Slashdot Mirror
Google Reverses Stance, Allows Porn On Blogger After Backlash
mpicpp writes In a reversal, Google says that porn will continue to be allowed on its Blogger site. Google said it has received a big backlash after deciding earlier in the week that bloggers will no longer be able to "publicly share images and video that are sexually explicit or show graphic nudity." The ban was to have taken place on March 23.
Instead, Google said that the company would simply double down on its crackdown of bloggers who use their sites to sell porn.
In July, Google stopped porn from appearing in its online ads that appear on Blogger. And in 2013, Google decided to remove blogs from its Blogger network that contained advertisements for online porn sites. "We've had a ton of feedback, in particular about the introduction of a retroactive change (some people have had accounts for 10+ years), but also about the negative impact on individuals who post sexually explicit content to express their identities," wrote Jessica Pelegio, Google's social product support manager, in a post on Google product forums. "So rather than implement this change, we've decided to step up enforcement around our existing policy prohibiting commercial porn.
Instead, Google said that the company would simply double down on its crackdown of bloggers who use their sites to sell porn.
In July, Google stopped porn from appearing in its online ads that appear on Blogger. And in 2013, Google decided to remove blogs from its Blogger network that contained advertisements for online porn sites. "We've had a ton of feedback, in particular about the introduction of a retroactive change (some people have had accounts for 10+ years), but also about the negative impact on individuals who post sexually explicit content to express their identities," wrote Jessica Pelegio, Google's social product support manager, in a post on Google product forums. "So rather than implement this change, we've decided to step up enforcement around our existing policy prohibiting commercial porn.
One of the only great companies at the moment could it could be greater than Google glass, advertising reversed and injected with blog porn reversed, drooling people on the bus.
Does google object to porn? maybe they should show some balls!
Google: Fight The New Drug
Now celebrate by doing a doodle where you the oo's on the glass!
g00gle > - - - - 0=
Don't know where you get the notion that LGBT individuals would be more inclined to generate or consume pornographic content. If there are places that decide to block Google fiber because there's sin on the interwebs, then godspeed to them (although they are likely among the biggest porn consumers, repressed hipocrites usually are).
the more conservative the area of the country (and the world) the more online pornography is consumed:
http://www.newscientist.com/ar...
pointlessly uptight people still need their biological release, and since their bullshit "morals" don't allow them to express their natural proclivities in real life, they're all closet perverts
so southerners need that fiber, they won't oppose it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
How'd we get into Google fiber?
Sticks and stones may break my bones,
but whips and chains excite me.
(I suppose fiber would be a pretty kinky whip, at least to AT&T, Time-Warner and the rest of those perverts.)
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
"publicly share images and video that are sexually explicit or show graphic nudity." Is hardly porn. Most movies released would fall under that category. Meaning you could not even host a movie review blog without censoring the video you are reviewing.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Anal
That moment when you realize that fervor, hysteria, and blue balls all describe the same condition.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
That moment when you realize that fervor, hysteria, and blue balls all describe the same condition.
Those things are not the same at all.
I thought that was Tumblr?
Is this the "beta" I've been hearing about?
Not a fan, I must say.
I wanted to update my signature today, and under this new layout I can't seem to find it at all.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
please visit my triumph fetish site: http://www.poughkeepsiejournal...
So, the ones consuming porn are closet perverts, while Google distributing porn is positive news?
I already switched my homepage to the non-censor site, ddg.gg
Tired of google and their bullshit. Time for me to delete my account there. Fuck censorship. Google's puritan advertisers have made their last dime off my back.
yes
because conservative countries that disallow expression of sexuality, and also disallow censor pornography, create murderous assholes and bitter hatemongers
so allowing sexuality is best, but allowing pornography is second best
blocking both creates hellholes of human suffering. that's religious conservative "morals" at work
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
In many circles anything related to the LGBT community is rated adult and considered explicit.
Glad to see Google cracking down on those evil advertisers.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
You have posted one of the ugliest comments in the thread. Do you need a prize?
The vibrating dildo was invented so that doctors could give their hands a rest from curing hysteria.
I don't know much about religions other than my own, but blocking sexuality seems impossible to be true, because sexuality ensures that they have members for a long time.
If pornography is consumed by sick people, as you claim, is it positive that Google enables more people to become sick?
