Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bing Gets Porn Domain To Filter Explicit Content

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the still-no-sex-in-india dept.

Microsoft 200

sopssa writes "Bing has set up a separate domain just for porn images and videos. '[The] general manager of Microsoft Bing said in a blog post that potentially explicit images and video content now will be coming from one separate domain — explicit.bing.net. 'This is invisible to the end customer, but allows for filtering of that content by domain which makes it much easier for customers at all levels to block this content regardless of what the SafeSearch settings might be.' When Bing was first launched, there was some online chatter about explicit images popping up when videos were 'previewed' in the search results. This means the thumbnails and videos are served from that domain, allowing easy filter of them in corporate and school networks. Users still normally use www.bing.com. Instead of heavily filtering the results, this is quite a good move."

cancel ×

200 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Awesome! (5, Funny)

SupremoMan (912191) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345635)

I'm tired of non-explicit images ruining my Google searches!

Re:Awesome! (1, Offtopic)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345809)

This is invisible to the end customer, but allows for filtering of that content by domain which makes it much easier for customers at all levels to block this content regardless of what the SafeSearch settings might be.

So I'm guessing one level of costumers is ISPs and governments.

Re:Awesome! (5, Funny)

machine321 (458769) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345919)

Most pornography contains people not wearing their costumes.

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28346009)

You replied out of context.

Hrmmm (4, Insightful)

Narkov (576249) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345637)

Is the reverse possible? I.e. explicit content only??!! :)

just use booble (4, Informative)

lecithin (745575) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345719)

go to booble.com

Re:just use booble (4, Informative)

_merlin (160982) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346083)

On your advice, I just tried booble. I have to say, it's complete rubbish. For each search I tried, all the hits on the first page were advertising, and none of them were even advertising anything remotely related to what I searched for. If you're using a search engine, you want relevant results - not just random advertising.

Re:just use booble (3, Funny)

nkcaump (1016816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346323)

Maybe badda-bing.com???

Re:Hrmmm (2, Funny)

sam0737 (648914) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345841)

Use greasemonkey/AdBlock to remove all images from bing.com but whitelist explicit.bing.com? At least that would save you some bandwidth in downloading non-explicit content.

Re:Hrmmm (1)

asCii88 (1017788) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345965)

Is the reverse possible? I.e. explicit content only??!! :)

I'm guessing from the summary it's explicit.bing.com

Re:Hrmmm (4, Informative)

_merlin (160982) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346019)

Just tried it - explicit.bing.com gives you SFW and NSFW - using that domain is just like saying "switch off safe search". AFAICT, there's no "unsafe search" option.

Re:Hrmmm (1)

asCii88 (1017788) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346059)

Just tried it - explicit.bing.com gives you SFW and NSFW - using that domain is just like saying "switch off safe search". AFAICT, there's no "unsafe search" option.

Then somebody has to come up with an algorithm that does the same search on both domains and displays the complement of the intersection of the results.

Re:Hrmmm (4, Informative)

_merlin (160982) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346099)

There's one of those for Google here [monzy.org] .

Re:Hrmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28346495)

Most recent searches: spanking kids spanking children spanking

I'd rather not know.

Re:Hrmmm (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28346033)

Well, there is already PornTube, PornoTube, YouPorn, RedTube, XTube, etc etc...

(shamefully posting as AC)

No Wonder MS Failed Once Again (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28346053)

After the week of the usual standard Microsoft product marketing tactics:

* Astroturfing by marketing companies hiring people to sit around all day posting "I'm a Google fan but gosh darn it! I've switched to Bing!" posts all over the Net

* TV and other media spots

* Getting all their MS friendly people in the computing media to hype the crap out of the rebranded old Microsft search product

Microsoft's search engine plummeted right back down into irrelvancy in marketshare and all people are left talking about is "LOL! Bing is great for porn type posts and stories"

Re:No Wonder MS Failed Once Again (1)

SalaSSin (1414849) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346199)

Well, porn is the thing that's searched for the most, so i'm guessing they did that alright...

