Slashdot Mirror
'Porn King' Says Google Should Block Porn Access
mikesd81 writes "The Register has a story saying that one of the world's biggest porn producers wants Google and other search sites to put up barriers between kids and adult entertainment. 'Steven Hirsch, the co-chairman and co-founder of Vivid Entertainment, is to deliver this message on Saturday in New Haven, Connecticut as he addresses an army of Yale University MBA candidates. "Responsible companies in the adult industry such as ours have done a great deal to deter minors from accessing adult material," Hirsch proclaims from inside a Vivid press release. "None of the search engines and portals, but particularly Yahoo and Google, has taken any significant steps in this direction.'"
Steven Hirsch: "Won't somebody please think of my profit margins ... *cough* I mean ... children?!"
My work here is dung.
.XXX domain names would help here. Sure, it won't prevent kids from accessing 100% of adult content, but it would certainly make it easier for sites like Google and applications like Net-Nanny filter the adult sites with that domain. It would also go a long way toward showing that adult site operators can be responsible and are putting forth an honest effort to limit "adult content" to adults only.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Should read:
'Porn King' Says Google Should Block Internet Competition As It Hurts Video Sales
If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
Why not just add a meta tag for porn. Or something more specific like: Adult-Only. That should be easy for Google to detect and flag in its database.
How the heck am I supposed to find stuff?
I sure wish I could call for google to block searches that wind up returning my competitors' sites in the name of the children.
More Twoson than Cupertino
I said nothing of the sort
duh
Google has a SafeSearch option. That's a deterrent to accessing adult content. Granted, it's only default on for images...and there's no restriction I know of to turning it off. But it's certainly something.
Translation: It isn't OUR fault that children can see porn on the Net, it's Google's and Yahoo's, since they don't filter search results for children. (Which is not actually entirely true in either case.)
My blog
...of an idea I once had about putting a tag in images to say that the image contains "Adult Content". The idea being that someone who didn't want to see such content would be able to turn off access. (Especially for kids.) Sold as a method of keeping kids from accidentally accessing such materials (vs. intentionally accessing; an issue which you're unlikely to ever be able to block against) why wouldn't content producers want to integrate the solution?
Of course, this was back when 5 of the top 10 results on nearly any Altavista search were for pornographic content. Google managed to solve this issue by producing a better search engine. It's fairly rare to "accidently" come across a pornographic website these days.
So I'd say Google has already done quite a lot.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I use a search engine to search the internet.
There is pr0n on the internet.
I think it's pretty simple...
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
Google does block results for certain sites unless you turn off SafeSearch.
http://www.google.com/safesearch_help.html
This is merely a PR ploy, which is fine, to deflect some question away from Vivid.
"People are finding the same sort of stuff we're selling but they're getting it for free," Mr. Gates fumed.
Though I do have to say, I sure am glad Google hosts the thumbnails on image searches, especially when a wholly innocent search returns the occasional hardcore goatporn image. "No, I can explain! It was actually a quite humorous and unexpected confluence of search terms!" "Yeah, yeah. Yell it to HR."
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Come on... go to Vivid's homepage, and the first thing you see is a woman's face in the chest of another woman. Yeah you go to Vivid's homepage, what do you expect? But, since the url doesn't actually hint that it's an adult related website, someone could be "inadvertently" exposed to something.
I don't really buy into the whole "xxx" domain thing, because it's just not workable. I don't have a problem with porn on the internet, even, nor with it being searchable in google, yahoo, etc. I understand this guy is doing it to avoid a government mandated solution (which wouldn't work anyways). But seriously.. he could try to be at least a little more believable.
Yeah right. He just wants to block porn password sites because nobody in their right mind will actually pay for porn.
Better do something about Flickr too...it is pretty much the largest source of free pornographic pictures.
The most entertaining way to keep children away from inappropriate content is to quiz them on things only adults would know. Of course, if a kid knows how to google for answers it may not work so well but there must still be some questions most adults know but for which google can't provide a solid answer. Not that I can think of any of those questions. If you can think of any please reply.
The central problem is that adult content providers(which could just be some guy with a big hard drive and the ability to upload to a youtube clone) have an incentive to make it simple to access their content if only for the ad revenues. So maybe the best way to attack this is via the advertising. Don't block the content. Block getting paid for posting the content in a form that's too easy for minors to access.