It is true that often blocking sexuality makes people suffer. It is also true that people often suffer because of their inability to control themselves, e.g. by contracting a sexually transmitted disease. If the first is religious conservative "morals" at work, then what is claiming that the second is healthy? Idealistic progressive "stupidity" at work?
There are whole huge swathes of blogspot.com that are tranny porn
So /r/carporn isn't enough transmission porn for car geeks?
if you live in a society where rich men can have many wives so there's less women to go around, female infanticide is ripe, and your economy sucks so you can't get a job: no woman will look at you
you have no pornography, women are wrapped up and hidden from sight
your corrupt broken government censors the internet
so you have no outlet for your sexuality
none. zero
this is extremely unnatural
and this is what fuels all the suffering and hatred in conservative societies and with men from conservative backgrounds: a young man with no options to express his natural biological desires turns to the worst choices in life: murder and psychopathy
meanwhile, in "decadent", "immoral" societies, where expression of natural human sexuality is easy, young men and women are productive, happy and content
the greatest creator of evil in this world is traditional religion
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Never thought I'd say I approved of identity politics, but this time seems to be the exception to the rule.
Posting porn: wrong
Expressing your identity by posting porn: good
There is something weird in this logic.
"We've had a ton of feedback, in particular about the introduction of a retroactive change (some people have had accounts for 10+ years), but also about the negative impact on individuals who post sexually explicit content to express their identities," wrote Jessica Pelegio, Google's social product support manager...
So did Google (a) not solicit user input that would have revealed the likelihood of a backlash, (b) not know (without even asking) there would be a backlash, or (c) know there would be a backlash that could drum up free publicity?
Aw, did you get your feels hurt, little snowflake?
Well, then. You seem to have everything figured out. . . .
'Takes it in another direction' should have been the title.
And the contingency from 8chan is heard from.
They have a little notice that pops up on their PCs when somebody mentions "porn" and "transsexuals" because it makes them feel funny in the pants. To which they respond with ugliness and hate because they just don't know how to admit their true feelings.
You have just described #GamerGate.
Just Google andyprovocative body part and look to the images.. Google is hardly censoring its main product.
So you post a link to a pseudo legit article and then add a moronic commit about mythical "southerners" that certainly isn't mentioned in your linked article. You are a bigot!
i don't have everything figured out
but i do know strict religious upbringing that suppresses normal human sexuality feeds hatred and suffering
if you as a human being are not allowed your normal biological outlets, those urges just don't disappear, they reemerge as disappointment and hatred at the world that denies you your normal needs because of a vain shallow "morality" (aka, hypocrisy)
traditionalism, conservatism, and extreme religiosity breeds evil in this world
that is an objective fact
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i'm not a bigot
if you as a human being are not allowed your normal biological outlets, those urges just don't disappear, they reemerge as disappointment and hatred at the world that denies you your normal needs because of a vain shallow "morality" (aka, hypocrisy)
traditionalism, conservatism, and extreme religiosity breeds evil in this world
that is an objective fact
find a deeply conservative place in the world, and you also find poverty, misery, and hatred
find a liberal place in the world, and you also find fortune, happiness, and tolerance
chart religiousity versus happiness in this world and it is inversely proportional
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"One natural hypothesis is something like repression: if you're told you can't have this, then you want it more," Edelman says.
not quite. when you worship a god of cognitive dissonance, then what's one more little inconsistency in a life bereft of reason?
more like: if denied a normal healthy impulse like sex, it doesn't disappear, it rots and festers and reasserts itself as transgression and annihilation
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Seems like a bad idea to ban 98% of all blogs.
No, it's not because "good" and "evil" are not objective. You sound like a petulant small child or a retard, but your posts made me chuckle. Now go get an ice cream and let real adults talk.
It's an IQ test, and they failed!
love is just extroverted narcissism
Speaking of small children, how's celibacy for catholic priests working out?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
good and evil are objectively described as acts which benefit another person or transgress against another person. good and evil are not mystical wishy washy bullshit, they are apparent to, now that you mention it, even elementary school children. any child of normal psychological and social development, anyone who has empathy: you don't hurt other people
children possess a basic understanding of morality, right and wrong, good and evil: putting yourself in someone else's shoes. religion does not make morality, it is in all of us, naturally. japan isn't touched by abrahamic religions, they have morality. a hindu and a jew can agree on the vast majority of simple human morality, because they are both human, not because of their religions
if anything, religion usually defines ways for people to defy basic human morality, such as with vain, shallow, self-serving petty judgments, which is what people who call themselves religious and conservative usually busy their small minds with. that's a form of transgressing against another. something a moral person would understand as wrong. something a religious person would think is "right"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Indeed, the PenIs mightier than the sword.
