Sites like RYL could be blocked by new government filter plans
Websites mentioning self harm will be banned by default under new government net censorship plans unless parents opt in to allow them
Quote:
Under the plans, anyone turning on a new computer for the first time will be asked whether there are children in the house.
If the answer is yes, parents will be automatically prompted to adapt their internet filters accordingly.
As parents will be able to choose what kind of restrictions they want their children to be subjected to, this could mean them restricting access to Facebook after a certain time or allowing older children to view more sites than their younger siblings, for example.
Filters against pornography and self-harm sites will automatically be left on if parents just click through the options quickly and select ok to every question, however.
Internet providers will also be required to verify the age of the person setting the controls.
As is often the case with filters they're a blunt tool, a hammer to crack a nut and will lead to thousands of innocent sites being caught up and prohibited. Sites like RYL which repeatedly contain mentions of suicide, self-harm, alcohol, and drugs are likely to fall foul of them even though it's actually a support site. Indeed I just activated my ISPs filter (TalkTalk) and predictably RYL was prohibited as was the website for the well known self-harm support charity the National Self Harm Network.
Sites like RYL often have a wide age range of visitors anything from 13 upwards, I find it quite worrying that many teens going through severe emotional distress could have the support they so desperately need yanked out from under them. I am sure there are many who have found support forums like RYL invaluable in helping them deal with self-harm and issues surrounding mental illness in what is often a very lonely time plagued by stigma.
Peoples reactions to this?
Last edited by Rhuben : 20-12-2012 at 10:23 AM.
Reason: typo
Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money.
They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with.
Some men just want to watch the world burn.
Just lie and click "no" to having children?
I don't think the govt is intentionally blocking anything or intending to remove help from children. It's just setting up a tool to aid parents setting parental controls - which already exist and are already set up by many parents. The internet can be an unsafe place and if parents wish to restrict sites in a fairly quick and easy way that's their choice.
Kids are clever, if they want to look something up they'll do it at a friend's, or at school, or a local library, or use a proxy, there are ways.
Even as the stone of the fruit must break
that its heart may stand in the sun,
so must you know pain.
There are only two ways in which one can live their life. One is as though nothing is a miracle, the other is as though everything is.
My dads old censor program me prohibited me from viewing any page with the word blonde, knife, gun, (and obvious porn-related words) was really annoying
Mand, South Wales, Full-time working, single mother to 2 scarily independent girls.
I AM A PROUD PLUMERIA SISTER
So I guess it will be censoring Childline and Samaritans... or not? I'm sure there would be an outcry if they start mindlessly censoring thing based on random words.
Bearing in mind Childline are all for it, and they have forums which discuss selfharm, I suspect there will be slightly more thought put into what is blocked and how.
It doesn't matter where you come from; it matters where you go.
No-one gets remembered for the things they didn't do.
We won't all be here this time next year,
so while you can take a picture of us.
We're definitely going to hell,
but we'll have all the best stories to tell.
Just install your favorite GNU/Linux distro. Since there are plenty that are not based in the UK, they won't have to follow any half-baked scheme that your MPs come up with.
would there be a way for websites to apply to not be banned? like if you went to whoever was administering it and explained...
That's what I thought.. They surely couldn't just ban things based on words, as otherwise it'd also ban helpful well known sites as talaiporia said. They'll have to be careful with how they do it.
If it was as cut and dry as all sites with the words self harm or cutting in them to be banned then childline would surely be included. However I cannot imagine anyone would be stupid enough to include childline therefore there must be a way for the filter programme to have the ability and the people running it; the sense, to opt in sites that are recovery based, well known and monitored.
The daily mail literally makes me seethe with anger. They love to overexaggerate and attack things in my opinion. So it wouldn't surprise me if they overplayed the girls use of sites being a link to her suicide. I see the intention is probably meant to be good, but with sites like RYL being blocked, that are a source of help and hope to so many young people, I think it probably will cause more bad than good.
Without encouraging or anything like that I personally think pro sites are harder to find nowadays than they used to be anyway.
Yep.
Oh god I want to hear you say,
I want to hear you say that you were wrong again
This is the first thing
I have understood:
Time is the echo of an axe
Within a wood.
the girls use of sites being a link to her suicide. I see the intention is probably meant to be good, but with sites like RYL being blocked, that are a source of help and hope to so many young people, I think it probably will cause more bad than good.
Although (and playing Devil's advocate here), there are many members of RYL who will openly say that RYL made them worse. It may not be a "pro" site, but it is not inherently good, either. There is a lot of tip-sharing (without meaning to, but there's no way around it really) going on, and people seem to sign up because they harm themselves a few times and then leave with about three or four different diagnoses, and probably some sort of disordered eating habit as well.
I agreethere are many sites children shouldn't be on but I strongly disagree with governments putting restrictions on and I disagree with parents having so much control over somebody and what they do. I mean sure if it is a young child but over the age of say 15/16 those controls should be removed. If they are old enough to consent to sex then they are old enough to be responsible online.
And there are good sites out there.
You start life with a clean slate. Then you begin to make your mark. You face decisions, make choices. You keep moving forward. But sooner or later there comes a time where you look back over where you have been and wonder who you really are.
Although (and playing Devil's advocate here), there are many members of RYL who will openly say that RYL made them worse. It may not be a "pro" site, but it is not inherently good, either. There is a lot of tip-sharing (without meaning to, but there's no way around it really) going on, and people seem to sign up because they harm themselves a few times and then leave with about three or four different diagnoses, and probably some sort of disordered eating habit as well.
Yeah I see what you're saying, as I've said before I think RYL did contribute towards me getting worse to some degree, so it can work both ways unfortunately. At the same time though RYL has definitely been helpful, which I like to think outweighs the less helpful side of things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rawrk
I love the Daily Mail, it's hilarious. EVERYTHING GIVES YOU CANCER.
;) [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZTeSxWdk1g"]Daily Mail Cancer Song - Russell Howard - YouTube[/ame]
Oh god I want to hear you say,
I want to hear you say that you were wrong again
This is the first thing
I have understood:
Time is the echo of an axe
Within a wood.
Yeah I see what you're saying, as I've said before I think RYL did contribute towards me getting worse to some degree, so it can work both ways unfortunately. At the same time though RYL has definitely been helpful, which I like to think outweighs the less helpful side of things.
Just to turn that on its head, "pro" sites helped me. At least from the perspective of I could look at them and go "That is fucked up! Yeah, let's not go down that road." Different things work for different people.
