So here’s what the actual complaint is

The moguls behind the world’s biggest pornography websites have been entrusted by the Government with policing the internet to keep it safe for children.

MindGeek staff have held a series of meetings with officials in preparation for the new age verification system which is designed to ensure that under-18s cannot view adult material.

Tens of millions of British adults are expected to have to entrust their private details to MindGeek, which owns the PornHub and YouPorn websites.

Critics have likened the company’s involvement to ‘entrusting the cigarette industry with stopping underage smoking’ and want an independent body to create the system instead.

If a commercially minded firm does this work then the work will be done in a commercially minded manner.

Tarquin and Jocasta won’t get a look in as part of the nascent bureaucracy therefore.

How terrible, eh?

25 comments on “So here’s what the actual complaint is

  1. This is austerity in action for the Islington set.

    No ‘Porn’ Quango means that there are no extremely well compensated jobs for the MC/CM/CP types who get to watch the porn while lecturing others not to do so.

  2. “but porn publishers will implement their own age checks.”

    So, this is basically about MindGeek’s sites. This smells of a company just trying to sign more people up. Get ’em to sign up, maybe they’ll start paying.

    “Sites failing to verify the age of users can be fined and those that do not comply will be blocked.”

    Oh, that’ll be fun. Watching the BBFC running around trying to block the tens of thousands of porn sites, any of which can simply map a new domain to their website in less than 24 hours.

    And as for protecting the kids – the kids already know about proxy servers. They use them on phones to bypass restrictions on all sorts of wifi locations. You think they aren’t going to use them to get to porn?

    You want to stop kids seeing porn? Install family filters. They’re very good at stopping kids from inadvertently seeing porn. And if kids start actively looking for it, you might as well turn them off. Because at that point, you’re not going to stop them.

    Worst case: boys will just trade it via sneakernet on USB sticks.

  3. @ JuliaM

    I think Groper is too ‘hands on’ to want a job that involves watching video footage. If there were fully expensed trips to investigate the working conditions he might still be up for it however.

    Going rate is > £100k as he has two kids to look after and he’s lost the Saint Jo Memorial fund cash now as well.

  4. “Tarquin and Jocasta won’t get a look in as part of the nascent bureaucracy therefore. How terrible, eh?”

    Yes, it *is* terrible. Tarquin and Jocasta are unlikely to be competent, and would be very unlikely to achieve any effective censorship. It would be a nice political sop to the anti-porn authoritarians, but have no significant effect on the availability of porn. And everyone could then wring their hands and run around carving careers out trying ever more ineffective ways to solve the unsolvable problem, until everyone gets tired of it and forgets about it.

    Whereas the commercial businesses running these sites *do* actually understand the internet, and *do* understand how their customers think, and are about to be handed carte blanche to institute whatever protectionist measures they like to stop people getting hold of porn without paying them, and eliminate the competition.

    They probably won’t succeed either. The music industry tried it – with government assistance – and failed. But not without nearly bringing in mandatory hard-wired DMCA compliance measures into everyone’s computers to give the State ownership and control over every device able to play music (along with all the vulnerabilities that implies, or what it would mean for dissidents in China).

    Governments have more power. Businesses have more understanding. The worst possible outcome is that the two of them get together and start cooperating against the public, rather than fighting one another.

  5. I like that MindGeek owns two competing brands of porn site. It’s a bit like GM selling comleteing marques because of customer loyalty. Clearly some blokes take their brand of porn site seriously and are reluctant to change.

  6. “Governments have more power. Businesses have more understanding. The worst possible outcome is that the two of them get together and start cooperating against the public, rather than fighting one another.”

    You are a bit late NiV. Corporate socialism ( don’t like the F word as its meaning has been warped by 70 years of lying socialist scum trying to con folk that the Big F is nothing to do with their gang) is now a major part of western society. Privately run state-slave labour prisons in the US being the worst example-so far.

    Hope fully the Net will find the way around . Although money will be a bigger incentive for the private sell-outs than bureaucracy for bureaupork.

    Once May is deposed she should be obliged to appear in one of the spectacles that she finds so detestable. Even if only as a spear-carrying extra.She has long been a femmi-marxist in all but name and it would be a suitable retaliation for the harm that she has caused via Saunders and the travesty of Yewtree.

  7. Tim, its not so much competing brands of porn site as both available to the same demographic group. Bit like Greggs and Boots are competing for your spending money.

  8. @ NiV

    You know what, I’d rather be f*cked by a Corporatist government that let Tarquin and Jocasta (or any of their MC/CM scum metropolitan friends) near the levers of power.

