image

More on forced internet filtering and the ‘porn monster’

Wed. 04 Sept. 2013

Who said all those terrible things on the internet demanded that something be done to protect us all? Politicians, of course, and certain other lobbyists of specific moralistic and politically correct persuasions. Is it really online porn that started all this? Yes, if you accept the porn-as-the-foot-in-the-door of internet-censorship line of argument, which I do.

Oh, did I just write “internet censorship”? I did, and it wasn’t a mistake. Internet “filtering” is the polite term being used, the official term, because it comes across as more acceptable. You do not need to be a professional mistress to be concerned, and yes, if you have anything to do with the BDSM scene, anywhere, you should be concerned. Here’s a selection of the latest good articles (from my point of view) that I’ve come across...

A good round-up of the broad situation: Online pornography: what’s legal and what’s not.

One UK ISP refuses to toe the line and tells it like it is: Porn filters? ‘Move to North Korea and be done with it,’ blasts UK ISP.

The next item presents, in a nutshell, very strong objections to and sound arguments for the outright rejection of internet censorship. Here’s an extract: the “plans are dangerous and frighteningly naive, of course, but that doesn’t matter: declaring ‘war on internet pornography’ generates headlines, doesn’t cost any money and when it fails, the failure can be blamed on the ISPs and search engines.” Well, I’m not so sure it’s not going to cost any money – developing these “filters” will cost the ISPs, and they’ll either be charging the government for expenses (or at least for keeping a database of who opts in for what content, to pass onto whatever agency wants that information), or passing the costs onto their customers. This article is: David Cameron has a porn problem.

Underlining much of the above is this very humorous piece which nevertheless indicates one of the moral points of view driving the move to censor the internet and that should serve as a warning to us. The article is written by an established writer who runs a well-known blog; it’s in the form of religious commandments. Allow me to quote one: “12. But I say unto you, whoever watcheth porn on the internet will be presumed to be a sex offender in his heart.” The article is The Gospel according to David Cameron.

Do you think I’m exaggerating, do you think I’m overstating the nature of this beast? Well then, read this very short piece written with knowledge gained of the full extent of the “filtering” that will be introduced by default, courtesy of whistle-blowers from the UK ISPs that have met with government officials to develop said "filtering": UK censorwall will also block ‘terrorist content,’ ‘violence,’ ‘circumvention tools,’ ‘forums,’ and more.

And remember, something like this will be version 1.0 of the compulsory internet “filter”. Right from the beginning, it will be about much more than just “porn”; and, you can bet – as sure as there are taxes and that taxes will rise – that more categories will be added over time, and that maybe, just “maybe”, one or two categories will end up having no opt-in option. That is, no cosy little check-box that you can click with a mouse to turn off the filter. That is, permanently censored content.

In the meantime, be aware of this: every website that has anything to do with BDSM, fetishism, or the scene will be “filtered”, most probably under the pornography category. That includes domme directories, mistresses’ websites, e-commerce sites selling equipment and implements... and anything else.

What a future we have to look forward to!

If you’re interested in my previous article on this subject, which focusses on the UK “extreme pornography” law and its connection with looming internet censorship, please follow this link to read it: ‘Extreme porn’ and internet censorship (this piece also has links to all my other News items on sexual politics).

Mistress Geo


PS: Reminder

IMPORTANT: My mobile phone reception falls foul of some dead spots at my premises, so that means you may have difficulty getting a connection depending on where, exactly, I am at the time you call. Persistence rewards, however, so if you ignore “service not connected” (or whatever) messages and keep dialing, you will get through on the third, fourth or fifth consecutive attempt. Of course this should not be the case and my view is that I am paying for a service that is not being delivered to an acceptable standard, and I’ll be changing my provider as soon as I am able.

Geo Pinch, professional Bristol mistress