[k-mcgrady]

This a terrible move. It's been a long time coming but what surprised me reading the article is that they are also blocking gambling and violent images. So they've already crossed the line.

How do they determine what is a violent image? What if I'm reading a news story that includes an image of a crime? Will the filter block me from playing poker games with free 'pretend' chips?

The worst part is that the media is branding it as a porn filter. What if a person wants to gamble but has no intention of using porn? They might feel uncomfortable asking for the content filter to be turned off and as a result end up with a restricted, censored internet service.

Edit:

Why can't ISP's/or the government partner with a software company that provides filtering software (or develop their own), and give that out for free to all new customers? Seems like that would completely solve the problem. It would also enable parents to only activate the software when their children are accessing the internet, allowing the parent full, unregulated access.

[iamben]

It's the start of a very slippery slope. Where is the line drawn?

The irony, of course - it's incredibly easy to find porn on Twitter (and I suspect Facebook) - but they're never going to be blocked.

Parents could, of course, put the children's computer in a communal room...