.XXX domains were shown to actually be less effective against under age porn viewing mostly because it would create a very close grantee that any domain name with a .xxx suffix would be hit thus making even search engines useless. I mean think about it. If you are say... 14, and want to find free porn and type in freeporn.com, NO! freeporn.net, NO! ahhh freeporn.xxx oh yea...
But my college is putting a large effort in its MBA program to push Business Ethics. Yale may be doing the same thing. Even in a "Unethical" indrustry there is a degree of ethics that they follow and support. Either that or because minors won't pay for the stuff so by blocking them they save the trouble having to deal with "Think of the the Children Groups". There is nothing to gain by not blocking minors so why not.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
porn king asking for more censorship? What a clown!
839*929
Did Hirsch just say that the online porn industry is doing more to protect minors from porn than Google or Yahoo?
Isn't that a lot like the Mafia saying they're doing more to protect people from criminals than the police?
And, as absurd as it sounds, are those statements maybe more correct than we'd like?
Trying to make search engine providers responsible for regulating online behavior is Nannyism taken to absurd lengths.
Teach your children to make good choices, turn them loose, and be available to them when they need you.
TLR
A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company
This is just a very obvious illustration of Yandle's theory:
The Baptist and the Bootlegger
This happened before when the CEO of some major airline called for more regulation of the airline industry and, more recently, when big agri business corps talk about 'our dependence on foreign oil'.
Nothing to see here (for economists anyway), move along.
Google's SafeSearch blocks web pages containing explicit sexual content from appearing in search results.
Granted it is not a completely effective deterrent, but the Vivid web site offers little more than an assent click and age verification -- not exactly a strong wall to keep out minors either.
That leads me to believe that Vivid is more interested in squeezing out the little guys (pun unintended) in the business and gaining larger market share through greater obscurity on search engines.
As a teenager, in the days when there was no internet and a computer took up a medium sized building, I found porn. I found it, because I was actively trying to. So were most of my friends.
I cannot think of any way you could have stopped me then, nor any way you could stop a teenager now. Age verification etc is simply a token gesture to shut-up the lunatics on the religious right-wing. It's a worthless annoyance.
Porn isn't a big deal. It's people having sex, it's good thing. I do not want to have to jump through hoops to find it, and I am sick of paying the price for bad parenting. Educate the damn kids and leave the rest of us alone.
Your kids are your problem, not society's.
Responsible companies in the adult industry such as ours have done a great deal to deter minors from accessing adult material,
Of course they have- kids can't legally pay for porn with a credit card (they're minors and thus unable to sign contracts/agreements.)
That and porn sites can either put up a trivial "what is your age?" or require paid "age verification services", which are just a second revenue stream. Both of which help them stave off the conservative legislators.
Please help metamoderate.
if none of the search engines have done anything to "combat" this then how can it be particularly google and yahoo? if all of them have done the same how can any of them done better/worse/more/less than the others?
it seems obvious that his real problem is search engines providing access to free pr0n rather than people paying for his content protecting the kids is a convenient story to use
"Responsible companies in the adult industry such as ours have done a great deal to deter minors from accessing adult material"
Ah, no. I think they have been doing what they can do deter non-paying people from accessing adult material. When a 16-year-old types in a valid credit card number there really isn't anything they sanely can or should be expected to do to prove how old that person actually is. But heay, the fact that minors generally don't have credit cards sure is a handy-dandy public relations score for them.
And oh joy, now the porn industry wants to do as much as they can to make Google suppress all the free competition out there. Thanks but no thanks. Google is merely building a "phone book" of addresses out there and it is not reasonable or possible for them to play policemen judging each site out there if it is "acceptable" or "not acceptable", and it is not reasonable or sane to demand Google play policemen on who is forbidden to look up what phone numbers in the phone book.
Google's already going above and beyond what they need to do in offering their "safesearch" option and (if I'm not mistaken) defaulting it to on. No demand or expectation that safesearch is supposed to be accurate, just a "whatever effort we felt like putting into a maybe useful but not necessarily accurate automated grouping" sort of thing, and an if you don't like the results don't use it sort of thing.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3675.txt
captcha = ethics
Hirsch is the CEO of a mostly offline porn company. Vivids web presence isn't as great as say Girls Gone Wild or even Playboy or Penthouse. Thus he has an economic interest in minimizing competition for porn entertainment dollars by reducing Internet porn availability.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Your kids are your problem, not society's.