    Quite similar to Brexit – escaping from the f*ckwits in the EU whatever the cost to the country.

  9. I think the biggest problem is the amateur p0rn being produced by the under 18’s and under 16’s… Good luck with trying to stop this.
    N.B. I warned one female pupil (under 16) about images (selfies) of her being passed around, she said she did not care and if someone wanted a photo she would happily send one!

  10. Mr Yan,

    No you wouldn’t. What happens with corporatist government is that they end up being run by Tarquins and Jocastas who are connected to government. They have the same incentives as many parts of the public sector, so end up with the same sort of players.

    ITV News and BBC news people are interchangable because they all basically support something to the left of Cameron. Imagine if the next government did the sensible thing with ITV and just auctioned off the bandwidth to the highest bidder rather than a whole load of nonsense. So, that’s the last thing ITV wants. It isn’t like most businesses that fucking hate government. It loves government because it’s trying to lock the market out.

    Same with why lawyers, nominally private businesses are so often on the left. They’re protected by government from the free market. They want bright blokes working as mechanics to be prevented from buying a wig and representing a client in court. They certainly don’t want a full on libertarian government that will allow people to ask their neighbour to be their barrister.

  11. @ Anon

    You need a better example than ITV and lawyers. Doctor’s perhaps?

    OTT video (like Netflix, Prime etc) is going to kill them whether they have the government on side or not.

    And anyone can represent themselves in court. Whether they’d do a good job is debatable, but if you can be arsed to do the relevant research into case law, you can be quite effective without being a lawyer (or even a barrister).

  12. “You know what, I’d rather be f*cked by a Corporatist government that let Tarquin and Jocasta (or any of their MC/CM scum metropolitan friends) near the levers of power.”

    You want *competent* authoritarians to fuck you over, with no means of escape?

    “Quite similar to Brexit – escaping from the f*ckwits in the EU whatever the cost to the country.”

    It’s a *very* similar example actually. A lot of stupid EU regulations originate with British proposals. You think you’re getting rid of the interfering idiots, but they’re already inside your tent.

    The EU is based on protectionism, which is a conspiracy between governments and manufacturers to defraud the consumers. Manufacturers lobby government for regulations that will exclude outside competition, allowing them to charge higher prices, or survive in a world where somebody else can do it better/cheaper.

    The businesses are still here, and still interested in excluding the competition, but now they only have to lobby the British Conservative Party (who they fund) instead of the whole EU. They’re upset because they can only rip off the British consumers instead of the whole of Europe, but that’ll be cold comfort.

    If you don’t even know who your real enemy is, you’re going to lose the war. The EU is run in the interests of European businesses, to fuck over European consumers. That’s what it’s for. And that’s what happens when you let protectionists of *any* stripe near the levers of power.

  13. “The businesses are still here, and still interested in excluding the competition, but now they only have to lobby the British Conservative Party (who they fund) instead of the whole EU. They’re upset because they can only rip off the British consumers instead of the whole of Europe, but that’ll be cold comfort.”

    Anyone not a fool knows that getting out from under the scum of the EU is only step one. But now we only have to fight one gang of well-off, middle class, CM London Bubble scum and not 28 lots plus the Flemocrats in Brussels ( or New Karachi as it soon will be).

  14. It seems that I am not alone in my thoughts about the Purge:

    “The Deep State Is The Deep Left State

    February 8, 2018 by CH (Chateau Heartiste)

    A former FBI agent exposes the machinery of the Deep State which helps explain how so many American institutions become left-wing over time. It’s insightful, inasmuch as it’s crucial to know HOW we got to where we are, so that we can figure out a remedy.

    Former FBI Agent Jonathan Gilliam: Bureau’s Top Brass Climb Ladder by Ideology, Not Merit

    “Go in and think like a liberal” was the advice two FBI agents gave Jonathan Gilliam prior to his taking an FBI entrance exam. […]

    Gilliam, a retired Navy SEAL and former FBI special agent, spoke of left-wing political corruption across the federal government, specifically identifying the CIA and FBI.

    Gilliam recalled that two FBI agents advised him to “think like a liberal” during his FBI entrance exam. “I was told by two FBI agents that did not know each other – I was told, ‘Do not go in and take that test as though you are thinking like a SEAL.’ In other words, ‘If this happened, this is the way it should be done because this is the way a team works, and this is the way an investigation should be carried out.’ They said, ‘Don’t do that, you’ll fail. Go in and think like a liberal.’ And that’s what I did, and I passed.”

