Party in a pickle over porn. What were the Federal Conference Committee thinking? #talknottech #ldconf

I was pleased that the party was going to be discussing online pornography, its effect on children and what to do about it at its conference. Here was the chance to get some sensible, evidence based policy made on a subject that the Daily Mail could write rubbish about forever.

The motion, however, didn't fill me with joy. It recognises that there is an issue with easy access to online pornography, but the approach it takes is a technological one. No doubt it'll be presented as radical because it's not going to force filters on everybody, as David Cameron wants, but wants an opt-in system instead. Wow!

And the bit that's really important is tacked on at the end, almost as if it's an afterthought. We need decent education, as Nick Clegg said himself last week, in every single school, that tackles these issues and helps children and young people build resilience against the hyper-sexualised environment in which they are growing up. That should be the centrepiece of what we're doing. Filters are not going to help. I've written before about why I wouldn't have them in this house. I simply will not trust any software or ISP to determine what I can or can't watch. Especially when they block out that den of iniquity that is Mark Pack's blog. And even if one house has filters, can you guarantee that your child won't be viewing porn from someone else's smartphone or home internet? Also, I want anyone in my house to be able to access websites on sexual health, or LGBT support which are often blocked by filters.

The most horrendous bit of the motion was the bit that required verifiable proof of age to visit a pornographic website. The thing is, a remote bit of software can analyse and verify information sent to it. What it can't do is see who is inputting that information. So your 11 year old son could nick your passport and pass all your most personal information onto some dodgy pornster.

So I was almost pleased when James Shaddock and Alisdair McGregor put in what I thought was a very sensible amendment exploring this further. I felt it didn't properly recognise how much damage exposure to porn could do, but it was much better than the motion. Crucially, it also had the backing of LGBT+ Lib Dems and Liberal Youth. It said:

ii) Human sexuality is a normal and healthy part of life and growing up which young people need
to be supported through, not simply protected from.

iii) Explicit material can be a vital part of self-exploration and help for young people on topics,
including sexuality, gender identity, abuse, eating disorders and suicide.

iv) Government proposals on internet traffic restrictions must be technologically feasible, reasonable
in extent, not unduly burdensome to internet service providers, and must respect civil liberties,
privacy and freedom of expression.

Delete lines 19-24 and replace with:

a) The connection between sexualisation of young people and access to pornography is a complex
one without clear correlation or causation. Issues and actions often attributed to the Internet have root causes in offline behaviour, with very little academic basis to support otherwise.

b) relying on ISP level technological filters to prevent young people accessing inappropriate material
will not be effective if an adult in the same household chooses to deactivate the filter

c) Automated filters are proven to be imperfect and are known to regularly categorise many legitimate websites providing advice for young people as inappropriate

Delete lines 26-27 and replace with:

1. Work with internet and mobile service providers to better promote their existing filtering methods while ensuring safeguards against misuse of access to information in line with our previous commitments.

Delete lines 28-31 and renumber clause 4 (lines 32-33) as clause 2 accordingly.

Delete lines 34-35 and replace with:

3. Ensure that teaching about the dangers of the internet and the different views of sex provided by a wide range of pornography and human experience form part of sex education teaching.

At the end, add:
4. Support moves by the adult entertainment industry that allow for more positive portrayals of various consensual sexual fantasies and acts.

I don't know for sure what caused the Federal Conference Committee to reject this amendment. My educated guess would be that the thought of what the Daily Mail would have to say, or scream, about it scared them. We have never been scared of the Fail before, and if we're going to start changing our behaviour now, when we're actually in a position to do something, we are letting a whole generation of kids down. It does sound a bit like State Funded Porn,which is a horrible thought,  but I actually think that it would have been working with the industry in the same way that Jo Swinson and Lynne Featherstone have worked with magazines on airbrushing, to try to cut down on the misogyny.

Well, anyway, we could have had  separate vote on that bit and got rid of it. If we'd wanted.

The truly bizarre thing is that the amendment that was selected is, incredibly, even worse than the main motion. It imposes a bulky bureaucracy that will have very little effect and, does not prioritise education. Why are we thinking that we can just leave it to machines and technology to sort out our warped and unhealthy attitude to sex?

I really don't see why FCC couldn't have picked both amendments so that we could have had a rounded debate. Why did they not give Conference a proper choice?

As it stands, neither motion nor amendment is, in my opinion, anywhere close to where we need to be. If Shaddock/McGregor amendment is not restored on appeal, I will be putting my efforts behind referring the matter back to Federal Policy Committee to come up with something practically and technologically literate with education and dealing with our sexualised culture at its core. If that fails, then I will be voting against both amendment and motion.Yes, it would cause difficulties to have no policy when the Government is going to act on this in the next few months. I would rather have no policy than one that is so terribly wrong-headed.

We need talk not tech to tackle the menacing influences our young people face. If you agree,will you help me spread the word in Glasgow?

For pete's sake, Facebook, find yourself some manners!

I've been finding it a bit weird when I've been trying to find people's email addresses on Facebook over the past few days that they've had a special @facebook.com address.

Turns out that it's happened to all of us without us knowing. In order to direct more traffic to the site and therefore generate more advertising revenue, they've allocated us new emails and displayed them on our timelines. All without so much as a tiny bit of warning.

I'm sorry, Facebook, but that's just bloody rude. If you'd sent me a message asking if I'd mind and explaining  to me the benefits of having email integrated into your Facebook message system, I might have been quite happy to let it happen. I suspect it will have advantages for people.

I have, however punished Facebook for their rudeness by hiding this new address from the world and putting my old one back. If you wanted to do the same, MSNBC have very kindly told us how.

Interested in computer games? Get yourself to Dare Protoplay in Dundee, today or tomorrow

We spent yesterday in Dundee, at the Caird Hall, where, for the third year in a row, Anna was a Junior Judge in the Dare Protoplay competition. This is the culmination of 10 weeks' slog for the 15 competing 5 member teams in Dare to be Digital. This is a competition run by the University of Abertay in Dundee, the hothouse of Scotland's vibrant gaming industry in which these teams are locked up for 10 weeks and mentored by industry experts as they develop a new game.

This game is then judged by the public and by industry experts during the 3 days of Dare Protoplay. You have to have registered to judge in advance, but if you haven't, entry is free and you still get to play all of the games.

Now, I say computer games, but, really, only 4 of the games on offer were for traditional PCs. Last year there was one for the iPad, this year there are 4, there are 4 for the Kinect and 3 for mobile phones. It was one in the latter category, Lucky Ghost, which fascinated Anna. This is one where, if I have understood all the techy stuff correctly, your PC becomes the server and the whole family/student house/party can play along by using their smartphones, iPod Touches or iPads as controllers via wifi. It certainly fascinated Anna, and here's one of Team Yummy Tummy's development videos.



My absolute favourite was a game which I really hope makes it to the market because there is no end to the time I could waste playing it. For the iPad, it's called Tick Tock Toys. The colours and artwork are just gorgeous and it's a clever, compulsive game with clear commercial potential. It's all, basically, about getting a clockwork toy from one end of the room to the other - but, although it looks simple, it isn't. It would suck in people like me, who don't really play many games as well as brighten up the commuting journeys of many. Here's their Facebook page and their most recent video.



The top 3 teams in Dare, announced on Sunday, will compete for BAFTA's one to watch award to be announced in March 2012.

But if you are at a loose end this weekend, and you like a game or two, get yourself to the Caird Hall. It's open until 6 today and the results will be announced late on Sunday afternoon.

One of the issues for me is that there are comparatively so few women in gaming and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of prospect of that changing any time soon - but that's the subject for another post.