Google tightened the screws on visual Buddhist and naturist blogs earlier this week. Why did it take Slashdot 4 days to notice?
Well, then. You seem to have everything figured out. . . .
yes, but your contribution was the final piece of the puzzle. thanks!
more like: if denied a normal healthy impulse like sex, it doesn't disappear, it rots and festers and reasserts itself as transgression and annihilation
naw. outbursts of transgression and annihilation come from normal healthy impulses of transgression and annihilation.
Did you need to go to the UN and let them know that your solved society's problems. Go at once, do not delay. The world needs your insight!
Mindless progressives switch conservative egoism for liberal egoism.
I.e., STFU.
Honest question: What proportion of complainers just want porn, and what proportion just don't want censorship? And what proportion of those complaining about censorship really just want porn?
Ever consider that the people you would consider 'normal' are the ones consuming the porn in conservative areas? We "pointlessly uptight people" get our "biological release" without the need for porn on a computer. If I am feeling horny, I simply start being romantic with my husband, and the reverse is true. We have an agreement in our marriage that even if one of us doesn't 'feel it' the other provides the requisite service for the other one. Despite stereotypes, it is pretty much equal in a given month how many times one wants it and the other doesn't. The rest of the time (a majority) the sex is about love, not animal desire to get off, and we both enjoy it.
We are not atypical, married people have more sex, for longer and find it more fulfilling.
i'm not a bigot
Yes, actually you are.
Speaking of small children, how's celibacy for catholic priests working out?
People bring this up all the time, but the incidence of abuse by priests is far less than that of incest in a "family." Also, how come nobody questions celibacy for catholic nuns?
Yawn. Any more platitudes, child?
Not only are you a bigot, but you have also attempted to fabricate a whole world view to rationalize your bigotry. If it was not so sad, the delusion presented in your comment would be hilarious for its sheer absurdity.
if that's your best response i guess i've made an impression. glad i could give you some education today
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
speaking against bigotry is not the same as bigotry. you can't keep sputtering the one reflexive insult you know and sound like you are making a coherent argument. so if that's all you can do, then i guess i've made my point pretty well to you today. you're welcome for the education
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"no, you!"
clearly you've reached the intellectual rhetorical heights of a 5 year old
faced with such a devastating response, how could i do anything but admit my humble defeat at your extreme intellect and wonder at how badly i've erred in my ways?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i made a valid coherent argument that can be substantiated with facts
you reply with empty insults
if that's the best you can do, then it seems i've made a valid point here and the best you can do is sputter in response. so you're welcome for the education today
btw, progress is real and the hallmark of human civilization. the screen and the keyboard you use to read and respond to me are marks of progress. those who use the word as an insult, that's very telling about their intellect and character
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Hmmm ... and you sound like someone who is VERY intimidated by his statements, so you resort to trying to make them seem insignificant. You need help.
that would be nice but first we have to get conservative religious countries to agree to the UN universal declaration of human rights
http://www.un.org/en/documents...
what happens if you go to a conservative, religious country and say you don't believe in god or are from another religion?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
so conservative religious belief supports moral behavior like not hacking someone to death just for believing different that you, right?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
so the choice is be
1. in a wonderful understanding marriage, or
2. "sorry, to hell with you"
your message seems to be: if you aren't married, or in a bad marriage, or in any way deviate from the 1950s leave it to beaver perfect cookie cutter utopia of domestic life, well then go fuck yourself (figuratively, not literally). that seems to be the conservative message
do you ever stop to consider people and their conditions in life that aren't in the same glorious spot as you?
is this the wonderful mythical "compassionate conservatism" i hear about always that says "you get to have sex if your life is a fairy tale, otherwise, you get to suffer, period, end of story"
why don't you instead open your mind slightly, consider people that might not have it as good as you, and allow them what they need to keep going in life?
instead of, in intolerance as you currently do, defining your oh-so-perfect life, and then declaring anyone outside it to be unclean and unworthy. that's religious conservatism in action
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Bigotry: A state of mind where a person obstinately, irrationally, unfairly or intolerantly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.