Then again, if you get non-porn results polluting your search, we get back to Microsoft's usual quality of products..:

You didn't get what you asked for, but you certainly got more of what you didn't want...

Re:Hrmmm (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346113)

I've heard about MagicTeapot.com

Re:Hrmmm (0, Offtopic)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346429)

Well I heard about your mom, so we're even.

probably should be AC here, but oh well.

I wonder... (0, Offtopic)

qpawn (1507885) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345647)

What are the odds the explicit site is mirrored on Steve Ballmer's personal computer?

To be or not to be... (3, Funny)

pegdhcp (1158827) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345655)

... an explicit content provider. I guess soon Linux related content would be served by nasty.bing.net, just in case...

Re:To be or not to be... (1)

GreenTech11 (1471589) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345949)

Didn't you hear? Slashdot is not coming to you from explicit.bing.net! We welcome our new filtering overlords.

Please sit down and discuss how great Windows Vista is, bonus points for mention the Mojave Experiment. Oh, and if you are running any variant of linux, our new super computer will overwrite it with a brand new copy of Vista for you almost free of charge. Microsoft, controlling your life since you were born.

Re:Vista & Mohave! (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346025)

I'll bite!

Ya see, my anthro class sponsored a field trip to the Mohave desert. You should have SEEN the Vista! I'm tellin' ya, you ain't seen nuthin' until you checked out a desert sunset headed into a full moon.

Then it was time to set up our water filtering equipment. Can kernels of corn grow in desert conditions...

Oh wait... you wanted an *exact phrase* search for Windows Vista? Oops, sorry.

Re:Vista & Mohave! (1)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346077)

I'll bite!

Ya see, my anthro class sponsored a field trip to the Mohave desert. You should have SEEN the Vista! I'm tellin' ya, you ain't seen nuthin' until you checked out a desert sunset headed into a full moon.

Then it was time to set up our water filtering equipment. Can kernels of corn grow in desert conditions...

[snip]

Were you looking out of a window? Or multiple Windoze?

How does Microsoft define what is 'explicit'? (5, Funny)

JustinKSU (517405) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345657)

How does Microsoft define what is 'explicit'?

That would be an interesting job. Microsoft Smut Engineer. Wait, I think that's what they already call MS Office developers...

Re:How does Microsoft define what is 'explicit'? (2, Interesting)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345701)

Well for example a slashdot post explaining in explicit detail why a MS product is crap will be automatically filtered as explicit content.

Re:How does Microsoft define what is 'explicit'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28345781)

Your answer explains "what" not "how"

Re:How does Microsoft define what is 'explicit'? (1)

asCii88 (1017788) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345983)

Your answer explains "what" not "how"

Prolly much like Google SafeSearch does. Exept that with a bulkier, buggier and messier code.

Re: Details on MS products (4, Insightful)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345813)

Come on gang, forget the snark below his post, this guy has a piece of the puzzle right! MS can lever the threat to "accidentally" label polka spotted portions of the web as "explicit" while daring the global web community to figure it out!

While he's funny with the MS-product side, they can accept payments to label ANYTHING as explicit! Wheee!!

Re: Details on MS products (2, Interesting)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345943)

Or for example, they really want to do business in China so they label anything "free Tibet" explicit, etc etc.ÂIt is a good idea in the sense that it can give better control of what goes over your network. But it is very open to abuse.

Re: Details on MS products (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28346361)

You're a fucking idiot *facepalm*

Re: Details on MS products (2, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346389)

Exactly. There is no difference between "heavy filtering of results" and results that are explicit coming from a separate domain. All that means is that it makes it easier on your end to filter the explicit.bing.com. Who decides what is explicit? Microsoft. What if you don't agree with them? What if you are the owner of that content? Is there a resolution process? Do you have to sue them? Can you sue them?

Re: Details on MS products (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346511)

The same goes for Google where the default is to use moderate filtering.

