While not agreeing with the filters, it seems that there's a large and vocal contingent who are being hysterical and getting the facts wrong. They are not helping.
Any mobile phone bought on O2 for instance in the last 10 or so years, had filtering enabled by default.
You just call them up and ask them to disable it. It's not a big deal.
I don't buy the ridiculous notion that the only means a child has to report child abuse is via the internet...
The next few generations are going to grow up with the idea that nanny filters and censorship is fine, or that porn is something shameful that you have to ask permission from a CSR to see. Then there's the sophisticated central apparatus in place for the government to trivially block any sites that they deem unsuitable, content they might deem exempt from their opt-out procedures.
Just because O2 and other UK mobile operators have been censoring for a while doesn't make it okay. Now you're arguing that censorship-by-default is fine because it's been going on in some capacity for a while already! See how this works?
Source: I know a few adults who have been abused in the past. Anecdotal.
I do wonder why anyone would want to make it more difficult to report child abuse, though.
Second, and this is important, the filters aren't controlled at the level of an individual user, but at the level of a subscriber. So as the article says, an abusive partner/parent can prevent their spouse or children from accessing resources that could help them - that's why there is outrage about blocking Childline - a site where you can report child abuse.
Combine on-by-default with "blocking resources for abused minors," and you have what people are complaining about, here.