Which you demonstrate perfectly by your statement: "traditionalism, conservatism, and extreme religiosity breeds evil in this world"
You then attempt to rationalize it by saying: "that is an objective fact
find a deeply conservative place in the world, and you also find poverty, misery, and hatred
find a liberal place in the world, and you also find fortune, happiness, and tolerance
chart religiousity versus happiness in this world and it is inversely proportional"
Which is sad and absurd.
remarkably the verification captcha is "princess" which is the exact mentality you have, caught in an ivory tower believing fairy tales.
"no, you!"
clearly you've reached the intellectual rhetorical heights of a 5 year old
faced with such a devastating response, how could i do anything but admit my humble defeat at your extreme intellect and wonder at how badly i've erred in my ways?
Being a bigot as you are, I did not expect you to be reasoned with. Why bother? Your childishness is demonstrated repeatedly.
hilarious
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
"no, you!" is not a valid argument
me arguing against bigotry is not the same as bigotry
if i define bigotry, and say it is wrong, going "so you're the bigot!" is only a reflexive, thoughtless defense on the order of 5 year olds
it's like you point a gun at me, so i point one back in defense, and you go "see! you're a murderer!" the defense taken against a transgressive action is not the same as the actual transgressive action. defining and condemning bigotry is not the same as bigotry. do you understand?
then this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
intolerance of intolerance is not the same thing as intolerance itself
example: charlie hebdo: if you have a society that respects free speech, and one group says "we will kill you until we get to restrict your free speech!" does that group get to claim bigotry and intolerance when their bigotry and inteolerance is opposed? no
is society violating it's principles by restricting speech... that advocates violent restriction of speech? see the self-contradiction? incitement to violence and murder to end free speech, is not protected by the principle of free speech, because it threatens the very concept of free speech itself
another example: nazi imagery in germany. is germany violating free speech by restricting nazi imagery? no, because nazi imagery in germany is not some abstract notion, it is the symbol of the ideology that violently destroyed free german society. there's no contradiction
you cannot attack a principle, and depend upon that principle, at the same time
you cannot claim bigotry, when being singled out for your bigotry
understand?
try again and good luck
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i've laid out my reasoning intelligently and convincingly. all you've done is bounce one empty unsupported insult reflexively. you haven't reasoned with me at all, you've made no argument. because you have no argument. when someone is left with nothing more than sputtering insults, they've lost the argument
if you're not the same AC (anonymous COWARD), as the other one i'm responding to, then here is genuine reasoning for your education:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
good luck on opening your mind and understanding your problem
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I am not the same AC.
While Slashdot attributes anonymous coward to anyone who does not log in to post, not everyone who posts without logging in does so for the same reasons. I for example, opted out of the moderation system and logging into slashdot as a protest to the system years ago. My 2nd user ID starts with a 5 and is 6 digits long, my original is 5 digits and starts with a 1.
Now back to your comments:
i've laid out my reasoning - what you have laid out does not obtain, it is not rational and has no basis in reality.
intelligently - Not even rationally
and convincingly - See line 1
You are a bigot. Miriam Webster defines a bigot as follows... a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
You fit that definition perfectly.
Moreso, you claim tolerance by quoting Rawls and not properly applying context. Now it may be true that you understand analytic philosophy, if so however, you do not demonstrate such.
So you can continue with the ad hominem by suggesting I am a coward for opting out of a moderation system powered by non subject matter experts and allowing my comments to be depreciated as opposed to taking the default +3 I am entitled to by rating of my karma and who I am. But the merits of my comments are not based on such plusses, rather on themselves.
You make a claim that 'traditionalism, conservatism, and extreme religiosity breeds evil in this world' and then try to avoid discussion by claiming this is an objective fact. This tells me that some combination of the following are true:
#1) You do not understand what those terms mean,
#2) You are a bigot
#3) You are lying.
Since when arguing it is considered good form to presume the strongest form of your opponents argument, I opted to dismiss #1 & #3, that leaves me with only #2.