Wow! Thank you for playing
But since vivid makes DVDs and is threated by the growth of web sites like the ones he would like google to block, I wouldnt go praising him just yet. This is just an attempt to hold on to another dying business model.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
This makes total sense for people who own obvious domain names. If you don't have the ability to search for porn, you'll have to basically just guess domain names, that's one of the main reasons why obvious domain names go for so much money when up for auction.
The owner of porn.com would suddenly find himself with a lot more hits on his hands, whereas the owners of less obvious domain names would see a marked decrease. Since he's the big guy in the industry, that's exactly what he wants isn't it? Get rid of all the little competitors, reinforce his monopoly?
Pun intended.
"No free peeks" says profit-oriented smut-peddler!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
If you make it mandatory then who is going to enforce it and who is going to decide what is pornographic? It opens the doors for all sorts of government censorship problems that are best avoided.
If it isn't mandatory then porn sites are not going to stop using their com, net, and org sites just because xxx exists. Even if some "responsible" companies would be willing to do so, others will immediately buy up those old names, and reap all the traffic from people who haven't updated their links, or mistype the domain. So you still have the exact same problem that you have now with filtering the porn in the non-xxx sites.
The only people that would benefit from creating a new xxx TLD, would be the registrars, who now get even multiple times for each new domain registered. The same holds for nearly all of the new TLDs with the possible exception of the proposed language-based and region-based TLDs.
Soil.
Thank you, thank you, thank you *ducks*.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Now, people whose kids may know more about computers than them should just pay for a service that does this. Internet cafes, libraries, etc.. would need to do the same thing - card people and limit access to a maintained whitelist if they're under 18. Even this obviously doesn't solve the problem 100%, but it's about as close as you're going to get since Pandora's box(hehe) is already open.
OK, first define "adult content".
.XXX tld would not stop one child from being able to access things their parents didn't want, and since we probably can't find even two people who agree what "adult site operators" means, it will simply turn into a witchhunt.
Is a website showing how to check for breast cancer "adult content"? How about a website describing circumcision? How about a website advocating safe sex or masturbation? Or a description of the physical changes of puberty? Pictures of Holocaust violence? A description of the Rape of Nanking? Nudity in National Geographic? Wikipedia?
I can think of a million things that some parents would love their children to have access to, and which other parents would still want the guv'men' to regulate to death.
Adding an
Of course they wouldn't want porn consumers to find independently produced pornography. It would only benefit Vivid because they'd be able to sell more DVDs and services once the little guys become more obscure on the web.
I don't see why children should be saved from sex pictures. First of all, they are free to leave the site whenever they want. Nothiing they see on a porn site will be so bad that it will have a serious negative effect on them. It's weird. Many parents refuse that their children have vaccine shots, other introduce their kids to weapons, and many parents want their kids schools to serve unhealthy food. Don't tell me you're trying to protect the children, you old moralist hags. I'm sure a bit wanking would do everybody good.
Say, how much time have you spent doing this scientific research?
To peek or not to peek ain't the question:
Rather, who owneth the eyeballs, and the policy wherewith their wanderings be managed!
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Because reproduction is a bad choice? Please don't thump me with your bible.
This is what P2P and Usenet is for -- skanky college girls who need money for pot getting pounded by a tattooed guy in the back of a van.
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
Is there a Porn Queen, and Porn Prince/Princess? Think of the coronation ceremony.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
It's part of Sex Week at Yale that the guy is here. Vivid is a major sponsor of the week and he's giving a keynote-type talk (supposedly there have also been porn screenings and DVD giveaways throughout the week as well). The MBA students don't even have class on Fridays, much less so on Saturday. I doubt it's as high-minded a calling as you're optimistically making it to be.
Robots.txt
Maybe a simple addition to this standard for a couple of categories like "adult" or "dynamic" or "temp" to designate a simplistic "why" content should not be indexed, thus allowing for some flexibility
And me without my mod points!
Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
Ahem. Does anyone else see the parallel with the RIAA here? "Please, please, restrict access to the content that I make money providing! It's for The Children!"
Then once major search engines have fallen for the hoodwink, we'll see the rise of "Pornoogle.com" and "Yah-spew.com" porn search engines, which will, of course be "Free" (for a 30-day trial period, $29.95 per month thereafter).
I call shenanigans.
"None of the search engines and portals, but particularly..."
