Oh how naive of us to think the Government had a spine when the Daily Mail are involved:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...st_read_module
Quote:
Children will be protected by a block on online pornography which parents will have to choose to have lifted, David Cameron vows today.
After weeks of confusion over the Government’s plans to protect youngsters, the Prime Minister makes clear that under the proposals, web filters will be ‘default on’ for houses with children.
|
Now this is confusing. It's it opt-in or opt-out. The Daily Mail's article doesn't seem to understand the difference. Parents can choose to have controls which then have to opt-out of? That's opt-in! They seem to be saying you can opt-in to controls which will then be 'automatically' on unless you opt-out.
I for one welcome such a ban. The amount of sexulisation that is easily accessible by children is sick. Rihanna almost naked? Yup:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...-Barbados.html. Kate Moss? Yup:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...-St-Barts.html. Some naked guy? They've got you covered:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...stick-bra.html. Heidi Klum topless? YUP! :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...al-island.html.
That's literally today's sidebar. Sites like that should certainly be blocked automatically.