Skip Navigation


IWF appeals procedure reverses Wikipedia block
Wednesday 10 December 2008 11:22:32 by Andrew Ferguson

Wikipedia should be back to normal for people, i.e. anonymous editing from UK connections should work, and where the site was slowing down due to being passed through a providers IWF proxy this should have gone away.

It appears that the Internet Watch Federation (IWF) invoked its own appeals procedure and decided to remove the Wikipedia Scorpions page from its IWF list of pages with potentially illegal indecent images of children under the age of 18 on them.

"Following representations from Wikipedia, IWF invoked its Appeals Procedure and has given careful consideration to the issues involved in this case. The procedure is now complete and has confirmed that the image in question is potentially in breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978. However, the IWF Board has today (9 December 2008) considered these findings and the contextual issues involved in this specific case and, in light of the length of time the image has existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to remove this webpage from our list.

IWF’s overriding objective is to minimise the availability of indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion our efforts have had the opposite effect. We regret the unintended consequences for Wikipedia and its users. Wikipedia have been informed of the outcome of this procedure and IWF Board’s subsequent decision."

Extract from press release on IWF website

This incident has made the IWF and its work much more visible to UK Internet users, with many previously not aware of its existence at all, and even less aware of the procedures providers have for blocking material that is on the list. Some providers make it clear to users and others hide the blocking behind fake 404 errors which has created some confusion as people assume there is a fault with Wikipedia. In the case of sites hosted abroad set-up to explicitly host child porn, a 404 may be preferrable, but for mainstream sites such as Wikipedia users would often prefer an indication of the block.

One area not resolved is whether the IWF would add the complete web page URL to its proscribed list for any new material or simply block the image. URL's are notoriously difficult to manage, and it would be all to easy for the IWF to think it has blocked an image by blocking a URL but still leave the page visible to UK web users, e.g. accessing a page via a sites websearch often produced a very different URL to one where people have navigated to the site.

It is an unfortunate world where bodies like the IWF are needed but the current amount of discussion of web censorship and monitoring means incidents like this are likely to increase. Taste and decency has been a big issue for TV and radio in the last year or two, and as the Internet increasingly becomes just another entertainment medium issues in this area will become more mainstream.

Comments

Posted by redgiemental over 5 years ago
The internet is not "just another entertainment medium" it is primarily an information exchange.

An entertainment medium requires a license to broadcast. The companies involved accept the restrictions because it is a commercial endeavor.

The internet allows every individual to have input and to communicate and is not primarily geared towards being commercial.

The censorship of information should not be treated so flippantly by you.
Posted by comnut over 5 years ago
"It is an unfortunate world where bodies like the IWF are needed"

The trouble is, it only happened to ONE website, not everywhere... and to compound the IDIOCY, they chose an image that has been available since the 70s!!!!

This stupidity alone has very much harmed any decent censorship drive, drawing attention to something that a very large part of Internet users previously did not know existed..
Posted by comnut over 5 years ago
If your young kid comes to harm due to the ignorance of a bystander, BLAME the IWF and similar for him being too afraid to even touch the poor kid...
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
Comnut? Similar? I'm sorry, I fail to see the similaries between a body created and funded by ISP's as a self-regulatory body (and one which has been running for years) with other issues.
Posted by comnut over 5 years ago
?? you need to check your english.... I was talking about public organizations that do things similar to IWF...

I dont think even the late Margaret Whitehouse would behave so stupidly, making loving parents paranoid about their babies and how they are treated..
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
They're not a public organisation, they're a private self-regulatory body.

They're targeted, specific and I cannot see any similarity between their role and the government's media circus.
Posted by comnut over 5 years ago
and you seem clueless.. I DID NOT call them any thing...
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
Well im happy to call them something, that something being idiots.

Maybe if they had the sense to think about what they are censoring in the first place they wouldnt have to do a spinless jellyfish u-turn.
Posted by Silvereyes over 5 years ago
Bloody hell Comnut! Are you looking to take over from carpetburn as Comment Troll in Chief?

