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.
Does google object to porn? maybe they should show some balls!
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
"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.
That moment when you realize that fervor, hysteria, and blue balls all describe the same condition.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
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.
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.
I think it's more likely they were afraid that Bing would continue to have the upper hand. Or the lower hand. Or maybe the hand stroking both up and down...
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
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
"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?
Well, then. You seem to have everything figured out. . . .
There is something weird in this logic.
Posting porn: wrong
Found it.
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
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.
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?
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.