Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Apologizes For Super Bowl Porn Glitch
DrinkDr.Pepper writes "Just after the last touchdown by the Cardinals, with 3 minutes to go in the game, approximately 30 seconds of pornographic material was shown, seen by an unknown number of Comcast customers in Tucson, Arizona who were watching the game in standard definition. Comcast has apologized (they used the word 'mortified') and is issuing a $10 credit to any customer who claims to have been impacted. Various news accounts suggest that the incident was a malicious act, but no one knows how it was done or by whom."
You know your feature is boring when people watch it to see the funny ads, and in order to keep ratings up they flash tits at every turn.. Janet Jackson Started a trend..
What's so big about this football anyway?
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
the day that a news source posts a full uncensored clip of the incident is the day society has truly moved on from the arbitrary taboos of old.
Of course it'd also be the day that such an incident would merit only a footnote in an "odd stuff" newspaper section.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
While Ron Jeremy incidentally does have a penis, I believe Tyler Durden is the one inserting it everywhere.
Who here that has a penis ISN'T interested in inserting it everywhere?
More Twoson than Cupertino
Well, not everywhere everywhere.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
four hours of violent smashing is not porn?
To be fair to the grandparent, he did say "with the family.".
I wouldn't mind virtually any amount of explicit content in ads if I was on my own, but I'd be unhappy if there were kids watching it with me.
Why are they apologizing?
So the masses of idiots who write letters to the FCC urging the immediate nationalization of all TV will be pacified. The FCC was flooded with complaints at the Janet Jackson bit, and I bet they weren't happy with the delay they were forced to put in for all live broadcasts. You can guess at least a few people are so miffed at seeing human body parts that they want more government control.
It would be nice if they didn't apologize so deeply, grew a spine, and issued a statement that reflected the ridiculousness of this situation, something like
"We're sorry, that was of course unintentional, and when we find whoever did it they're at least going to lose their job here. Of course, it's not like this is anything too bad, it's anatomy, grow up already and get over it."
Really? I sat in a bar and watched Superbowl. I didn't see anything that I'd consider particularly raunchy or inappropriate, and I didn't hear any complaints from the people around me either. Are Americans really this prudish when it comes to TV advertising?
Follow me
I think you should reread the parent's comment and then realize how much of an idiot you've been.
it was clearly Ebaumsworld.com
No, Ebaumsworld just got hold of a copy of the report where the original hacker claimed credit and replaced his name with theirs.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Stop. Think.
Your comment, although humorous, falls completely apart under the most basic of observation. For example... How does your statement explain the 2nd child? And the 3rd? I'm a 4th child of a married couple. So there is ample precedent that a married man continues to bury the seed in fertile soil, long after the first puppy has been pushed out the play-dough fun factory of life.
Where would the urban myth be of how wearing a wedding ring works out to be a great way to attract women... if married men were known for their abstinence?
Why do women divorce their husbands for cheating, if the husbands in fact have no interest in that kind of thing after they have their first kid?
These are just a couple of the obvious barriers to believing him.
So don't trust the GP(P). He was just being funny. He definitely still has an interest in insertions.
"I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
A family watching the Super Bowl has a reasonable expectation that they won't be subjected to someone else's idea of what acceptable sexual mores are these days. It was a football game, not a Victoria Secret premier.
Personally, I don't care about porn being available but I can sympathize with folks who were offended by Go Daddy's poor taste. I watched the game at a friend's house and ofter the Go Daddy Ad aired, they decided to switch registrars for their family domain away from Go Daddy.
How fucking jaded are you by the Internet where you'd use the phrase, "Not very interesting porn?" You're just disappointed that there were no animals/dildos/watersports/lesbian nuns/feces/toe licking/[insert your favorite fetish here]. There are some people out there that find titties scandalous (just consider how rich the "Girls Gone Wild" scumbag is).
Besides, everyone knows that hairy lesbian nun watersports is the height of sexy.
Not feces, though; feces is never sexy.
I submit that this is a cultural artifact.
You either see nothing offensive in ads with explicit content or feel that you can safely ignore it because you understand the difference between real life and the image of life that such advertisements would present. However, you'd be uncomfortable showing a child the same thing. Why is this?
I suspect there are a few reasons ranging the spectrum from cultural guilt, to superstition, and taboo abeyance.
Perhaps you'd feel responsible for educating the child on the differences between real life and the image of life that are presented by advertisers. In any other context, this is something we don't even think about. We know that simply eating breakfast cereal doesn't suddenly make you super-athletic and attractive. We don't have any difficulty repeating that to children, or explaining what's necessary to achieve those goals in the real world. But since our culture has placed such a strict taboo about imparting sex education to children, we feel incapable of telling the same kids that drinking beer and wine coolers doesn't make you attractive to half-naked dancers. We don't tell them that getting drunk in order to seek sexual gratification is a really risky, self-destructive behavior.