For once he's actually right. No one can HONESTLY deny the IWF over-reacted. That someone within the organisation did so as a knee-jerk reflex to some knobhead MARY Whitehouse clone reporting the image is beside the point.

It should have been properly assessed by a COMPETENT officer prior to being censored. That didn't happen and now they have to accept the consequences.
Posted by comnut over 5 years ago
who me?? Utterly pointless acts bother me, and if it involves the sanity of women and their babes, it makes me angry.. Time was, when you found a lost 2 year old and kept them happy until their mum was found, you were esteemed and honored by all around...
Now you are afraid to be vilified as a molester due to the paranoia :(

Now if ALL the images everywhere were censored, that at least would be logical...
But their actions are like an anti-porn campaigner going into a shop, and defacing ONLY ONE magazine... :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect makes it worse...
Posted by comnut over 5 years ago
I am rather amazed at the limited scope of some people, they really need to get out more...

Yes, the internet IS an 'entertainment medium' in the same way that papers, comics, and magazines are(yes, even the times has a 'funnies' section)... If this happened 10 years ago, almost no-one would notice... but it is a two-way street now, and people can complain directly!

The daily mail just reported it as 'metal band blocked over porn photo' everyone yawned, said not another rock star.. and skipped straight to X factor..
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
Sivereyes - And what might happen? Because the image really is on very shaky grounds under UK law

Oh, the government might step in and take the role away from the IWF, and start filtering itself. And it won't keep to a roughly 2000-strong URL blocklist of child porn pictures, either.

Comnut - And this has nothing to do with the IWF. They sit between the ISP's and government mandated far more comprehensive blocking.
Posted by brett7 over 5 years ago
I think IWF incompetence and lack of oversight is the main problem here. They targeted only one site of many with the image, blocked an encyclopedia text, interfered with legitimate internet usage, and failed to block the image itself (the only thing that they are actually supposed to do).
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
quote"Because the image really is on very shaky grounds under UK law"

Complete tosh the image concerned has been about for several years
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
Carpet - Yes, and it's had issues several times. Now the page is unblocked, go read it.

brett7 - Again, you're completly misunderstanding how the IFW works and what it is. They didn't "target", they took action on a report made to them. ISP's blocked the page, not the IWF, and the method of blocking is as the ISP's requested. The IWF is an ISP-funded SELF-REGULATORY body.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
quote"Carpet - Yes, and it's had issues several times. Now the page is unblocked, go read it."

A bunch of whiners with delicate feelings are hardly "issues" Oh and again in no way is the image on shaky legal ground.
Posted by Silvereyes over 5 years ago
comnet - "Time was..."

And what about informing the appropriate authorities or don't they do that where you come from?

comnut - "But their actions are..."

Isn't that the point I was trying to make? :)

Dawn_Falcon - "And what might happen?"

Are you saying proper assessment by a competent officer is a BAD thing?

Dawn_Falcon - "Because the image really is on very shaky grounds under UK law"

And your evidence for this is?
Posted by ccsnet over 5 years ago
Personally I'd rather they blocked bad content and make it clear why the person cant access it. I think IWF does an important and unfortantly nessacery job and they are much under used. If more people where aware of them and how to report bad content then the internet may be a better place. Dont get me wrong this power would need watching so abuse does not happern but in a world where the Internet is in fact the wild west in terms of policing then I can only see such groups growing. Look at Tom Clanceys film 'Net Force'.... I do think some thing simular will happern in the near future. Terran
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
ccsnet - What happens with a blocked image is entirely down to the ISP. Some use 404, some use a specific error page. And again, remember that it's an ISP funded self-regulatory body.

Silvereyes - Officer? Think China-style firewall if the Government gets involved. It certainly won't have a human in the loop...

