Err, yes Jeremy, yes

Children should be blocked from texting sexually explicit images by social media companies, the Health Secretary has said.

Erm, how?

Sure, you can block the “I’d like to fuck your vagina with my penis” through word recognition stuff.

But there’s no way to get to euphemisms. “Let’s nip behind the bike shed for some rumpy pumpy my darling little arhoomba!”

And let’s face it, English has some millennia’s worth of euphemisms to play with….

19 thoughts on “Err, yes Jeremy, yes”

  1. Confused Old Misfit

    NO! Just bloody well NO!
    Government must stay the hell out of the censorship game. The responsibility rests squarely with parents.
    Social media has no responsibilities of this nature unless they are self imposed. This nonsense of alpha to omega regulation must end.

  2. @Rob.. Unless they’ve changed it without me noticing, the Age of Consent in the UK is 16. The 18 bit concerns photos of unclad crumpet – leading to the ludicrous situation that a pair of 16-year-olds can, perfectly legally, bonk themselves stupid, but should they take a few snaps to commemorate the occasion they could end up in chokey.

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    Well if they want someone to look at every picture any teen sends just to make sure they are not porn ….. well no thanks. Not me. But I am sure there is a supply of volunteers out there.

    The question is whether this would be an adequate substitute

  4. An interesting idea: Advertise jobs as teen photosnoops.
    Gather all the applicants at a suitable venue–a large hall or old hanger. Hire several dozen/hundred (depending on how many applicants you get) large, nasty blokes and equip them with baseball bats, pick-axe handles etc.

    Then invite your applicants to step into the main hall and say –“Sorry lads–there aren’t any teensnoop jobs –we just wanted to round up the kind of cunts that would apply for such a job. These nasty fellows will now beat the shit out of you all. Have a nice day.”

  5. It is entirely possible that Hunt has a relative or associate who owns a company that claims it can do such a task, for a fee of course.

  6. @Rob.. Unless they’ve changed it without me noticing, the Age of Consent in the UK is 16. The 18 bit concerns photos of unclad crumpet – leading to the ludicrous situation that a pair of 16-year-olds can, perfectly legally, bonk themselves stupid, but should they take a few snaps to commemorate the occasion they could end up in chokey.

    Yes, that was the point I was obliquely making.

  7. I welcome this move. Not because I’m a nanny-state authoritarian, not at all. But because it will mean kids get involved in a cat-and-mouse game with technology companies and the government.

    For example, the tech companies might run a simple algorithm which filters out photos containing girls’ nipples (boys’ nipples aren’t porn). Result: girls hide their nipples with tassles. The tech companies update their code to identify nudity in other ways, and the kids learn to work around it again and again.

    The upshot is that they’ll learn that not all government problems have technical solutions. This will be a useful lesson when things like ID cards are suggested.

  8. As James Naughtie made a Freudian slip on air with Jeremy’s surname, and he’s not the only broadcaster who has – Andrew Marr too?, perhaps we should just ban all references or reports in all mainstream and social media to Jeremy Cvnt, and everything he says?

  9. It’s a problem people have been working on since the 90s.

    There are some solutions for some problems. Most adult sites are easy to filter because they provide content codes to say it (adult sites have no interest in kids visiting because of the lack of credit cards if nothing else).

    But image recognition? Go on, Jeremy – provide them with a reasonably reliable algorithm. Might as well tell the physicists to solve faster-than-light travel.

    This is really just one of those generational fears, like video nasties or rap music. I have no doubt that one of my ex-girlfriends would have been sending me naked shots, if camera phones had existed at the time.

  10. Bloke in Costa Rica

    Of course the technical aspects of it are ludicrous; it’s amazing how many people think computers work like in Hollywood, despite using the bloody things every day. But that’s not really the point. If some kid sends a picture of her pubescent tits to her callow little boyfriend, who the fuck cares? I mean, is there actual, demonstrable harm there, harm that would be commensurate with restrictions on liberty and commerce? Teenagers have been getting up to mischief with each other since roughly the Pre-Cambrian, and people have been having the vapours about it. It’s simply not an issue.

  11. BiCR,

    There’s demonstrable harm when the couple break up and the boy shares the girl’s photos with all his mates.

    Sorry, got that the wrong way around. There are tears when the boy shares the girl’s photos with all his mates, causing them to break up. Being labelled a slut for the rest of your school career isn’t much fun for the girl, no doubt. But the boy’s reputation is enhanced by the sharing; so the school’s total happiness level remains constant.

    Moral of the story: parents, teach your daughters not to sext.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *