However, despite me finding that old-people-not-getting-the-Internet a crappy joke, especially as so many older people DO understand how it works, it seems that the film may have actually based its main characters off of David Cameron.
See, I was listening to the radio yesterday and heard that Dave was sending a warning to Google, saying that they had to do more to block child pornography or face dire consequences.
I'm all for preventing child porn being circulated, but HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HE HAS NO IDEA HOW THE INTERNET WORKS.
But I thought Google owned all the Internet..?
Does Davey-boy realise just how many pages of information are created each day? Just by writing this blog I am creating a brand new link that can be searched for on Google. Google also has tonnes of measures already in place to try and block unwanted pages; you think they haven't already thought about this problem?! You think that you have to bloody remind them?!
If you search "child pornography" on Google (wow, my search history is going to look weird now), it doesn't give you links to sites showing disgusting material; instead it links to news articles or sites that talk about tackling the problems or explaining the issues around it. At the moment it does link to disgusting material, as most of the links are talking about you (ooooooo buuurrrrnnnn!). It already has measures in place to filter out the more disturbing sites - also I'd imagine they pass on any information they find to the relevant police departments.
Also, in the radio segment I was listening to, an expert in tacking the problem of child pornography explained that most people use private servers, share peer-to-peer and use very different methods to search for this kind of stuff. They send private emails to each other, find other ways of preventing any online footprints. They share things offline to avoid an internet footprint entirely. They know that what they are doing is wrong and against the law, and one expert said that child abusers would "laugh at" Dave's crackdown.
Basically, these people do not create "this is my child porn collection" websites, showcasing their collections to get hits from Google searches. That is the quickest way for them to get caught. You moron.
Even if people do make pages or search for stuff online, Google doesn't have complete control over the Internet. It is a very powerful company, but it does not have the ability to immediately block pages that break laws, just because there are millions of pages created each day and it is a massive job that they are constantly working on. They have algorithms in place, they try their best, but they are not all-powerful beings that can see every internet page made ever.
Dave, mate, your "demands" are just an obvious desperate grasp for public approval - you know that 99% of the public will agree with you that child porn is wrong. The thing is, if you genuinely cared about this issue, you would've done a little bit more research and realised just how difficult it is to keep on top of the ENTIRE INTERNET, which is constantly growing and changing, and seen just how much work is already going into trying to prevent illegal images from being shared online.
In trying to make yourself look like the good guy, you have ended up looking like an ignorant tit who has no idea how the Internet works.
Also, as this is related to your recently-reported 'opt-in for porn' pledge, I just wanted to share this hilarious image from the Daily Mail website, which I found here:
YEAH! OPT-IN FOR PORN! WE WIN! (Mainly because lots more people will then have to rely on all our pictures of "all grown up" celebrities in bikinis, often taken without their permission)
As someone who has grown up using the Internet, I just want to ask Dave, "Are you THAT bloody stupid?"
Stop child pornography = good thing to announce. That stuff is horrible and abusive, anyone would support you on that.
Setting up an opt-in policy for porn = bad thing to announce. Forcing people to to basically publicly announce to their service provider that they want to watch other people having sex is going to piss off a lot of voters. I agree with trying to restrict/add laws against certain violent (not BDSM, actual abusive violence) or simulated-rape porn; even if laws are difficult to implement, some stuff online is horrific and just pointing out that it's wrong helps bring light to the issues around it. But block all porn entirely? Is that really going to automatically make the UK a safer, more 'wholesome' place?
My problem with it is the "think of the children!!" mentality behind it. It's the same stupid mentality behind the "video games are making children violent!" argument. The real problem that is easiest to solve? Parents not restricting what their kids have access to. There are already opt-in options for blocking porn to your home, there are countless parental blocking systems to stop kids accessing this kind of stuff; people just can't be arsed to set them up themselves, so they want it done by default at the expense of everyone else who may actually be old enough and responsible enough to access that material.
Also, it won't work. It's the Internet. People will find a way around these blocks. The whole thing is difficult-to-implement, easily worked-round by using different codewords to list and search for stuff, and there will probably be a hack for it within days/weeks. Hell, there is already so much material out there that is now saved onto people's hard drives or phones, and that will only increase after this announcements as people try and save up secret collections; people will just find other ways to share it offline, away from all the blocks & pushed down to the same level as paedophiles (the ones that Dave thinks use Google Image as their go-to site to find their law-breaking material).
Oh, and the easiest way to stop kids - especially teenagers - from getting the wrong idea of sex from porn? Explain to them that that is not what real sex looks like and that thepeople in it are actors, are faking things, porn filming is often actually very clinical, etc. Just bloody TALK to them, or show them programmes rather than push all the responsibility onto Internet providers. You can't stop them from doing everything, but at least take some bloody responsibility.
Oh and Dave, in response to this quote from this article:
But challenged whether Page Three-style images of topless women should be banned from newspapers, he refused, saying: “It’s an issue of personal choice whether people buy a newspaper or not.”It's also an issue of personal choice as to what people choose to look up on the Internet, and you're not refusing to get involved in that argument, are you? Hmm?
BAM! Crappy argument SLAMMED.
Urgh. I can't wait to vote against you again in the next election, you ignorant tit.
Some good articles & blogs that explain a few things to Dave:
- David Cameron can't protect us from child porn because he doesn't understand the internet
- The UK’s opt-in system for porn is a terrible idea, and here’s why
- "David Cameron's Porn" (with link to gov epetition)
- Online pornography: Cameron's 'war' muddles two separate issues