And the basis? Out-law.com's article.
Posted by comnut over 5 years ago
"And what about informing the appropriate authorities or don't they do that where you come from?"
I can see you are one of those council workers so busy doing the paperwork, that children DIED... :(
Posted by comnut over 5 years ago
Posters PLEASE note: just because the comment is just after yours, it DOES NOT mean it is just you that is being talked about!!!
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
Posters please note that when someone is known to work in a specific industry, and a death threat is made as a reply to that person and against a specific industry in this full knowledge, this is called a "personal threat".
Posted by comnut over 5 years ago
I'm on my way.....
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
quote"Posters please note that when someone is known to work in a specific industry"
Which someone and which specific industry are you refering to?
quote"and a death threat is made as a reply to that person and against a specific industry in this full knowledge, this is called a "personal threat"."
Id call it more feeling towards an "industry". Unless of course the person concerned said 'i want to kill xxx person'
Mind you some of the violent material some industries decide to wave under peoples noses could be argued they encourage death and violence anyway. Glass houses, Stones and all that.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
Don't play even dummer than you are.

And read Grand Theft Childhood, a comprehensive style which debunks the myths surrounding computer games and violent behavior.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
style? study
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
LMAO the next thing you will be telling us is a child has never tried to emulate what they see on a TV screen.

Oh and please no more "dummer" remarks (whatever that means) You wouldnt want to break your own life philosophy and commit defamtion upon ones character.
Posted by comnut over 5 years ago
yep Dawn_Falcon needs to get a clue, like these more informed people here..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/10/iwf_reverses_wikiban/comments/

Oh sorry, most of his brain cells have died, and the rest are kept dozy by the drugs the nurses give him, so they can keep him under control at the old folks home...
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
I'm saying that that Grand Theft Childhood is the definitive study on the so-called link.

Why would I claim a kid never tried to emulate something on TV, that'd be ridiculous and it has nothing to do with anything previously discussed.

Oh right, you're wrong again so you need to defame and bring up innane comments to try and duck it.

You're actively calling for a government run and managed far more comprehensive firewall, which is what will happen if the self-regulatory IWF are replaced.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
previous quote "a comprehensive style which debunks the myths surrounding computer games and violent behavior."

Ah so that explains why games like GTA get an 18 certificate
Posted by paradox1957 over 5 years ago
Censorship is a major issue and it could lead to gradual deterioration of internet content, censored out for political correctness and other hidden agendas of government and corporate run bodies. I agree with Dawn_Falcon that the censorship role is best left out of the hands of our fascist run political bodies who's agendas are not always based on the best interests of the public.
When Bat Man came out on UK TV back in the 1960's, there were a number of incidents involving children jumping out of bedroom windows and breaking limbs! Children copy what they see and hear and so do adults.
Posted by comnut over 5 years ago
you mean like the 'great firewall of china' (subverted by various proxies) and the sort of thing that is happening in OZ? Any Aussies that know, please clarify.. :)

You just need to look to Europe for an example... no real censorship there, it is one of the biggest areas for adult films outside the USA.. From Portugal all the way across to Russia, they have good family values, and are basically bored by all that stuff, its just for the tourists and teenagers... and they have the ability to think for themselves, not having been 'nannied' by the state!
Posted by comnut over 5 years ago
There is a yearly adult Expo in Brussels..

NSFW, but not censored by youtube...
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hh0bMkfjAIQ
Posted by Mr_Fluffy over 5 years ago
The IWF and the way ISPs respond to its lists of alleged inappropriate URLs leaves a lot to be desired. The El Reg article http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/09/iwf/ on the recent issue puts things in succinct context I reckon
Posted by shaunhw over 5 years ago
"The IWF is an ISP-funded SELF-REGULATORY body"

And not a charity. In any sense of the word. It acts for the benefit of ISPs and the government. Why does a government supported CENSOR get charitable status ?
Posted by Mr_Fluffy over 5 years ago
Yes, I'd like to know how they obtained charity status if they're being funded by ISPs and the like
Posted by Mr_Fluffy over 5 years ago
I detest child porn and the unwilling exploitation of people of any age, although I'm not averse to well portrayed erotica and porn outside those constraints.
The problem is how to police the one and permit the other - certainly the IWF is completely inept and heavy handed and should hardly be given the time of day
Posted by Mr_Fluffy over 5 years ago
At the other end of the scale there have grown up totally unwarranted constraints on people's freedom to record the activities of their own children with the banning of photographing and videoing of things like nativity plays and sports competitions.
When he was still at school my son used to compete regularly at Judo but nowadays the BJA makes parents jump through hoops to be able to record the events. What sort of perv gets off on youngsters fighting in judo kit?
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
shaunhw - Under UK law.