    Think like a liberal: “My grandson says he wishes he had brown eyes and brown skin! Please clap.”

    The FBI’s entrance exam illustrated how leftists use ideological filtering tools preferencing ideological fellow travelers, said Gilliam.

    “These tests are written to recruit a certain type of person,” said Gilliam. “So what you end up having when you do that is, you’re gonna have – the CIA has the same problem, where it’s not that they have individuals bringing a skill set to the table; it’s that they’re bringing an ideology to the table that those that wrote the test want them to have.”

    “The people who are like-minded, the people that get along are going to be the ones that stay there,” added Gilliam. “They’re not going to recruit people who don’t do what they do, who don’t think like they do.”

    This explains why the various bureaucracies are so top-heavy with leftoids while the rank and file are less ideological — the striver leftoids are the only ones getting promoted by the smug leftoids already in charge.

    Right wingers imo are simply more principled — or maybe more likable — than are Leftoids. The distinction shows up most clearly in employment practices, where righties seem to be constitutionally averse to ideology litmus tests to boost their ranks with those who share their worldview. Leftists otoh not only have no problem screening people for ideological conformity, they revel in it. They make it company policy. They set out to destroy those who depart from their ideology, no matter how small the particular point of disagreement.

    (Ironically, the smaller the point of disagreement, the more viciously the leftoid will lash out and accuse you of heresy. It’s really best to let it all hang out if you’re gonna disagree with a leftoid; you gain nothing by pussyfooting around the disagreement, and the leftoid will be driven to impotent catatonia and perhaps even submission if you disagree fundamentally and unapologetically.)

    The “deep state” network of leftists, said Gilliam, extends across various federal bureaucracies. He advised President Donald Trump to cleanse federal bureaucracies of politically corrupt leftists.

    The Chateau Word of the Year is….CULL. As in, #CullTheMedia, #CullTheFBI, #CulltheDeepState, #CullAcademia, #CullAdInfinitum. There’s a lot of institutional culling of leftoids to do, and so little time remaining to do it before it’s impossible. We aren’t gonna change hearts and minds, but we can change personnel.

    Culling can be accomplished many ways. There’s physical culling. Mass firings and what-not. (I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader what “what-not” means, and when the time would be right for its use.) There’s preemptive culling. This would involve altering recruitment and promotion requirements and exams to rid them of ideological filtering. There’s legalistic culling. Expanding anti-discrimination civil rights laws to include political or ideological affiliation would be an example of that. Finally, there’s passive culling, which would be creating work environments hostile to liberals by, say, mandating a physical assessment day heavy on the tests of strength, or requiring attendance to a “Western Canon” seminar for every Diversity Seminar a company requires for its employees.

    President Trump, I know you’re reading. CULL. Remember this word. Drop it in your next tweet. I’d appreciate the shout-out.

    “If you want to see the deep state, this is what you’re looking at,” said Gilliam. “It’s not just the FBI. It’s not just the DOJ. It’s also the State Department. It’s the IRS. It’s the DOD. It’s the VA. You want to look across the board and look and all of these.”

    Bataan death march through the institutions.

    “I don’t think that what we’re seeing in the FBI is just about the FBI,” said Gilliam. “What we’re seeing … is that this is a slice of the bigger picture. Right now, the president has the greatest time that he’s probably going to have in his presidency to pull back and unleash either another special counsel or a team of investigators to go in and clean up these upper echelons [of federal bureaucracies].”

    I’m not a prayerful man, but I’ll say a prayer for Trump. His enemy is numerous, entrenched, and determined.

    “You can call them deep state. You can call them globalists. I often call them communists,” said Gilliam of left-wing federal bureaucrat careerists.

    The commie slur never goes out of style.

    Ideological alignment allows otherwise disconnected people across federal bureaucracies to cooperate absent conspiracy, said Gilliam, using terrorist networks as an illustration of this phenomenon.

    It’s a literal leftoid hivemind. They all think alike, so they proceed to the same goal without explicit direction. Such radical and independent thinkers, they are!

    “You know how terrorist cells work. They have a financial group that raises money, you have planners, you have people who build the bombs, and you have people that carry the operation out,” said Gilliam. “They may never meet those people, but they belong to the same ideology.”

    Inadvertently (perhaps), Gilliam has also addressed the JQ.