None but particularly. Any language with this new logic operator? I propose:
!++(Google && Yahoo)
I really don't. I don't want an internet where all 'adult content' - whatever that is interpreted to mean - is limited to some small, quarantined corner of the internet. Such a system would be easily abused because over-zealous prudes would immediately begin demanding that ISP's block out the .xxx TLD for the sake of the children. Then we'd have no 'adult conent' on the internet at all - which is exactly what many of these nuts want.
.kids TLD was a complete flop and has very few sites in it because no body in their right mind wants a G-rated internet.
That leads to another question: What is adult content? Is it media depicting sex? Is it n00dz? Is is violent imagery? Is is simply anything we don't want kids to see? You'll find that many people have very different ideas about just what exactly constitutes 'adult content.'
Even assuming it could be widely agreed exactly what needed to go into the adult section of the internet and further assuming that you could force everyone to migrate there (US laws are not global, btw), you'd be setting a bad president. You'd essentially be saying that information needs to be 'kid safe' by default. You'd be saying that it's not OK for adults to partake of 'adult' discussion involving 'adult' content, unless they're in some kind of box where we can be reasonably sure kids won't overhear it or see it.
I don't want to live in a world like that. I don't want to be herded off to some periphery whenever I have non-G rated thoughts just because somebody wants to scream "Think of the children!" It is children who should be kept in a isolated, protected place. It is children who should have their options limited and freedoms curtailed. It is children who shouldn't be allowed to just wander wherever they please. To hell with child proofing the internet.
If you want to set up a safe zone for kids and control the content there then that's fine. In fact, it was done. The
Let's make sure all porn is only hosted on .xxx sites! That way it will be easy to filter it!
What do you mean "evil bit"?
Stop laughing at me! It's NOT funny!!
<cry>
one search engine finds them, one search engine rules them all. google image unfiltered search > all pr0n sites. :D
... it's the jew that's selling this stuff ...
Sophistry from a porn king? I wouldn't have though porn kings were capable of something as intelligent as sophistry.
What a crock. Leaving aside the morality (or lack thereof) of pornography, blaming Google and Yahoo! for linking to the pornography Hirsch and his buddies produce makes as much sense as Bill Clinton blaming news organizations for telling the public about the blow job Monica Lewinsky gave him. Oh, wait...Wait, pornographers don't want children to watch porn? So, that means that pornographers are at last not evil amoral perverts who want to corrupt our children's minds and destroy our values and by extension America? The shock! Please let me take a few more years to enjoy my phase of denial.
You just got troll'd!
Unfortunately for your proposal, many sites can not be stuffed into .kids but are "kid safe" while also being not "kid safe".
The main issues with your proposal is that only parents can truly decide what is "kid safe". For example, my 4 year old might not need to access wikipedia, but my 9 year old will.
"Kid safe" is mostly shorthand for "let me use the Internet as a babysitter and blame someone else when my kids inevitably find something I would have objected to had I been paying attention to my children".
And before someone starts going off on how hard it is, know this: I have three children and put in more than 12 hours a day of working. My wife and I also home school our children. We still manage to monitor what our children do, and even better educate them on why. It is known as being a parent. If you "don't have the time" to pay attention to your kids, you should rearrange your priorities. Otherwise porn is the least of your worries to come.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
1. Vivid images showing up in Google is a good thing for vivid. It means more exposure and more traffic. Remember, google opens the entire page, not just a direct link to the image. Vivid doesn't charge for the pictures indexed by google. Google isn't infultrating their subscription zone, they're indexing their PR zone.
.xxx solution would only work if it were required. No sites are going to give up their .com names that have established traffic unless it were law. However, even with enforcement, this does nothing to prevent random or foreign porn from being indexed.
2. Google doesn't do anything preventive. Asking a question is not prevention, it is confirmation. Google does it to protect themselves. It is not about the viewer.
3. Kids know better than their parents when it comes to technology. The thought that more kids know about the "disable filter" feature than parents is troubling.
4. A
Dunt teh Hursh unterstend dat teh Googel is teh dunt b teh evel? Evrybedy un teh Sleshdort teh unterstend dat!! LOLz, we is teh smerter den teh Hursh!
TEH GOOGEL IS TEH DUNT BE TEH EVEL!!11! GOTS IT? GUUD!1! Now teh stop seyin teh bad bout teh guud, witch iz teh Googel!!1!!
I think google should stick to it's corporate charter.
Maybe his buddy's dad was making the stuff.
Just a thought.
Please specify your date of birth to continue.