Now, I could continue on, but the sheer fact that 1,2 or 3 are the only options available. Also, even huffpo disagrees with you about marriage and sex ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/13/marriage-sex_n_1422644.html ) that should tell you how extreme your position is. The only liberal news source I can think of more liberal than the huffpo is jezebel, but they disagree with you too. Heck even the NYT disagrees with your happiness diatribe: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/opinion/sunday/conservatives-are-happier-and-extremists-are-happiest-of-all.html?_r=0
So where do we go? According to the NYT you should be happy, however you exhibit signs of anger and rejection as well as separation from reality. I am not a doctor of medicine (yet), so I will restrain myself from pointing out the obvious diagnostic criteria you meet.
Do I really want to waste my time arguing against an extremist (further left than NYT, HP & Jezebel), about a subject they clearly are misrepresenting, who has already started throwing down genetic fallacies and ad hominems?
No really.
I'm pretty sure you're both right. :/
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Here is what is so frustrating about all this.
Consensual sex is good. Consensual sex is fine. Consensual sex is entertaining.
The "bad' things about consensual sex, mostly including distributing media recording it -- disease, "moral" backlash, reputation damage, difference from how the external objector thinks it should be performed, perceived "offense", blatant rationalizations about agency magically not being present for the most ridiculous, transparent and obviously invalid reasons -- all of this stuff comes from outside sex. They are not sex. All of these things are things a sane person needs to defend against in both the prophylactic and immediate senses. These factors are all pernicious to immediate attacks on normality and goodness -- on sex itself -- and as such, they can be dangerous as hell.
The *one* inherent, sex-centric risk that affects just a few of the many forms of sex is that of unwanted pregnancy. Because yes, that's actually part of those (again, few) aspects of sex. And, just like the external threats, it can be defended against, so it's not a good reason to not have sex even of that kind, and of course it never was a good reason to avoid the myriad types and expressions of sex that cannot result in pregnancy.
Into this environment come the bewildered. Google's corporate overlords, like most who have gained power, seek to impose their view of what's "ok" on everyone else. In the context of this step back from the brink, Google is still way, way above the depths in terms of the violence, coercion and repression the government, religions, various corporations and the general public have established, but we have been witness to the urge growing within the Google power structure. Of course it is wonderful to see it set back somewhat, but we would be extremely gullible if we thought this was certain to be the end of it. This is a very well-trodden path.
Into this environment come the masses (but I repeat myself.) Just a few days ago, an episode of The Walking Dead aired that had the Intertubes quite upset due to content.
Now, this particular work of fiction, you have to understand, has showcased, in graphic detail, human cannibalism; murder of many stripes; suicide; extreme torture; extreme bondage; non-consensual amputation; and of course "zombies" in glorious anatomical and decaying detail. Exploding heads, severed body parts, the thrusting of limbs inside the dead, painting one's self in zombie gore, the most generous splashing of body parts and fluids in every direction and every variety you could possibly imagine (unless you think they actually missed something, and in which case, if you let the producers know, I'd bet money it shows up within a few episodes.) In play have been tanks, explosives, booby traps, fire, bacterial assault, knives, guns, imprisonment, baseball bats, swords, fingernails, martial arts... None of this so much as raises an eyebrow with the viewing public, who think it's all delightful entertainment.
So good grief, what could the content possibly be that actually got the viewers weirded out enough to speak up and get feisty? Only this: Two gay fellows sharing a kiss. Not even a particularly passionate kiss, but more of a "wow, so glad you made it through that alive" kiss.
We -- the few truly sane, the only way to honestly characterize it -- watch this kind of governmental, corporate, religious and individual pathology from outside, and I have to tell all of you, any hope that human society will ever come to its senses is extinguished in a manner I can only liken to a tidal wave rolling over a single guttering candle.
There's nothing for it. Society is sick, sick, sick. And dangerous. You all be careful out there.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Have you always been this bigoted, or only when you can paint huge groups with a wide brush and feel that your hate and bigotry is legitimate?
I said it from the beginning it wasn't about porn it was about enforcement of their TOS. They already had the rules but didn't want to enforce them due to the amoung of people/cost needed to take care of the TOS and abuse reports. that is IMO
Jack of all trades,master of none
intolerance itself
intolerance of intolerance
not the same thing
pointing a gun at a man
pointing a gun back
not the same thing
if you really can't tell the difference between who initiates a transgression and who defends against it, you're not worth the time. you lack fundamental social and moral sense
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Google Play site says: "This app is incompatible with all of your devices."
I teach Saudi syudents in the US and they have deep wells of porn, they have stuff that is so bad it's making regular porn boring
Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.