Arguably the latter is a much more important life lesson, but that same taboo forbids us from admitting that children have sexuality, let alone that they're even more vulnerable to being pandered to than adults.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
They must have watched the GoDaddy ad that reinforced the idea that the internet is only for porn.
You may very well have a point. I'm British, and cultural guilt is something we do incredibly well.
In my personal experience, there is a stage when children become aware of sexuality, the age of which varies from child to child. The attitude I expressed refers to children before this point, who honestly probably aren't ready for frank discussions about the subject (I know I wasn't at a young age, conversations like that were incredibly odd to me when I was younger than about 10 - but I suppose it varies based on the child).
I think the key point here is varying definitions of "child", I'd be much happier explaining what was up with that PETA advert to someone with a certain level of maturity than I would to an 8 year old.
Never lived on a farm, did you. Yet through most of history most families did. And also lived in single room huts.
Exposure to sex isn't harmful to children. I have no idea why some people think it is.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
This got me thinking about Broadcast Signal Intrusion", culture jamming, radio/television piracy, etc. Is the recent/upcoming conversion to digital signals from analog a way to circumvent or foil "terrorists" who might want to broadcast "alternative" messages? Would it make this a thing of the past?
testosterone infused giants beating the tar out of each other while discussion taking untested injections to repair injuries just enough to play while ignoring all side effects, thats completely comfortable to watch with the kiddies..... display and discussion of our natural bodies and activities, uncomfortable..... fail....
Really? I sat in a bar and watched Superbowl. I didn't see anything that I'd consider particularly raunchy or inappropriate, and I didn't hear any complaints from the people around me either. Are Americans really this prudish when it comes to TV advertising?
Yes.
I'm amazed that among all these replies, no one has considered that my problem might not be so much the sex itself as much as the attitude toward sex? We're talking about commercials that objectify the people and devalue the act itself. Perhaps as a parent, I don't really want my kids to think of sex that way?
And besides. If we start allowing sex everywhere on television, that will soon be the ONLY thing on television. (It's getting pretty close these days.) There's always the desire to pander to the lowest common denominator. As an intelligent species capable of reasoning and critical thinking, we should be making efforts to stimulate our intelligence rather than pandering to our baser instincts.
For those of you who need the cliff notes version (probably the ones who think these commercials are "ok"): I don't want my kids to grow up to be drooling apes.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
It appeared to be a DVR recording, so that's plausible -- maybe he saw something, rewinded, and started recording.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
But an 8-year-old doesn't care. They'd be happy with a very superficial explanation -- because they have no interest in sex, explaining it to them is just boring for them. They're only asking questions because they don't understand at all; a little bit of context is plenty to make them stop caring.
Reading the wiki article, and I noticed that about half the states, the legal age is 16, the other half it is 18.
Don't forget the states where it's 17.
So, if you were having sex with a 16 year old in a moving car, that started in a state where it was legal and the car drove across the border into a state where it wasn't... It would magically turn into a felony.
Magic ages are kind of dumb anyway, if you ask me. At 18 you're magically old enough to smoke and vote, at 21 you're magically old enough to drink, at other magic numbers you're magically able to drive or have sex.
Incidentally you'd get whacked with at least two offenses: the sex itself, and transporting a minor across state lines to engage in illegal sexual activity. (Whereas if I took a 16-year-old to the next state over where 16-year-olds are legal, we could rent a hotel room and fuck and it'd all be perfectly legal.)
I wonder if the same law applies to airplanes... (granted, it's pretty tough to do anything in an airplane, but it has been done)
Well, I guess the bathrooms are pretty small...
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Interesting. I thought the age of consent in Nevada was 14, which makes it a pretty good US state to use the thought problem on. Oh well, it's still 14 in Canada I think... I heard they tried to change that a couple years ago. They had/have the same problem though: you can pull your dick out in front of them and get it sucked, but you can't show them a picture of it.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Nice try, but the proliferation of the species is exactly what is responsible for its demise.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
To an extent I agree with you. The problem is the tremendous range of things that get called porn...all the way down to a woman nursing her child.
Porn, apparently, is anything that bothers someone somewhere that has any connection however remote to sex.
I'd be much more in favor of saying that children shouldn't be exposed to violence. That wouldn't work either, but it would make as much sense.
FWIW, banning the road-runner cartoons for excessive violence is just stupid. STUPID!! Some people seem to think that censorship is the answer to everything. They ban cartoons, but don't stop wars. Which is more violent?
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.