Mt Fluffy - Again, the alternative is the government take control of the filtering. And as you yourself note, the government is heavy handed.
Posted by shaunhw over 5 years ago
Dawn_Falcon: What law ?

Child abuse removal is one thing. However that is NOT all the IWF are doing. Regardless of whether you agree with what they do, or not, they are NOT a charity. Not in any sense of the word. They exist to serve the censorship purposes of the government and to keep the government off the backs of the ISP.

At least if the government filtered, they would be accountable to the electorate. The IWF seem accountable to NO ONE which is one reason why they are not a charity.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
shaunhw - UK charity law. They allow a wide range of bodies. It dosn't use the common definition of the word charity.

The IWF are accountable to the ISP's who use them (which isn't all, some use webminder or other services)

Putting blocking in the hands of the government would lead to massive blocking and sure, "accountable" in the sense that in a few decades they might loosen a few restrictions...
Posted by shaunhw over 5 years ago
Well, I read all the details on the Charities Commission web site, and to me at least the IWF still doesn;t fit the bill. Charities serve the public, not ISPs or any other "vested" interest.

Any censorship body MUST be accountable to those who are being censored. Otherwise we don't have democracy and freedom.

You know at least in Islamic Saudi Arabia they tell THEIR citizens they ARE being censored, and they have a link where they can appeal. How unlike Stasi Britain 2007
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
quote"Well, I read all the details on the Charities Commission web site, and to me at least the IWF still doesn;t fit the bill. Charities serve the public, not ISPs or any other "vested" interest."

LOL maybe the IWF idiots could block a real charitys web site or the likes of the RSPCC website as im sure thats had images of children (beaten black and blue etc) which are disturbing to some people at some point. I think its safe to say a single word sums them up... MUPPETS!
Posted by Mr_Fluffy over 5 years ago
@Dawn_Falcon - Actually I did not say that the government was heavy handed. Rather I said "the IWF is completely inept and heavy handed and should hardly be given the time of day"
The whole issue needs properly discussing and, if needs be, an answerable government established enforcement agency set up if that is what comes out of proper debate. It is definitely not a job for a self appointed quango of charity status
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
Mr Fluffy - If the IWF's role is "discussed", then you can expect the government to take it away from them. This has only been narrowly averted at several times in the past.

The IWF *is* accountable to the ISP's, if it's put into the hands of unelected civil servents, not to mention their political masters who have agendas which often involve widespread blocking, we could expect more than the few thousand URL's the IWF blocks to be censored.

Far more.

Carpetburn - So take it up with the Charities Commission. And yes, we know you want government censorship...
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
quote"And yes, we know you want government censorship... "

LOL techincally that already exists with the likes of government funding the BBFC as well as many other so called regulatory bodies, cant be bothered to go look it up but i imagine the IWF have in the past had a share of government coffers also.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
So the BBFC operate an internet firewall? Oh wait, they don't.

The IWF are not government-controlled. A government controlled, far more comprehensive firewall is what the IWF hold off. It's not ideal, but it's far better than the alternative.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
quote"So the BBFC operate an internet irewall? Oh wait, they don't."
No they are worse, they take content down from choice websites but not others (an example is album cover art, they go after a singular website but forget people will still get the artwork with just a google images search)The BBFC bozos also go crying to ISPs and again have been known to falsely accuse people of downloading material they never even looked at let alone downloaded. If the BBFC and IWFs jobs were put in government hands i agree it would be bad, would it be worse though?
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
YES!