[_____1_____][ v ] [___January___][ v ] [____1970____][ v ]
[ Enter ]
OpenDNS can block porn at the DNS level. It can be setup on a machine-level or router-level. While not a perfect solution, it complements other solutions and is great for families and individuals to decide what is appropriate for their own houses.
Yes, there are adult males without children who want to block porn from their houses. See http://www.pureintimacy.org/ if you are struggling with pornography addiction.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3675.txt
The point is that NOTHING prevents a porn site setting up on .com instead of .xxx. What's so hard to figure out about that.
.xxx. Yes ethical porn sites exist, it's big business. But rogues will sill set up on com/net/org and those are the sites that throw up popups, send your credit card info to Bank of Lithuania, etc.
.xxx in Google, then typing in "pussy" will be 100% guaranteed to get you results form porn sites with fudged metadata.
.xxx - and why block it? Do you want your kids browsing porn from unethical web sites?
The ethical porn sites WILL move to
Safe search works - maybe it should be enabled by default? Sure block results from
I'm all for
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
-- Ali G.
Just by reading the summary, I'm reminded of what someone (was it the FCC?) compared Comcast bittorrent throttling and to horse races. It's all about competition and monopolistic practices.
.xxx suffix was a nice solution IMHO.
I think this porn king, whoever he is and I don't care, isn't worried so much about free peeks on *his* servers but rather about "social networking" style sites and other collections that "take away" profits from him.
So what this is really about is old-model media distribution versus new business models. This guy gets rich by selling content, and obviously he's "suffering" from the thousands of amateur sites available on the web. Welcome to the 21st century.
Going back to the "think of the children" thread, the
I think Google can do this very easily. There is no reason why they cannot make a "porn search", but their general search should return non porn/adult sites. perhaps add a keyword like [porn] at the beginning of the search to make searching adult sites explicit.
No access to porn through search engines means that kids will not be able to find the tons of free porn out there. This in turn means that kids will not get used to the idea that porn is free. This in turn means that when they grow up, they will be more likely to pay for porn rather than looking for free stuff.
;-)
In addition to that hiding the porn links from the kids will help the porn advertisers (and most of the results you get by searching are exactly ad-ridden pages) get rid of the traffic, which is useless for them. After all kids clicking on porn ads are pure loss for them.
So the conventional wisdom seems still to be valid: no matter what they say, it's all about money
keys on the left side are sticky and im typg w/on hand
done wonders in the not debasing, not objectifying women spaces, and has clearly not increased the population of mysogynists. Vivid, however, has really gone gangbusters in this area in the opposite direction.
The Admin and the Engineer
I thought I was the Porn King?!?
This is a wedge... how can you really go about shielding children from pornography? I doubt an 'I agree I'm over 18' will work. This guy's a business man and the plan probably will involve using a credit card or something cash related with your proof of age.
Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
You know, kids often have a need to access educational sites that may use .org or .edu domains. There are also plenty of other sites under .com, .us, .ca and so forth that are geared toward kids. Wouldn't it simply be easier to deny one generic .xxx domain? Otherwise, you start opening up a can of worms by having to whitelist a slew of non-.kids sites.
Parents, get a hold of yourselves, It's just porn. It's not like your kids will drop dead after seeing it.
Because you can't overcome addiction without being beat about the head with a bible.
Isn't that supposed to be what a parent is there for ? How about parents actually do their job as caretaker/educator of their children ?
Intelligence shared is intelligence squared.
Some have already said it... it's not google or yahoo's job to really censor any adult materials. They put up some rudimentary safe guards and, frankly, that's all that's needed. If you, as a parent, don't want your kids into porn, watch them when they use a computer and TALK to them about it! If you think they're looking at it, make sure they understand the difference between the fantasy and the reality of it all.
Also, you should keep the following in mind...
1) If it can be accessed by adults, kids can access it easier than you because they're better at technology than you will EVER be! It's an old joke, but it's true. Youth can learn technology faster and be more agile at it then we are, even if we are computer literate.
2) The best safeguards are only useful for protecting those that don't care to see porn in the first place (such as most kids 12 and under). Once they hit puberty and get it in their heads that this stuff is out there, your most powerful net nanny is going down. How? Read point 1
3) Education is your best safeguard for your kid. It is my opinion that porn is not going to do any mental damage to your kids. More than likely if a kid grows up and has some form of sexual deviance it had little to do with the porn itself and more to do with their own immediate environment and just simple genetics (frankly, people can just loose in the head some times). And if you're worried about online predators, porn sites are actually the LAST place you'll find them. If there's someone out there fishing for your kids on the net, they're hanging around yahoo or disney chatrooms, not a porn site.
