UK May Require ISPs To Tag Porn
from the good-luck-with-that-plan... dept
Following the news that BT is going to make an effort to block all child porn, there's news that UK telecom regulator Ofcom is floating an idea to have ISPs tag content as being potentially "adult" in nature to make it easier to filter out. It's not hard to figure out the many reasons why this plan sounds like both a waste of time and money. ISPs are never going to be able to effectively tag the content. For all the filters already out there, none of them work all that well. Having people sit there and actually review the content is more effective than any automated system, but it's also slow, expensive, and very, very subjective.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
At which point, patrolling the .xxx's for kiddy-pr0n sites becomes a much easier task. Webmasters that violate the code will simply lose their domains.
I once thought "The Shy Lolitas" would be a great name for a band. Then I searched Google. God, was I wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]