You'd be putting direct control into the hands of politicians. Politicians champion *issues*. Many of those issues are censorous in nature...
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
I dont see what difference it would make, the IWF censored and stop viewing of plenty of legal material (not just this image) The government would do just the same thing, only difference is more people would know where to aim their anger due to stupiity.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
Blocking legal material? prove it. Second case which I've heard of, ever.

The government would block catagories of material, and be rules by the same sort of kneejerk reactions we see in laws, but worse (since it'd not take legislation to add to the list).

And they'd insist it doing it ways other than the IWF's too...more than a few thousand pages at any time...
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
quote"Blocking legal material? prove it. Second case which I've heard of, ever."

The very fact the image is NOT illegal means it must be what in your mind then???

quote"The government would block catagories of material, and be rules by the same sort of kneejerk reactions we see in laws, but worse (since it'd not take legislation to add to the list)"
The IWF already do this, blocking whole domain ranges just because 1 ip in that range MAY and only MAY have illegal material
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
No, the IWF don't block "domain ranges".

It's increasingly apparent you're incapeable of doing the most basic research, or understanding the results of it when presented with the results of such.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
quote"No, the IWF don't block "domain ranges"."

Er yes they do, imageshack, rapidshare, and even the domain range John Lewis use have ALL at some point been TOTALLY blocked by the IWF. Oh and i do not need to research that, they blatantly admitted the ranges which were being blocked on their website when John Lewis got blocked.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
...

The IWF don't block any domains. ISP's block domains. Take it up witht the ISP's. Next you'll be crying about the SBL, ffs.

Basic. Research.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
quote"The IWF don't block any domains. ISP's block domains. "

Oh dear, the IWF deem what should be blocked, get rid of those idiots and the problems are solved...... Blame the root cause rather than those that bow to them.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
No Carpet, it's them or the Government. See: The Australian government intending to block bittorrent on a national level.

And also, you're supporting spammers, right. (The SBL and IWF rationale, ISP blocking, is identical)
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
quote"No Carpet, it's them or the Government."

Again rubbish being part of the IWF and their silly filtering is optional for ISPs, its one of the very few things id say is bad about my current provider. They should ditch the IWF clueless donkeys that couldnt block a SINGLE URL if their lifes depended on it ASAP
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
ISP's don't have to use Cleanfeed, but if they don't use some form of blocking, the Government have indicated they WILL legislate.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
quote"ISP's don't have to use Cleanfeed, but if they don't use some form of blocking, the Government have indicated they WILL legislate."

That again i think you will find is wrong and their are ISPs out there which dont use cleanfeed and other similar nonsense.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
Name em!
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
quote"Name em!"

Just for starters without even looking around this small company vfast.co.uk which will apparantely next year support the area my sister lives and bring 10Mb down and 10Mb up (yes that speed both ways), they aint members of cleanfeed. Her current local provider www.sota.co.uk again are not either. Though at the time of writing to be fair that may change as there are rumours new management will be sniffing around soon.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
Hmm just looked at sotas main page which has changed significantly in the last month so maybe new management have take over i now see they have ISPA and other links now... A pity still if you dont count vfast as an example ill be happy to look round and find more for you, why i bother though when you dont listen is another story.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
"without even looking around this small company vfast"

-1, incorrect
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
Where does it say Vfast are part of the IWF, link please..
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
I'm not your linkbot.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
quote"I'm not your linkbot."

LOL maybe thats because ive shown you are wrong again and not every ISP is linked to the IWF. Goodd try though, anything else i can make you look stupid on while we are here?
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
Or maybe you're manufacturing data because you're wrong, and cannot admit it under any circumstances? Oh right, that's it.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
Show im wrong then, and anyone else reading can check if they wish. The ISP i mentioned (VFAST) are not in anyway part of the IWF and their filtering.