Re:How does Microsoft define what is 'explicit'? (5, Informative)

l2718 (514756) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345743)

The easiest way is using the "keywords" META tag which I'm sure is used by most explicit sites to self-identify. The problem of determining the semantic content of a site (not to speak of interpreting images) is hard, but "Safe searches" of various kinds have been around for a long time so I'm sure there's been some progress on the text processing side. I doubt computer vision has reached the stage when it's easy to identify a nude.

Re:How does Microsoft define what is 'explicit'? (3, Funny)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346097)

The easiest way is using the "keywords" META tag which I'm sure is used by most explicit sites to self-identify.

Except that goatse won't do that.

Re:How does Microsoft define what is 'explicit'? (1)

Aqualung812 (959532) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346577)

I doubt computer vision has reached the stage when it's easy to identify a nude.

I remember seeing a demo at COMDEX that was designed to do exactly that, in 2000. It did false on swimsuits, but not much else.

Re:How does Microsoft define what is 'explicit'? (1)

mcfatboy93 (1363705) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345975)

Anything without the words 'Microsoft', 'Windows', 'Vista', 'Office', 'insert any Microsoft product here'

way to go for marketing

Re:How does Microsoft define what is 'explicit'? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28346029)

Microsoft Smut Engineer. Wait, I think that's what they already call MS Office developers...

We need a certification program so people can call themselves Microsoft CERTIFIED Smut Engineer, or MCSE for short.

Re:How does Microsoft define what is 'explicit'? (1)

fotoguzzi (230256) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346111)

Try "pile driver."

Re:How does Microsoft define what is 'explicit'? (2, Interesting)

SolitaryMan (538416) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346193)

Well, laugh all you want, but where I work (our company does search.... kinda...) we have this position :) At least some sort of it.

Re:How does Microsoft define what is 'explicit'? (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346209)

Oh yes, they have worked out a cross-certification deal with /b/ residents, please expect official papers to arrive via certified post any day now.

One hell of a statement (3, Funny)

jw3 (99683) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345683)

"Microsoft is never done when it comes to providing tools to help customers, whether they are large enterprises, local school districts or parents" - Mike Nichols, general manager of Microsoft Bing.

Never done.
Yep, sounds informative.

j.

Re:One hell of a statement (1)

kj_kabaje (1241696) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346329)

Never done or always in beta,... that is the question. Probably the answer, too, since continual improvement (or so it's said) is a good thing.

Several uses (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28345691)

Anyone realise how easy this makes it for Governments/Institutions to protect you from thoughtcrime? I'd wager that is actually Microsofts main intended user, not individuals/concerned parents. Microsoft: the only halfway innovative technologies they ever come up with are tools of repression.

BadAnalogyGuy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28345693)

BadAnalogyGuy has gone to ground after being outed as a Scientologist.
But if he should contact you, offering a free personality test, firmly refuse him.

Re:BadAnalogyGuy (-1, Offtopic)

M8e (1008767) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345801)

BadAnalOrgyGuy?

Re:BadAnalogyGuy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28346081)

goatse?

Re:BadAnalogyGuy (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28345833)

BadAnalogyGuy has gone to ground after being outed as a Scientologist. But if he should contact you, offering a free personality test, firmly refuse him.

Thanks, but you don't have to worry. I have no personality.

Fear of MS Bob Hope *grips* Google (5, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345699)

Microsoft today heeded the lessons of technological history, taking the popular "preview porn videos in the search engine" feature and turning its Bob Hope search engine [today.com] into a porn finder at the address explicit.bobhope.microsoft.com.

"It worked for VHS over Beta, porn sites were leading innovators in online payments. It's a natural synergy," said Steve Ballmer, looking somewhat sweaty and flushed.

Porn sites are some of the keenest users of Microsoft technologies, using the undocumented interfaces in Internet Explorer to install helpful toolbars and bulk email tools on users' systems. "It's all about tools. Developers, developers, developers, developers!"

