Skip to content

NELSON: A tech & moral simplification

B ritish Prime Minister David Cameron wants to end internet pornography using a program he calls "Default On." Default On would require U.K. internet service providers to block pornography from customers unless the customer "opts in" to porn access.

British Prime Minister David Cameron wants to end internet pornography using a program he calls "Default On."

Default On would require U.K. internet service providers to block pornography from customers unless the customer "opts in" to porn access.

Sounds good, an admirable goal. We're all concerned about the easy accessibility of online pornography. Anything we can do to stem the tide would seem like a good thing, right?

Shouldn't Canada follow Britain's lead to block pornography?

If we could, yes. But as much as we would all like to stop pornography, Prime Minister Cameron's Default On pornography block wouldn't stop or even slow the spread of internet porn.

Blocks and filters are imperfect. The more comprehensive they are, the easier they are to circumvent.

As Tom Meltzer of The Guardian explains, "Any Default On system needs to be simple enough for a stupid adult to navigate, and if it is, any web-savvy kid could find their way around it in no time."

To work, the filters would need to prevent users from asking search engines "How do I turn off these porn filters?" And then the question "How do I turn off the filters for questions about turning off filters?" And so on, for ever"

And sadly, internet blocking actually discourages parents (the only effective internet filter) to be vigilant in supervising their child's internet activities.

In short, Cameron's plan to centrally block internet pornography is a technological and moral oversimplification.

But even more shocking, Mr. Cameron's porn-blocking plan includes a recommendation for a "Parent Port" website to "take parental complaints about, any ad, program, product or service, and to help parents work together on initiatives ending the sale of inappropriately 'sexy' clothing for young children, like underwire bras and T-shirts with suggestive slogans."

This is how far we'll go when we opt for centralized moral control and censorship.

And historically, censorship has not ended well for us. It gave us the banning of Huckleberry Finn, Catcher in the Rye, The Colour Purple and The Great Gatsby.

I don't want the government or an internet company to decide what information I can access or what I can read.

Strange, this is usually the stance taken by my anti-government colleague over there.