Adult content

[Jack Jackson]

Todd Slater wrote:
<snip>
 > Come on, at least two people have accused this guy of being a poor
 > father. Did you ever think that he *has* talked to his kids, that he 
*does*
 > supervise or perhaps is *unable* to supervise 24x7x365?
</snip>

Let me be 100% clear about the intent of my earlier comment: I meant no 
slight nor any whiff of suggestion that the poster was an unfit parent.

My point was entirely this:

At the end of the day, avoidance of smut and violence depends on the 
user, and my suggestion was not that the poster had not provided ethics 
and passed on his values, but rather those activities were more 
effective than any technology.

In my opinion, technology which attempts to control the flow of 
information on the internet is spitting into the wind; there is to my 
knowledge no reliable electro-nanny which removes smut and violence 
while avoiding censorship of innocent, important information. The famous 
example of AOL's unintentional removal of breast-cancer support groups 
in a misguided effort to "protect" us from offensive words is just the 
most basic example. Sure, technology has come a long way, and sure there 
are packages out there which will do quite a bit to keep his kids free.

But how many times have we looked in our spam filter directory and seen 
messages relegated there from friends who wrote a subject line which 
didn't quite cut the mustard, or were (to take an extreme example) 
written by your friend Richard Cockbourne.

I apologized for my post because I put it there out of context and now I 
see it appears I was insulting the poster. I hope this explains it: I 
meant no offense.




Are his kids even
> old enough for such a discussion, i.e. do you want to introduce your 6
> year old to adult content so they'll know what to do when they encounter
> it?
> 
> Additionally, even if you work on the "demand" side of things with your
> kids, there is also a lot of adult content forced on viewers.
> Pornnapping is all too common, especially with domains targeted to
> youngsters (Brittany Spears, beanie babies, cheerleading etc.).
>  
> 
>>Since you are probably looking for a software solution (read: "don't be a 
>>good parent"), I think you are probably looking for squidguard or 
>>something like that.
> 
> 
> As others have mentioned, Dan's Guardian is what you want--very
> configurable, pretty easy to set up IIRC.
> 
> Good luck, and don't let the judgemental jerks make you feel bad.
> 
> Todd
>