Windows 7 final will include a "boot straight into porn" mode. "We found that was what users really wanted in an operating system." It will include the Storm, Conficker and FBI botnets as standard. "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

Mr Ballmer promised that Microsoft will, as always, deliver. "Unlike porn sites, we don't just tease — we really will fuck you. Totally."

Re:Fear of MS Bob Hope *grips* Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28346013)

said Steve Ballmer, looking somewhat sweaty and flushed.

ahahahahhaha

good idea (4, Insightful)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345713)

I hate it when I type pretty much anything in for an image search in google and I end up with porn. Okay when I'm at home but when I'm at work ... not so cool.

Re:good idea (4, Informative)

SpinyNorman (33776) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345883)

This Bing change won't help with that.

I don't expect that the image or video results you get with Bing vs Google at any preferred level of "safe search" filtering are much different, and that's not going to change with this announcement.

All the Bing change does, rather belatedly, is stop overriding parental controls (Open DNS, Net Nanny, etc) that would block porn domains. What happens up until now is that Bing self-hosts all it's image/video thumbnails from it's own servers - porn included - and starts to play these thumbnail videos automatically - direct from Microsoft's servers - when you mouseover them. Since the videos are coming from a Microsoft domain rather than a porn domain, parental porn filters are bypassed.

All the Bing change does is to move Microsoft's porn video reviews from bing.com to microsofts-hard-core-porn-server.bing.com so that Open DNS, Net Nanny, etc can once again be used to block this stuff.

Re:good idea (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346011)

Interesting. I didn't know they hosted the content. When you maximize a video it seems to be a plugin from youtube or whatever. Is this only for the thumbnail view then?

Re:good idea (4, Informative)

SpinyNorman (33776) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346051)

Yep - this is just the thumbnails on the Bing search results page.

Re:good idea (4, Insightful)

pbhj (607776) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346213)

[...] Bing self-hosts all it's image/video thumbnails from it's own servers - porn included - and starts to play these thumbnail videos automatically - direct from Microsoft's servers - when you mouseover them. Since the videos are coming from a Microsoft domain rather than a porn domain, parental porn filters are bypassed.

All the Bing change does is to move Microsoft's porn video reviews from bing.com to microsofts-hard-core-porn-server.bing.com so that Open DNS, Net Nanny, etc can once again be used to block this stuff.

When are they going to be sued for copyright infringement then?

It can't be long now surely. Everyone go and search bing for RIAA managed songs on video. Perhaps we can get these snakes to simultaneously eat each other??!

Re:good idea (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346365)

Microsoft isn't a poor old lady with no chance to defend herself, so no.. they would not go after Microsoft.

I am still suprised that Microsoft hasnt gotten into the p2p file sharing arena. Its the sort of thing they could dominate rather easily via simple bundling, and I dont even think the RIAA would consider going after them. Just make it gnutella-like with no central tracker and winning against it will be quite difficult because of the deep pocket effect.

Re:good idea (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345935)

Rule 34 [xkcd.com]

That site now exists, and the content isn't half bad.

Re:good idea (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28346063)

Chances are that both your boss and your coworkers know that the internet is full of porn and you cannot always avoid it. Unless of course they are one of those "think of the children" hypocrites ...

Re:good idea (1)

digitalchinky (650880) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346219)

I'm not sure if this is a BOFH thing or just a plain old bastardly thing in general, but it is always worth a bit of a chuckle modifying the HR prudes search engine to display unfiltered content.

Re:good idea (1)

george929a (760601) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346289)

I hate it when I type pretty much anything in for an image search in google and I end up with porn. Okay when I'm at home but when I'm at work ... not so cool.

....then stop searching for "Big hard disks"....

Re:good idea (1)

dna_(c)(tm)(r) (618003) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346319)

I hate it when I type pretty much anything in for an image search in google and I end up with porn. Okay when I'm at home but when I'm at work ... not so cool.

