TECH

Porn blockers are a waste of time and money
Pornography is not, let's say, exactly difficult to achieve. This prevalence and accessibility of sexual images on the network has led many parents and political figures to try to filter the casualty away from the screens of the young. But a new study indicates that such efforts are largely a waste of time and money.This month, researchers at the Oxford Internet Institute have published an article - "Internet Filtering and Adolescent Exposure to Online Sexual Material," which investigates whether online filters for sex material are an effective preventative measure that those responsible can adopt with young people. According to the study, they are not."The struggle to shape the experiences that young people have online is now part of modern fatherhood," write the authors of the study. "This study was conducted to address the value of industry, policy, and professional advice regarding the appropriate role of Internet filtering in this struggle." Our preliminary findings have suggested that filters may have small protective effects, but evidence from a more rigorous empirical approach and robust have indicated that they are completely ineffective. "Moreover, the authors point out that the power of these tools needs to be better studied. Porn blockers often cost money to be implemented by parents and guardians and certainly have a cost to the developers who create them. If, in the end, they are useless or, in some cases, they censor educational content, they should be examined more rigorously.The researchers looked at 9,352 men and 9,357 women, aged between 11 and 16, from the European Union and the United Kingdom. They also observed an "equal number" of perpetrators, totaling 18,709 pairs of guardians and children. Almost half of the young people interviewed had an online filter in their home. Researchers found that "more than 99.5% of a young man's chances of finding sexual material online were to do with factors other than the use of the filter technology of those responsible." They also found that young people in homes with online blockers were more likely to have seen violent porn in the last six months than those of homes without a filter.
This is an important and timely study, not only for parents having difficulty controlling what their children see online, but also for providing information to state policies on the subject. "Our findings raise the question of whether state-funded mandatory online school filters should still be considered an economic intervention, while providing clear justification for investigating other preventive methods, such as age or educational strategies to support responsible online behavior and promote resilience, "write the authors.While this study has seen only young people from European countries, there are also American political figures determined to push against pornography until they become rules. By 2016, a bill in South Carolina would require all devices sold to come equipped with a porn blocker - unless you paid a $ 20 fee to buy without censorship. That same year, Utah Senator Todd Weiler proposed a law that would require all cell phones to be equipped with online filters and antipornography software.Also in 2016 - a great year for the Utah war on porn -, Governor Gary Herbert declared pornography to be a "public health crisis" in the state. In fact, it was only earlier this year that Utah approved a read to eliminate its position of czar of the pornography.
The Oxford Internet Institute study helps to highlight these reactionary free-to-the-internet attacks, however well-intentioned they may be, by providing evidence that these measures are taken in vain. Instead of tackling pornography, perhaps those responsible should consider educating young people about sexual materials and the internet.
With or without blockers, if kids want to find porn, they'll probably get it.



Gizmodo.com