Originally posted by stockenI don't have children. I have no need of a family filter. I'm not sure what you're reading into my post. What I said was that a recent thread had a link to a page that had blatant porn on the side of the page directly linked to. Period. Since he was feigning innocence, I was suggesting that perhaps he had done the same thing. I do indeed know how to block things that are annoying and have blocked people's avatars (dizzy ones, not still images).
Something about this argument just doesn't seem right. Do you really
believe that the innocent eyes you're trying to protect can go anywhere on
the web without being exposed to such things? Use a family filter for crying
out loud. So a site that is not at all about porn, but makes a few bucks
serving up ads, can't be linked too because you don't know ...[text shortened]... is third level click sent me to a site posing a
questionable image. Hmm, what to do?..
1 edit
Originally posted by stockenListen Stocken,
Something about this argument just doesn't seem right. Do you really
believe that the innocent eyes you're trying to protect can go anywhere on
the web without being exposed to such things? Use a family filter for crying
out loud. So a site that is not at all about porn, but makes a few bucks
serving up ads, can't be linked too because you don't know is third level click sent me to a site posing a
questionable image. Hmm, what to do?..
Anyone can or can not use filters, but RHP isn't going to stand for links like the ones that were provided. RHP is public forums and are not the place to link to sites like the ones that got Zad banned, and ignorance isn't an excuse. You just don't do that.
Also, I don't know what link you clicked or what you think was posted but I decided I should see exactly what was written and what was linked in the hidden archive. One click and I was at a free preview full of nudity and offers of Triple X Hard Core Action.
Filters are fine, people should use them. Parents should parent their children, but RHP is also going to monitor what is posted here and make unsavory decisions at times when it comes to the content the users decide to post.
You can read about that every time you click a post button.
P-
1 edit
Originally posted by PhlabibitI agree to not linking directly to a porn site, it's the "there was ads on the
Listen Stocken,
Anyone can or can not use filters, but RHP isn't going to stand for links like the ones that were provided. RHP is public forums and are not the place to link to sites like the ones that got Zad banned, and ignorance isn't an excuse. You just don't do that.
Also, I don't know what link you clicked or what you think was posted but I ...[text shortened]... e users decide to post.
You can read about that every time you click a post button.
P-
side with porn material in it", that got me started. Question was: "How
many clicks away should the porn be before it's acceptable?" Seems to
me that wherever I go on the net, if I follow link paths (especially ads)
sooner or later there it is.
Also, like people didn't know this already, an ad and content blocker is
pretty efficient in stopping your kids from getting where they shouldn't be.
Some ad blockers more effective than others (screening out on key words
and reported bad content) and others just block out all material of a
given type completely. If you worry that your kid will stumble across porn
through ads in another wise perfectly good site, use one of them ad
blockers.
If you use firefox:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search?q=ad+block&status=4
For IE I can not vouch for anything since I never use that pesky old thing.
But maybe someone else knows a good ad blocker for IE. Mind you, a lot
of tricksters out there who will tell you about their AMAZING AD BLOCKER
that 100% eliminates ALL ADS and yadda, yadda. You download, install
and there you have it on your computer. The spyware of a life time. Only
use trusted sources, and if you feel experimental, make sure you have a
snapshot of your installation so you can "reset" the computer to the state
it was before you installed what you thought to be a good
ad/content blocker.
Oh, and IE7 has this whole classification setting you can do in
Tools->Settings...->Connection (or however it translates into English). But
like I said, I hardly ever use that sloppy thing so I wouldn't know how
effective it is to use and/or configure.
Mind you, if you allow your kids to use the computer in administrator
mode, they're most likely to just override whatever settings you try to
make. (I'm obviously not speaking to Phlab directly anymore, 'cause I
have a good feeling he knows all this.) You make a second computer
account for your kids with limited access, and then you make all these
settings from the administrator account. That way they won't be able to
install malicious software or change settings you make to protect their
innocent eyes.
Finally, I've said it before and I say it again, there's no substitute for
actually communicating with your kids about these things that they are
inevitably going to stumble across sooner or later anyway (despite your
best efforts). Prepare them enough so they can handle it well and won't
get all: "OH MY GOOOD!!! NOOOO!!!! What is that? Hmmm...
OOOOOAAAAH, THAT'S DISGUSTING!!!! EEEEeeeeewwww...", which is
definitely a justified reaction but imagine their trauma. It's not like
they're gonna come to you and talk about it. Most likely they'll talk
amongst themselves, and imagine how it will effect their views on sexual
intimacy. Hubba!
But, yes, I agree with you (phlab) that we shouldn't link directly to
offensive material, and not realising you did so is not really an excuse.
But how far away should the offensive material be? One click? Two clicks?
Three clicks?
Originally posted by stockenI love the way you chat Stocken!!
I agree to not linking directly to a porn site.
If you allow your kids to use the computer in administrator
mode, they're most likely to just override whatever settings you try to
make. Make a second computer account for your kids with limited access. There's no substitute for actually communicating with your kids.
How far away should the offensive material be? One click? Two clicks?
Three clicks?
I agree with your points.
Originally posted by stockenThere is no set number of clicks. Just like there is no set list of words you can say on RHP. It's common sense. In this instance, the link took you direct to a list of porn sites for review. That's just wrong.
I agree to not linking directly to a porn site, it's the "there was ads on the
side with porn material in it", that got me started. Question was: "How
many clicks away should the porn be before it's acceptable?" Seems to
me that wherever I go on the net, if I follow link paths (especially ads)
sooner or later there it is.
Also, like people didn't ...[text shortened]... hould the offensive material be? One click? Two clicks?
Three clicks?
Interesting points about computer security, it will be a year or 3 before my kid can even start surfing the web.
P-
Originally posted by PhlabibitI already said I agree with you in this particular case.
There is no set number of clicks. Just like there is no set list of words you can say on RHP. It's common sense. In this instance, the link took you direct to a list of porn sites for review. That's just wrong.