"he'll just fork over the cash for xxxample.xxx and operate both."
So?
You ever have two identical sites with two different names?
Guess what google does with them? It ignores one.
Need Mercedes parts ?
You have to think of the big picture here and consider what happens over time.
.xxx namespace. Think of it as tagging but with domain names.
Say you're looking for porn and you're presented with example.com and example.xxx.
Which ones sounds dirtier? That is whose gonna look at example.com when they can see example.xxx instead?
Keep in mind also if google sees the same website with two different domains, only one makes it into the index. That is to say, if you have both then example.com needn't show up at all or could trivially be filtered out by google's "safe search" criteria because it knows the same site exits in the
It's not a question of "what is porn" or "how do you regulate it" those are non issues. Over time the com namespace will simply become less and less dirty with porn slowly migrating to a more appropriate namespace.
You only need look at usenet to see an example of how this has worked in the past: alt.sex and alt.binaries.pictures were created to get porn off of mainstream usenet do they could be filterd out easily by those who wished to do so. This was 20 years ago and it worked and worked brilliantly. There is very little porn in "regular" usenet and tons of it in "the proper place" all because of self regulation. "If you build it they will cum" so to speak.
And this will work just as well in the DNS namespace.
Need Mercedes parts ?
The biggest advance in education will be the time when pornography is taught as a curriculum subject so that children learn what it is about and how to relate to it. Those of us familiar with the 'Third World' situation know that children in those areas learn to cope with death, starvation, deprivation, disease, tyranny, ignorance, and a life devoid of hope. Most survive. Our children (in the West) will survive the awareness of pornography, which will come whatever is done to block it by whoever has a vested interest in doing so.
when they were sued the last time. They should have cut off any and all porn and images unless a company opts in. In fact they should do it for *any* company that complains but I'd specifically target the whiners.
Google also has this crap where there is not cache viewing allowed. I'd drop every damn one of those whining companies. Let'em pay to get their crap listed somewhere.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
they want that Googlebot etc don't copy and resize and cache their copyrighted smut.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I guess nobody in the entire porn industry understands how that works.
All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
Why should Google and Yahoo block porn? I'm willing to bet that a high percentage of their traffic is porn-related searches. If their customers--which is what we all must consider ourselves if we use their search engines--want to search for porn, how can they say no?
Really this is just someone in the porn industry complaining that it's too easy to get *free* porn, obviating the need for membership fees paid to his company.
I want my Cowboyneal
and working fine for Google China ;-) (kinda)
My hypothetical 8 year old kid will not find out what a Pussy is through Google. And I certainly hope that my hypothetical kid will not take Google's "Try different keywords" suggestion and do follow-up searches.
immoral of the story: If you are an 8 year old searching for some inkling of pr0n, forget about figurative speech and go straight for the scientific terms.
(My hypothetical 8 year old kid better not be reading this.)
The biggest problem I see with regards to the porn on the internet isn't its availability or controlling access. It's preventing people from *accidentally* accessing pornography, and this is something which is going to need cooperation on both sides. For a start, typo-squatting should be discontinued on the part of the pornographers. It is a deceptive practice, and is one of the more common ways that a child can accidentally find themselves looking at pornography. Secondly, searching should only return porn results when you *actually search for pornography*. The easiest way to do this would be to give all porn sites a tag, and introduce a porn-search option, say, for example, porn.google.com. Normal search would exclude porn sites, and porn-search would *only* return porn sites. This way, both the web at large, *and* the porn is freely accessible and searchable, but it is no longer possible to accidentally stumble across a porn site. Finally, pornographers need to ensure that their advertising in only injected into appropriate channels, such that porn ads are not likely to appear on otherwise PG rated websites. Controlling pornography *can* be done, if everyone does their part and the pornographers act responsibly.
If "paid for" content was accessible to google's crawler then anyone could view it without a subscription. Possibly he's worried about people getting there kicks from Google rather than viewing his sites. Most likely he's worried about giving people ammunition when they want to launch a tirade against the porn industries. Could also be the case that because he is a particularly large adult company, removing all porn from default google listings would make Vivid a much more visible company (because it's so large) compared to its competitors.