    The Globohomo Ministry of Propaganda, like its bureaucratic brethren in various state agencies, won’t change from within. Change has to be forced on it from without, and that necessarily means CLEANING SHOP of all the leftoid freaks that currently run the show.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: You can chin-rub for ages over the nature of our national dissolution but the crux of the issue is that there are too many leftoids in positions of power. Remove them, and many of our problems go away with them”

  15. As pointed out by Ecks, ridding ourselves of the EU is but one step in a journey. The final destination is to get ourselves some form of decent parliament.

    No one thinks the (vast majority of) UK politicians are any good but at least we have a fighting chance of doing something about them.

    Compare this to the EU where the structures are deliberately set-up to separate the elected parts from the real power.

    It’ll take a significant amount of work as is evidenced by the likes of Jess Philips, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Rachel Reeves, Theresa May, Amber Rudd, Nicky Moran and Anna Soubry.

    I’m not specifically singling out women (not even the really thick Labour one’s) – we need another Margaret Thatcher but the women MPs look to have let the side down.

    I don’t care if they only have the veneer of being sincere as even that elevates them above the rest who don’t even bother to hide their contempt for the electorate and the fact they are in parliament to enrich themselves.

    The Lords used to be some form of backstop against the worse excesses of the Commons. Unfortunately, Blair in his desire to kill off this autonomy, filled the upper chamber with place-men and cronies.

    It’s a total disgrace and I don’t think it’s excessive to say that treason has been committed to get us to this point.

    The Eckian purge is well overdue.

  16. “No one thinks the (vast majority of) UK politicians are any good but at least we have a fighting chance of doing something about them.”

    You think so?

  17. @ NiV

    Which part?

    1) The politicians are (in the main) not any good.
    2) That we have a fighting chance of doing something about them.

    I doubt you’ll find many people who would say number 1 is false so I presume you mean number 2.

    I realise it’ll be a struggle – we have an electorate that seems to have problems engaging their brains and voting in some way differently from their predecessors.

    This especially seems to be a problem in ex-industrial area’s and many parts of our major cities.

    Yes, it case it’s not obvious, I’m referring to people who vote Labour who, despite their champagne-socialist representatives doing everything in their power to screw over the people who vote for them, will vote for the donkey with the red rosette every time.

    The shower of shite that has inherited the Tory party name is no better – so don’t imagine I’m an advocate of them either.

    So we get the politicians we deserve for this dereliction of duty on our part.

    For my part, I’ve been voting for independent candidate despite it being a pointless exercise, at least I made some effort to change the status quo.

  18. “I doubt you’ll find many people who would say number 1 is false so I presume you mean number 2.”

    I did.

    “I realise it’ll be a struggle – we have an electorate that seems to have problems engaging their brains and voting in some way differently from their predecessors.”

    And that’s why. We have the politicians we have because of the electorate. Not just that they vote the same way as their predecessors (if they do – I know a lot who don’t), it’s that they vote for what the politicians deliver, because they think that’s what they want (without understanding the consequences of what they’re asking).

    So ‘doing something about it’ requires educating a plurality of the British population about economics and political philosophy to quite a deep level (relative to what they currently know). That’s more than a minor challenge!

    Do you think you have a fighting chance of achieving that?

  19. @ NiV

    I’m hoping for some sort of ‘Messiah’ political figure who’ll try to at least pretend that they care and do something to sort out the country.

    With the entrenched blinkered electorate, the ‘First Division’ of the civil service and the Quangocrats to sort out, I admit it’s a small chance of success.

    However, a purge of these (and others like ACPO) and putting Common Purpose on the list of proscribed organisations, we might get there.

  20. If the scum at the top were invincible NiV we would still be being whipped by the Fucking Pharoahs.

    Oh it will be an uphill fight. One of the problems is that easy living has made folk soft both physically and in the head. Adversity and the School of Hard Knocks might wake us up.

    But the danger is that some knocks–like the old black & white safety advert used to say–can be too hard.

  21. “If the scum at the top were invincible NiV we would still be being whipped by the Fucking Pharoahs.”

    They’re none of them invincible, but they’re always replaced by somebody exactly like them, because that’s what people think they want.

  22. “Which idiot made Mary Whitehouse PM?”

    The British public did. See pages 16-19 here;

    http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39147/bsa34_moral_issues_final.pdf

    Only 45% of the British public say adults should be allowed to see whatever films they want, while 41% say some films are too violent or pornographic even for adults. Not surprisingly, there’s a sex difference – so only 32% of women think it’s OK for adults to see what they like, while 58% of men do. And 68% of 18-34 year olds compared with 20% of those 75+. 13% of the British public say it is always wrong for adults to watch pornography at home.

    So the answer to your question is “women and old people”.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.