Comments on: Hungry Beast finds 80% favour internet filter

By: jb

jb — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 05:24:13 +0000

Liars or cheats, definetly not the truth. Shame, shame, shame; Unaustralian halfwits.

By: Warwick Madden

Warwick Madden — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:36:06 +0000

Will it end up like the recent case in Canada where the newspaper ‘The Beaver’ a mainstream regional publication named after the Canadian animal had to change its name?
This suggests that a whole lot more ‘new’ names could be introduced by porn sites to get around the filter.
Theoretically every word in the dctionary could be banned.

By: Dan Ilic

Dan Ilic — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:38:55 +0000

It’s amazing isn’t it… We couldn’t believe the results… we swore it would be the opposite. Certainly in my household.

The survey also found however that 90% of tissue manufacturers were against the filter.

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:16:20 +0000

Hungry beast how could you! This seems very suspicious and rigged and hope this is is some sort of sick joke!

By: John

John — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:42:19 +0000

I can’t tell whether this is legitimate or a hoax like the gullibility poll they did last year.

By: thebadwife

thebadwife — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:18:30 +0000

Hungry Beast just go away. No one watches you and it appears that you a nothing but a mouth piece for a leftist labour government.

Please just go away you boring gits.

By: FJ

FJ — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:37:21 +0000

The ABC has been and always will be a Labor propaganda machine.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:17:03 +0000

I hope someone explains to Conroy in the interview that the proposed filter is fundamentally flawed and counter productive.

By: Reubot

Reubot — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:03:25 +0000

I am sure there is a twist, and they are going to say this is probably how the government is getting their polling results in favour of it.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:44:33 +0000

To me, their credibility just went down the plughole.

By: Mark G

Mark G — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:02:34 +0000

This is totally at odds with every other poll that has ever been conducted on this. How did they word the question to get this result?

By: John

John — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:21:28 +0000

Ha! Really? That sounds very suspicious to me.

By: Benno

Benno — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:26:23 +0000

At the moment, we have no idea what the question asked was, so no meaningful analysis can be conducted.

Was the question whether they wanted children looking at porn, or whether they want a government mandated Internet censorship system?

Two different questions which will yield polarising results.

By: gasbo

gasbo — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:08:29 +0000

Yes I got the PR from ABC about this one and immediately wrote to Stephen Conroy disputing the polling figures, it is ludicrous that they poll 1000 people supposedly across the age demographic and the call the results for 15,000,00+/- voting age people, it’s a silly as the TV ratings system

By: Blackadder

Blackadder — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:04:33 +0000

“I bet the people surveyed don’t even know what is in the proposed filter …
” (daqua_99)

I’d take it another step and say 99% of people surveyed would absolutely no clue as to the huge impact to their internet speeds of implementing such a feature. I would guarantee that Hungry Beast did not mention this, nor would the ABC. Any survey can conjure the desired results by asking the right question in the right manner.

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:02:16 +0000

All it proves is around 80% of the people they surveyed either don’t understand the ramifications or are in the hysterical “Won’t somebody think of the children !!!!!” brigade who don’t care about the ramifications.

I’m surprised this issue wasn’t raised during Q&A with the PM.