My advice: spell check before you submit 'pretty much anal thing'. I've never had porn results whe searching for images on google yet...

Re:good idea (1)

nem75 (952737) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346415)

Probably stating the obvious, but Google's search has filter options for explicit content, too.

A nuclear blaster can point both ways (1)

janwedekind (778872) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345721)

I guess they found a much more lucrative application for parental controls.

I'm anal (and not in the fun way) so... (4, Insightful)

Starayo (989319) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345757)

Isn't that technically a subdomain?

Re:I'm anal (and not in the fun way) so... (5, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345789)

Well, in this context, in my experience more a domsubain... I mean, or so I heard.

(ok, it's lame, but this asked for a BDSM joke and I coudn't come up with a better one)

Re:I'm anal (and not in the fun way) so... (4, Funny)

n1hilist (997601) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346085)

With jokes like that, you must really be strapped for cash ;)

Re:I'm anal (and not in the fun way) so... (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346357)

I think you're just beating a dead horse.

Re:I'm anal (and not in the fun way) so... (2, Funny)

Schadrach (1042952) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346449)

Oh, god, horrible mental images. My brain just kind of fused the parent, GP, and GGP into one *thing* and got a dominatrix with a strap on making her sub beat off a dead horse. I need to go bleach my brain now.

Re:I'm anal (and not in the fun way) so... (4, Funny)

Barny (103770) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346221)

You think an MCSE could tell the difference?

PR Stroke of Genius! (5, Funny)

Necroloth (1512791) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345773)

What a way to get into the hearts and hands of millions of users worldwide! I think they'll be finding the usage of Bing shoot up dramatically but I'd like to see the comparison between normal Bing and xXx Bing!

Re:PR Stroke of Genius! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28345861)

Stroke? Into the hands? Shoot up? Did you mean to include so much innuendo in your post?

Re:PR Stroke of Genius! (4, Funny)

W33B (901545) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345865)

Absolutely!

When I first read about this yesterday my gut reaction was to immediatly go to bing and search for porn (after turning off the filtering of course)...

...and seeing as the speed of this thread is relatively slow for slashdot, i'm betting geeks around the world are doing the exact same thing.

Marketing Genius....long live the porn providers!!!

Re:PR Stroke of Genius! (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345947)

normal Bing and xXx Bing

Must be a Vin Diesel thing.

Google already came up with a better way (5, Informative)

tumbleweedsi (904869) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345775)

Google just make sure they let the filtering people know how to categorise the pages based on if Safesearch is on or off. On my filter I can choose to block google images entirely or just when safesearch is off and that works just fine without needing another domain name.

Re:Google already came up with a better way (0)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345891)

Define the word "better". It's not better, not worse. Google just came out with another way to do the same. You just happen to like it better. I think Bing's way is more optimal.

Re:Google already came up with a better way (4, Informative)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345909)

That works great for individual users. This is -not- meant for individuals. This is meant for companies, schools, etc. You can block that domain at your firewall/proxy/dns/whatever and make -sure- none of your users see it, no matter what settings they choose.

Re:Google already came up with a better way (2, Informative)

tumbleweedsi (904869) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345999)

Sorry, I wasn't being clear. My network proxy which I run on the network of an enterprise storage company allows me to block pages when safesearch is off. That means that the users can do whatever they like in google images but as soon as they turn off the safe search the results pages are blocked until they turn it back on. I know there are a lot of the "mom's basement" sorts around on slashdot but please don't assume I am one of them.

Re:Google already came up with a better way (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346311)

Wouldn't it just be easier to block access to a single hostname than all of that malarkey? It would fit in with every single web-filtering piece of software out of there.

Dingding, we have a winner (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28345993)

For given content access pathway X, define owner of X as a winner if X leads most easily to the highest quality porn.

