Outrageous Homophobia by O2

[Anonymous]

O2's adult content filter is blocking gay advice website "Being Gay is OK" ( http://www.bgiok.org.uk ) on the basis that it contains inappropriate adult content.
I'm sorry, but I completely fail to see how a website that helps gay teens and gives them advice and support can be viewed as "inappropriate" content.

If you were a teen struggling to cope with your sexuality, how do you think it would make you feel if your phone company was telling you that getting advice about your sexuality was "wrong"?
So O2, is being gay wrong? If not, then why have you blocked this site?

[Anonymous]

I thought any demarcation on sexual orientation was illegal. Therefore o2 should be prosecuted.

[Anonymous]

Get real.
It's obvious that the adult content filter, which will be automated, has probably blocked the website due to the number of sexual references made - despite the fact that the website is innocent.
o2 being homophobic is one of the funniest things I've heard all day.

[Anonymous]

If you look across the internet, there's lots of comments about the content filters appearing to be prejudiced against the LGBT community. Take Queer Youth ( http://www.queeryouth.org.uk ) as another example of a blocked LGBT website which has no nudity.
Plenty of 'straight' websites contain sexual references (e.g. http://www.seventeen.com/health/sex/ http://www.teenforumz.com/ http://www.fhm.com http://www.nuts.co.uk ) but O2 doesn't find it necessary to block them, even though, for example, the Nuts website is full of topless photos of models (again, O2 doesn't think that this is 'over 18' content)
Sorry, but to me it seems that O2 find it OK to have sex advice for the straight community, but not the gay community.

[adamtemp64]

It is not o2 that set which sites this from the o2 blog

Q: Why should O2 dictate which websites customers can use on their phones?
A: A: We don’t. It’s not O2 that decides which websites are classified as 18 rated. All the main UK mobile operators have agreed to a Code of Practice to protect children in this area. Out of this code, the Independent Mobile Classification Body (IMCB) was appointed to develop and maintain a classification framework which allows content providers to determines whether content should be rated as 18+. All the UK mobile operators also use and adhere to this framework to ensure a consistent approach in the UK to internet content filters. For more on the IMCB see www.imcb.org.uk

[Anonymous]

It is not o2 that set which sites this from the o2 blog

Q: Why should O2 dictate which websites customers can use on their phones?
A: A: We don’t. It’s not O2 that decides which websites are classified as 18 rated. All the main UK mobile operators have agreed to a Code of Practice to protect children in this area. Out of this code, the Independent Mobile Classification Body (IMCB) was appointed to develop and maintain a classification framework which allows content providers to determines whether content should be rated as 18+. All the UK mobile operators also use and adhere to this framework to ensure a consistent approach in the UK to internet content filters. For more on the IMCB see http://www.imcb.org.uk

Doesn't matter. O2 chose to use IMCB. They were not obliged to use them, and to try and wash their hands of this issue by blaming someone else is pretty low.
Not to mention, if you look on the IMCB website, it actually says that if you object to the classification of a site, you should contact your network operator.

[adamtemp64]

I would suggest you raise a complaint to o2 rather than venting in this customer forum use the complaint review service
Bango implement it on o2 behalf not imcb bango use imcb database so imcb are at fault and the content provider needs to complain to imcb to get there sites of the age verified list.
I was affected not being able to use the racing post app and called customer services (business 8002) and had the age verification done over the phone no credit card required all sorted .
I can understand the frustration at the implementation but feel the complaints on here are only reaching us the customers as we know the little involvement from o2, complain on the blog / twitter or in the thread Chris@o2 has commented in may get a response.
Just my take on the issue

[Anonymous]

I think this is one of the most pathetic and overreactive responses to this issue I have seen. Grow up.
O2 themselves say that nothing is perfect and if a site is blocked that neednt be call them and they will get it unblocked. Why the melodrama?
Why cant people simply ask a question nowadays? its all apalling this and disgusting that or outrageous the other.
Is rational thought a thing of the past?

[Anonymous]

I think this is one of the most pathetic and overreactive responses to this issue I have seen. Grow up.
O2 themselves say that nothing is perfect and if a site is blocked that neednt be call them and they will get it unblocked. Why the melodrama?
Why cant people simply ask a question nowadays? its all apalling this and disgusting that or outrageous the other.
Is rational thought a thing of the past?

Sorry, but if the system "isn't perfect" then why bother implementing it? There's no value in a porn filter if it still lets porn through and blocks useful resources.
I have spoken to O2 CS and they will address the issue for these two websites - but is it my responsibility to go and check every other LGBT advice website out there to see if O2 have blocked it or not? If you are a kid who is getting bullied at school and struggling to understand your own sexuality, and how to come out to your friends and family, are you really going to have the courage to phone up O2 and ask them to unblock a gay advice site for you?
For cyring out loud, it's 2011, not 1850 - as a point of principle this stuff shouldn't be blocked in the first place. Can you not perhaps understand how somebody might be concerned and upset when it appears that O2/IMCB seem to be blocking LGBT websites simply *because* they are LGBT websites?
This whole implementation is a waste of everybody's time, and generated by some mawkish "think of the children" attitude. Any child who wants to download porn on their phone still can, be it via a proxy or an app like Opera Mini - or by using their phone's browser via their home wifi connection.
If a parent doesn't want their child to be able to download porn on their phone, then they shouldn't get them a smartphone. End of. Parents need to take responsibility for parenting, not phone companies.

[Anonymous]

If you look across the internet, there's lots of comments about the content filters appearing to be prejudiced against the LGBT community. Take Queer Youth ( http://www.queeryouth.org.uk ) as another example of a blocked LGBT website which has no nudity.
Plenty of 'straight' websites contain sexual references (e.g. http://www.seventeen.com/health/sex/ http://www.teenforumz.com/ http://www.fhm.com http://www.nuts.co.uk ) but O2 doesn't find it necessary to block them, even though, for example, the Nuts website is full of topless photos of models (again, O2 doesn't think that this is 'over 18' content)
Sorry, but to me it seems that O2 find it OK to have sex advice for the straight community, but not the gay community.

Personally, the queer youth site should be blocked, simply on the grounds of its title. I object to the gay community assuming they have the right to call themselves "queer" when the rest of the world would find themselves on the wrong side of the law if found to be using those terms of reference.
This is no different to African or Afro-Caribbean's using a very offensive word to describe themselves, a word, rightly so, totally unacceptable to society.
The blocking of certain websites is far from homophobia, it is simply a judgement call that you don't happen to agree with. You have no evidence that any blocked content was the result of homophobia and therefore have no grounds for complaint.
As Beaufighter suggests, take a reality check, make your suggestions to O2, avoid making unsubstantiated allegations and have a good day!!