Not Adult Filters!

I'm not happy with this index page. Lee, you seem eager to defend the existence of 'Adult content filters' when the evidence simply doesn't back up their existence.

Now yes, politicians have been arguing that ISPs need to introduce 'adult content filters', but that's just the sales pitch. Right from the beginning they have been saying 'do what homesafe does'. Homesafe has always done more than filtering just adult content

Looking at the complete list of categories that I put together, calling them as a whole as 'adult content filters' I feel cannot be defended. Now if you want to call them 'parental control filters' you'd have a stronger case to make, but even then I would dispute that because not all categories (e.g. extremism) will necessarily be user controllable.

Let's resolve this somehow eh? Deku-shrub (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2014 (GMT)

The terms of the debate for which the pages Adult content filters and Adult content filtering regulation address exactly that - the filtering of adult content. "Adult" being a broader category than pornography encompassing all content deemed not suitable for children.

"ISP content filtering" applied to these pages would be incorrect - there is no presupposition that the filters would be applied at the ISP ("network level") and politically, from the perspective of ORG, it has been important that content filtering not be exclusively considered to be an ISP responsibility. Therefore renaming the page would constrain the subject.
In terms of referring to "adult content filters" as "parental controls" - this is also misleading. Adult content filters are applied regardless of the user's status vis-a-vis parent. Filtering applied to public wifi, for example, is not under the control of "parents".

- LeeMaguire (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2014 (GMT)

In addition, the "adult" pages do not make reference to IWF, Section 97a, or extremism filtering as this would be subject to separate debate. LeeMaguire (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2014 (GMT)

Interesting points. Why do you believe the large list of categories subject to blocking are unsuitable for children? They seem more like parental control options and government blacklists. For instance, it looks like extremist content will be blocked outside of the scope of the parental filters - more like the IWF list, not as a part of the user controllable categories.

I'm not sure why you're arguing the filters are not ISP level - they most certainly are, ISPs have rushed to implement their filters to avoid government regulation/interference. The pressure has been governmental, but the implementation has been purely 'voluntary' by the ISPs.

I understand your reluctance to use the phrase 'Parental controls'. How about 'ISP Content Controls' or similar then?

Deku-shrub (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2014 (GMT)

Again, I'm not saying ISP controls aren't controls applied by ISPs, I'm saying that filtering of content, not considered suitable for children, should not be framed purely as ISP filtering, since non-network filtering is also potentially used (and still is). It would be retrospectively framing the problem to match a chosen solution. LeeMaguire (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2014 (GMT)

I'm not sure what you mean by non-network filtering, could you clarify? I will agree I am attempting to descriptive of the filtering measures in place, rather than that of the stated goal of the filtering measures, call that retroactive if you like. Deku-shrub (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2014 (GMT)

Prior to current arrangement, most ISPs were promoting the use of device-level filtering - i.e. "Net Nanny" type software, which did not place content filtering under the control of the ISP. (For example, a browser that scans the content of a webpage and then refuses to show it, due to keywords or whatever, would not be a network filter.) LeeMaguire (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2014 (GMT)

I better understand your position now in the context of being inclusive of the device level filters. I think the difference in opinion is that we're trying to tell different narratives. Your POV appears to be to describe the services offered by ISPs. In that context I agree that 'adult filters' etc is the appropriate term. The reason I have a different point of view is I'm trying to descriptive the ongoing filtering programme as being pushed by the government and its dynamic state, mirroring my work on wikipedia about censorship on the same. Is there a way we can express both elements? Deku-shrub (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2014 (GMT)