Outrageous Homophobia by O2 - Page 2

Anonymous · ‎05-03-2011

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 · ‎05-03-2011

Well as there is not a clapping smiley on here! Thumbs up Beau, and AF!

Anonymous · ‎05-03-2011

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.

Or, in a nutshell, sod everyone else in he world, don't inconvenience ME, even accidentally.
:womanindifferent:

Anonymous · ‎05-03-2011

Sorry, but if the system "isn't perfect" then why bother implementing it?

This is one of the only statements that I do agree with.
Several times I have asked O2 to confirm if they have quality accreditation that covers the supply systems of their products and I have never received an answer.
If they had quality procedures which are formally accredited then this type of fiasco would not happen. The new process would be tested, approved and proceduralised then implemented. There would then be no web sites "accidentally" included.
What O2 are expecting, is for users to identify the errors and notify them and that should be unacceptable to the vast majority of O2 customers and to an international communications company such as Telefonica.
Thankfully I do not use the O2 mobile network.

sheepdog · ‎05-03-2011

Sorry, but if the system "isn't perfect" then why bother implementing it?

This is one of the only statements that I do agree with.
Several times I have asked O2 to confirm if they have quality accreditation that covers the supply systems of their products and I have never received an answer.
If they had quality procedures which are formally accredited then this type of fiasco would not happen. The new process would be tested, approved and proceduralised then implemented. There would then be no web sites "accidentally" included.
What O2 are expecting, is for users to identify the errors and notify them and that should be unacceptable to the vast majority of O2 customers and to an international communications company such as Telefonica.
Thankfully I do not use the O2 mobile network.

Quality and accreditation isn't applicable in the definition of what website is approved or not. All quality/accreditation is in effect is the ability to define and document procedures in conjunction by following said processes. After all, bad quality is indeed quality but has a baseline reference defined by documentation and the ability to follow it.
The output quality of a finished product is a different matter entirely and is more defined in culture and attitude. Believe me, I've done enough ISO audits in manufacturing to know that and its the same in the IT industry. You can basically get away with things providing its defined in the documentation.

Anonymous · ‎05-03-2011

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!!

When you're implementing such controls, there should be no "judgement calls". Indeed, if you flick over to IMCB's website, they publish clear guidance on the criteria that would lead to a site being blocked ( http://www.imcb.org.uk/classificationframe/section2.asp ). These sites don't meet any of the criteria sitpulated, so to me it's a complete mystery as to why the sites are blocked - and yes, this does lead me to think that it is because LGBT sites are deemed to also be 'inappropriate' content.
Being gay is legal in this country, and gay people share the same rights and privileges as straight people. Therefore the societal "norm" is that being gay is acceptable, and as such there should be no room for a judgement call that leads to gay content being blocked when similar straight content isn't.

Anonymous · ‎05-03-2011

Or, in a nutshell, sod everyone else in he world, don't inconvenience ME, even accidentally.
:womanindifferent:

Well - O2 have implemented a system that inconveniences and aggravates customers, and the system doesn't even manage to achieve its stated goal, which is to stop kids accessing porn from their phone.
It's not a case of "sod everyone else," because nobody's actually benefiting from this implementation.

Anonymous · ‎05-03-2011

In your opinion. It is in error with only a tiny fraction of sites, but one happens to be one you have an interest in. Other people have contacted o2 when there has been an error and its been sorted, but not you. You are outraged.
You are being rather too precious about this IMO
You strike me as someone who is determined to be offended, regardless what the explanation may be.

Anonymous · ‎05-03-2011

All quality/accreditation is in effect is the ability to define and document procedures in conjunction by following said processes. After all, bad quality is indeed quality but has a baseline reference defined by documentation and the ability to follow it.
Believe me, I've done enough ISO audits in manufacturing

Totally agree with that and I too have been involved in not only writing procedural documents but also audits for the pharmaceutical/chemical industry.
When a new system/process is devised then one of the primary requirements of most companies is to get it right first time and not have your customers logging complaints because you've got it wrong.
It's not very good for business if a chemical company doesn't get it right first time

But of course, you're not likely to kill anybody or suffer an HSE investigation if you accidentally include a web site on a banned list are you ?

Anonymous · ‎05-03-2011

In your opinion.

So out of interest, are you saying that the porn filter does stop kids accessing porn from their phones? Because Opera Mini / Home WiFi is only a click away...

Anonymous · ‎05-03-2011

It stops them accessing it on o2, which is where o2's responsibility lies. Are you saying that nobody should do anything? We all know that lots of parents are completely irresponsible, so do we throw their kids to the dogs, or do we try t have safeguards in place?