Come to think of it im pretty certain there is the odd smaller lesser heard entanet based provider thats not part of the IWF either. Of course as usual though ive presented answers to your question, where as you just continue to shout someone is wrong with no proof.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
Once more, I'm not your linkbot. And I'd remind you once more than cleanfeed is not the only child pornography blocker used in the UK, or even the only one in the UK which the IWF are involved with. Different ISP's use different systems.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
quote"Once more, I'm not your linkbot. And I'd remind you once more than cleanfeed is not the only child pornography blocker used in the UK, or even the only one in the UK which the IWF are involved with. Different ISP's use different systems."

Come on then which system do Vfast use then??.... You cant answer cos you dont know or comprehend they are not part of any. The IWF and all the nanny filter systems are OPTIONAL isps do not have to be members of them and many isps are not.
CLEANFEED is nothing more than a silly BT project... http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.archive-2004.39.htm
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
VFAST are a wireless provider and have nothing to do with cleanfeed, BT or the IWF.... Please try to keep up.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
There is absolutely nothing unique or magical about them being a wireless provider. And, again, I refuse to be your linkbot for something you can discover in fifteen seconds.

While the child pornograph filters you bitterly oppose are technically optional, no ISP in the UK operates without them.

Cleanfeed is a project designed to help web users avoid inadvertent, illegal (remember: motivation is irrelevant under UK child porn law) exposure to child pornography, run by BT and the IWF. It's not "silly", it has a very serious purpose.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
Prove to everyone reading your claim that ALL ISPs are part of cleanfeed, the IWF or similar organisations, you cant because they aint. Ive already demonsrated this, you just continually saying im wrong with no back up to your remarks just makes you sound like a patient that needs their Meds doubled.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
The ISP i mentioned is not a part of the IWF and their retarded filtering techniques...

Prove im wrong, otherwise accept im right and STFU
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
I never said all ISP's were part of cleanfeed. Cleanfeed is one of a number of different, although technically similar, systems.

I refuse to be your linkbot, yes. You refuse even to use a search engine for a minute or two, and this speaks very to your personality.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
Lalala Vfast isnt cleenfeed lalala vfast isnt IWf lalala Vfast isnt part of any government linked filter VOLUNTARY scheme ergo you FAIL!
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
I never said it used Cleanfeed. Oh wait, that involves reading my posts rather than madlibbing.

And while technically voluntary, if any ISP refused to use a filter the government would regulate.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
quote"I never said it used Cleanfeed. Oh wait, that involves reading my posts rather than madlibbing.
And while technically voluntary, if any ISP refused to use a filter the government would regulate."

I QUOTE WHAT YOU PREVIOUSLY STATED....."ISP's don't have to use Cleanfeed, but if they don't use some form of blocking, the Government have indicated they WILL legislate."

I pointed to a ISP that are not part of cleenfeed or the IWF, and you still are ranting without proving they do filter, WHICH THEY DONT. Either prove the filter system they are part of or hush!
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
I never said they used Cleanfeed. And you don't need to be an IWF member to use any of the filtering systems on offer, at least one of which is not related to the IWF (and is considerably more restrictive).

And your inability to do 15 seconds research is amusing.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
Its simple...

I say Vfast are not part of any filtering system

You refuse to prove otherwise to everyone reading cos you CANT

End of discussion you lose
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
All UK ISP's filter for CP. Deal with it.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
What does CP stand for?
What filtering organisation do vfast have links with?
Point to any evidence that clearly shows they are part of a filtering organisation and id gladly admit you are right.

As it is you still havent proven to anyone they filter anything. If you think that means ive lost the arguement i can only say you have lost common sense.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 5 years ago
https://publicaffairs.linx.net/news/?cat=10

100% of ISP's filter. Or else. Get over it.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 5 years ago
^^^ And where does any of that page show it has been made compulsory? Infact to quote it states "...They also suggest..." SUGGEST, i assume unlike "backed" you comprehend that word?

AS far as i can see its just discussions which have occured no ACTUAl law made or forced guidelines put in place.

Anyway back to Vfast.... Want to provide the link that shows what filtering organisation they are part off? I still state they are not members of cleanfeed do not filter using the IWFs suggestions... So im curious who they use, not that you can tell me.
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.