in this instance you have given them your explicit permission.
Does the filter protect children from "cyberbullying"?
They aren't.
> nor should they be determining what is blocked
They aren't.
> You should be doing that
He is.
The government has pushed the ISPs to offer a software filter for free to all customers. When signing up you get the choice to either have or not have it. BT for example have two buttons, one for "yes please, free filter thanks" and one for "nope, I'll handle this". It can also be turned off at any time by the account holder.