Via andrewducker:

Check the site here, which points out that all requests to Wikipedia from certain UK ISPs (like Virgin and Be) are being filtered through proxy servers - so that they can selectively filter it.

For instance, the link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer doesn't work (fake 404), but http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer does...

Now, I don't actually want to look at the album cover for that particular Scorpions album - not just because the Scorpions are RUBBISH, but because the album cover is... distasteful, to say the least. But I'd quite like to know about the controversy surrounding it, and the fact that the link to the Wikipedia page just comes up as a blank page for me is very annoying indeed. If it said "BLOCKED FOR POSSIBLE CHILD PORN" that would tell me why.

Censoring is one thing, and I can see an argument for censoring images like that one, even though I don't think an image that the model (who is now an adult - older than me by a long way), is happy with and which has the genitalia obscured is ZOMG CHILD PORN. But even so, censoring and trying to hide it, and pretend that you're not? That's a whole 'nother bag of worms, people. Every time I get a blank page now, I'm going to wonder... Is that REALLY a dodgy load, or is it Virgin censoring me? (and the irony of my ISP's name is by no means lost on me)

I also want to know who the Internet Watch Foundation are. Who appoints them? Are they accountable in any way? Who decides whether or not they have exceeded their remit in barring access to something for the whole damn country? Their remit is to block "potentially" illegal content. Not DEFINITELY illegal, but POTENTIALLY. Given our lovely new laws about BDSM, that covers a whole huge fucking swathe of stuff.

Is everyone else cool with this; is it just me? Or is this really as worrying as I think it is? ETA: apparently not just me.