A SEPARATE domain for obscene content... (1)

Klistvud (1574615) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346017)

... coming from the corporation with the most obscene business model in the IT industry? Doesn't that come across as just a tiny bit redundant? *[For those still unaware of Microsoft's obscenities, you just have to hop over to boycottnovell.com or groklaw.com]

Re:A SEPARATE domain for obscene content... (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346367)

You are obviously a sockpuppet of David Gerard.

Re:A SEPARATE domain for obscene content... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28346455)

I knew he was a fraud. I could tell because his wife looked like a woman, rather than a walrus with a red wig.

Surreal (3, Insightful)

berpi (1187131) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346023)

Who's got the explicitometer to decide which domain to place content in? Censorship is getting increasingly surreal.

As a net admin for a school.... (4, Informative)

jimbo-nally (655135) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346087)

I have to say that this is really nice. I just added explicit.bing.net to the list of filtered content in our SonicWall and then did an images search for breasts on bing.com with safe-search off and the images that displayed were not what I would consider porn. Many of the images, if not most, were not displayed. I will feel much better about allowing access to bing.com for our students now. Can't believe I'm saying this...but "Good job, Microsoft!"

Re:As a net admin for a school.... (0, Troll)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346165)

So, why exactly do you believe that seeing a breast is somehow something to be avoided? And why exactly do you believe that you must enforce your belief on others in the form of censorship?

Re:As a net admin for a school.... (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346227)

Fact is, its not up to him, its just his job to enforce the restrictions passed down to him by his employer.

Re:As a net admin for a school.... (1)

jimbo-nally (655135) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346263)

It has nothing to do with my beliefs. Here's why I do it: 1) I like having a job. 2) Part of my job is making sure we comply with CIPA http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.html [fcc.gov] 3) CIPA says we have to filter "obscene pictures" You, Janet Jackson and I may think breasts are not obscene, but I know there are people who do.

Re:As a net admin for a school.... (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346175)

I will feel much better about allowing access to bing.com for our students now.

It's interesting that your post is modded "funny". Evidentally many on slashdot that have read your post do not understand the terrible parent that school administrators have to deal with. If porn did get through, I could see your mug on a bunch of news sites... "school lets kids look at porn..." You have to clamp down, in your case, or parents would just eat you alive!

Re:As a net admin for a school.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28346197)

Why on earth would you ever block porn or nudity to students? Any male and even female above 11-12 years will be and should be enjoying porn and their bodies daily, that's just healthy. Blocking it makes it seem like a taboo and bad which is ridiculous and sounds like some extremist puritan country like the US of Analretentive Virgins.

A better idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28346107)

I think they should rename the domain boing.bing.com then let users search only that domain.

how to block adult web sites (2, Interesting)

viralMeme (1461143) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346133)

how to block adult web sites [opendns.com] , the non Microsoft way. Of course this doesn't deserve a whole article on slashdot .. :)

Hands Up (above the table) (1)

Necroloth (1512791) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346153)

So quick vote for how many clicked on the link in the summary thinking it was a link to xXx Bing? And I assume those that don't reply merely have sticky fingers... /hands up

somebody (1)

kampangptlk (1252914) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346161)

please make a firefox search plugin for explicit bing please.

They gave it the wrong name!! (5, Funny)

ItaliaMatt (581886) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346185)

Instead of explicit.bing.com it should have been bada.bing.com

Re:They gave it the wrong name!! (1)

achbed (97139) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346459)

Oh, if I was quicker (or had mod points)....

Re:They gave it the wrong name!! (1)

StormReaver (59959) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346545)

> Instead of explicit.bing.com it should have been bada.bing.com

Or shark.chandler.bing.com

There goes .... (1)

Sem_D_D (175107) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346195)

an obligatory statement about the murky distinction between the "bing" for your "bang" coming in 3, 2, 1 ....

Re:There goes .... (1)

Vozmozno (985521) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346573)

no, it doesn't.

da bing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28346407)

Did anyone ask how Tony Soprano felt about this?

Schwing? (1)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346509)

Got nothin'

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>