Chldren addicted to internet porn

Big article in a paper on Saturday about a 10 year old that is allegedly afficted to internet porn. Not the first of this type of sex, internet and control articles seen over the last year or so.

The paper went on to condemn the government for not imposing stricter controls over the available content of the internet.

After the initial knee-jerk reaction one has to think about the implications.

I firmly believe that there should be no censorship od the internet, and that the government should have no control over what information we all wish to be able to share. We should all be free to view whatever is on it, whenever we want.

We should not allow the media to use the sensationalising of stories to fool us into demanding that the governement censors our internet content. Talk about a potential self inflicted injury.

I am not saying that there is some content that those that posted it should not be condemned or even prosecuted for; child porn is the best example of that.

What should be happening is a review of how we use and abuse the internet, to be specific how we let children use it.

The mother in the article I read on saturday was making lots of complaints and accusations because of her son's alleged addiction.

I firmly believe that (whether she accepts it or not) that her complaints are cover her failings as a mother.

I don't say this often but that child should be taken into care. His parents have at their own admission allowed their child to spend that much time unsupervised on the internet that he could become addicted to porn.

There are parents that let children have unsupervised access to the internet what they don't realise that this access can be through computers, laptops and tablets, what some of them dont know is that internet access is possible via mobile phones.

Allowing a child to use a computer in a family room where adults can monitor the screen at a glance can be a powerful learning tool.

Allowing a child any form of unsupervised internet access is the act of an irresponsible parent.

Why anyone would let a child have a mobile phone is beyond me we cetainly did not need them as children we'd have loved them but we did not need them.

If you do have some self-delusional reason for your child to have a mobile phone in some circumstances then get one that can only ring or text and ensure you have the password. When the phone isn't needed take it off them.

Look out of your window early evening or weekend day time kow many children are there out playing? The kids are on the net, plating computer games or even learnng stuff.. you hope. This mania for texting, messaging, selfies, sharing photos etc is caused by unfit parents lacking the ability to protect their children by exercising control.

Put your child in the garden with a stick wuld they play with it? Would they know what it was?

Don't fall into the trap of begging the state to take control of waht we can all see or do on the internet.

Protect your child by taking responsiblity in short try being a parent.

Lots of people will not agree with this post I suggest they lack the will to show their children that they care.

.

.

Whether we should censor the internet or not is in my opinion a completely irrelevant debate, given the practicality of censoring the internet. It simply isn't possible.

I completely agree that children's access to the internet should be governed by parents, although with increasing access through mobile devices, I'm sure it's harder & harder for parents to police it.

The only way I can see to ensure children do not have access to unsavoury parts of the internet would be to restrict access from their devices to a "whitelist" of vetted domains, the maintenance of which would be a momumental task, quite apart from the obvious issue of ensuring they only use the restricted devices.

The paper went on to condemn the government for not imposing stricter controls over the available content of the internet.

Yeah, "the paper" is the Daily Mail, which loves to keep its readers living in fear.

The Snowden releases show that the security services engage in mass surveillance and can access pretty much anything connected to the Internet. Their mass surveillance is outside of the law - i.e. illegal.

Now they've been caught, the govt are desperate to introduce legislation to legalise what they are doing.

So then plan will be to legislate in such a way that allows mass surveillance. The protecting kids part will then get forgotten so that they can use that excuse again next time. Remember they've been using "protecting children" and "terrorists" as fig leaves for oppressive legislation for the last couple of decades.

Clearly it is impossible for the British government to somehow police children's access to the global internet and somehow turn the entire thing into a kindergarden.

Whatever they are up to, this isn't about protecting children.

I agree with the both of you with one exception.

Don't blame the Daily Mail in isolation all the papers are as bad as each other, their editors adhereing to the line that is dicated to them... via their 'owners'.

The only people responsible for what children do at home or when not at school is their parents. Many of which it seems are not upto that responsibility.

.

.

Tommo, I agree with much of what you say (parents have to be more responsible here), but I have to admit I gave up on reading your introductory post. Have you any idea how impossible it is to make coherent sense of so many one-line paragraphs?

Tommo, I agree with much of what you say (parents have to be more responsible here), but I have to admit I gave up on reading your introductory post. Have you any idea how impossible it is to make coherent sense of so many one-line paragraphs?

Present the average person with a block of text and many if not most get turned off and don't tell me you didn't know that.

This is after all a forum not a place to submit academic essays.

.

.

Present the average person with a block of text and many if not most get turned off and don't tell me you didn't know that.

 

This is after all a forum not a place to submit academic essays.

.

.

I agree that a solid block of text is equally offputting...nor am I asking for an academic essay.

But coherent paragraphs (each one dealing with its own point) would be good. 'Tabloid' paragraphs (such as you use in #1) are an insult to the intelligent reader! Your disjointed 20 paragraph post could be reduced to six (much more meaningful) paragraphs.

Just saying.

Get onboard the censorship bus everyone! I mean, this is what this is all about isn't it?

There has to be internet censorship just as there has to be consequences for freedom of speech.

Otherwise every nutter who is currently offensive would be more extreme in their vitriol.

Terrorism is the example. Should we all be able to apply online to join IS? Build our own bombs? Advertise for a kalishnikov as we plan to 'wipe out the local primary school'. Such sick folk do exist. But would it be right to allow them the 'right' to voice their warped ideologies and deranged thinking?

It happens. Rants from nutters at the moment they take pot shots at innocent bystanders. Imagine the consequences if they were allowed to remain uncensored in the build up to some act of terror.

Other parts of the world don't control the internet to the extent we do. But then foreign newspapers show the carnage from road accidents, murders and other atrocities, which the UK does not print. Our TV is more accountable too.

That is the world I wish to live in and I can not for the life of me understand the mentality of anyone who downloads a beheading video and wishes to view that - repeatedly.

These things are restricted. There is and has to be restriction and censorship in the information we wish to share. Equally, the world has moved on. We have got ourselves in this invidious situation of wishing to undo, change, fix the technology we all share.

But the negative impact of such technologies was never seen as a priority.

Furthermore, I include freedom of speech. Ultimately, there is a line beyond which we can not go. Try discussing race or using a certain word beginning with the 13th letter of the alphabet.

Even now I have to 'cover' myself.

Offensive and not acceptable ergo not allowed ergo censored.

The real world.

There's a name for it.

Yes, It's the cloak of anonymity that enables much of the nastier stuff.

Few people post offensive material when their identity is openly disclosed.

Ok now for a non PC answer, sex is the reason we are here. Ok granted children shouldn't be turned into porn fans but should be talked about the facts of life.

Ok now for a non PC answer, sex is the reason we are here. Ok granted children shouldn't be turned into porn fans but should be talked about the facts of life.

I cannot think any parent would wish their child to remain entirely ignorant of the facts of life, but that is not what this thread is about. Talking to your children about sex and relationships (in an age-appropriate way) is nothing to do with making them addicted to pornography. All that is learnt form porn is that some, more powerful people abuse other, more vulnerable people.

Nor is it anything to do with being politically correct. You seem confused.