Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

247 comments

Thats more porn... (5, Funny)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594448)

Thats more porn then you can shake a fist at...

Re:Thats more porn... (5, Funny)

paeanblack (191171) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594480)

I'm sure somebody has tried to get a grip on it.

Re:Thats more porn... (3, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594568)

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more porn will slip through your fingers!"

Re:Thats more porn... (5, Funny)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594616)

As Michael J. Fox one said 'You can yell at it, curse it, smack it around... but that only encourages it..'

Re:Thats more porn... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594674)

Oh I've tried, but it blew my mind.

Re:Thats more porn... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32594730)

It's time for me to take matters into my own hands.

Re:Thats more porn... (4, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594724)

You really have to wonder though, if that market can be oversaturated. After all, porn changes the least over time so if there's already 100GB+ or 1TB+ of whatever fetish rocks your boat on the market, how much room is there for yet another standard flick with quite "standard" girls - for porn anyways?

I guess there'll always be the Jenna Jamesons but most of that market I think will disappear. At least here in Norway the two major production companies have folded, there's just not enough money in it. Porn is definitively a race to the bottom (pun intended).

Re:Thats more porn... (4, Insightful)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594796)

To be honest, I doubt the market can truly be over saturated. It like books, movies and music, no matter how many are made, someone will always be willing to buy more. As for those production companies that have folded, I've heard of this issue and the big issue seems to be that too many people are making their own 'home-made porno' which is flooding the market with too easy 'cheap/free' porn.

Re:Thats more porn... (4, Funny)

quantumplacet (1195335) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594956)

Regrettably, it’s true. Standards have fallen in adult entertainment. It’s video, Dude. Now that we’re competing with the amateurs, we can’t afford to invest that little extra in story, production value, feeling.

Of course, you do get the good with the bad. The new technology permits us to do exciting things with interactive erotic software. Wave of the future, Dude. 100% electronic.

Re:Thats more porn... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32595164)

I just wish they wouldn't try to outdo each other by making porn more extreme and less erotic in the process. Please stop the gross spitting and choking that seems to have taken over. That is about as sexy as a day at Gitmo.

Re:Thats more porn... (0)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32595176)

Standards have fallen in adult entertainment.

All we need is someone to write some amazing porn story... like Orgazmo. [imdb.com]

Re:Thats more porn... (4, Insightful)

thrawn_aj (1073100) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594984)

Indeed. Of course, I find it amusing that big porno companies are decrying this "loss of quality" in the field, as if they were actual artists. To them I can only say - drop the delusions of grandeur if you want to survive today's market and give the people what they want - that's literally your only function (indulging the will of your consumers). There are no connoisseurs to grant you protective patronage nor any sympathy to be had from a society that detests you in public (while using you quite shamelessly in private). Sad but that's how it is.

Re:Thats more porn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32595028)

And none of them are pix of the hot babes I see around my neighborhood.

Re:Thats more porn... (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 4 years ago | (#32595320)

You really have to wonder though, if that market can be oversaturated. After all, porn changes the least over time so if there's already 100GB+ or 1TB+ of whatever fetish rocks your boat on the market, how much room is there for yet another standard flick with quite "standard" girls - for porn anyways?

You can apply virtually the same arguments to books, films and music. The point here is that as the world and culture changes, the products in that culture must also change in order to stay accepted and contemporary. In other words, most people nowadays probably wouldn't find 80's porn stars so much arousing as amusing.

Very few works break this trend, though some can. Mathematical texts for example are usually quite timeless, with works like Euclid's elements surviving untouched to the present day. The same goes for religious texts like the Bible.

And so I nominate my own post on Pornography, Mathematical and the Bible in the "Most unlikely argument" category in next Slashdotted awards.

Re:Thats more porn... (1)

DJLuc1d (1010987) | more than 4 years ago | (#32595576)

Get with the times man!

I guess there'll always be the Lexi Belles but most of that market I think will disappear.

Fixed that for you

Re:Thats more porn... (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594804)

It is really in your face.

How stupid. (4, Interesting)

click2005 (921437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594460)

FTFA... Web sites that contain violence have grown by 10.8 per cent, terrorism content by 8.5 per cent, and illegal drugs purchase by 6.8 per cent, and are continuing to grow, according to to the study, although it failed to define what it means by these terms.

So a gaming site mentioning GTA4 could be counted as violence, drugs & porn.

Rotta reckons, "There is a growing trend for online role-playing games to encourage negative behaviour, by rewarding violent and brutal activities within the online games."

Yes because Crocheting & Knitting RPGs would sell so well.

Internet shopping pages have increased by nine per cent this year, but Rotta managed not to find this worrying. What might kids be buying? Has she thought of that?

She finds shopping sites worrying? Dont most of them still require a credit card for payment?

according to a new study published by Optenet, a SaaS provider which delivers "on-premise" security.

So they will sell you software to protect you from teh interwebs?

Now I just need software to protect me from bullshit slashvertisments posing as articles.

Re:How stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32594516)

Internet shopping pages have increased by nine per cent this year, but Rotta managed not to find this worrying. What might kids be buying? Has she thought of that?

She finds shopping sites worrying? Dont most of them still require a credit card for payment?

Try reading that again. Optenet did not find the shopping site's worrying, and the "What might kids be buying" was a lame sarcastic joke added by thinq.

Re:How stupid. (4, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594604)

>Yes because Crocheting & Knitting RPGs would sell so well.

There is one!!! ZOMG!!1! Gimme the link! At last I can use my +3 Knitting Needles Of Purling!

What's the story like? I'll bet that RPG spins quite a yarn!

Re:How stupid. (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594834)

So a gaming site mentioning GTA4 could be counted as violence, drugs & porn.

Yes. It could.

That game is violent, glorifies drugs, and treats women as prostitutes fit only to be murdered and robbed.

You may not need "protecting" from that, but your apparent attitude that it is not what it is could be a result of your having been propagandized by it.

Re:How stupid. (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594988)

It simulates violence, and those aren’t really women, they’re bits and bytes.

Re:How stupid. (0)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32595108)

Every incident of violence you have ever observed was "simulated" by your retina and optic cortex.

And whether those are polygonal avatars of women or actual women in polygonal costumes doesn't matter. It's propagandizing you into believing it's okay to do that in a video game. Whether you have the mental feature set installed to keep you from mistaking the simulation for actual behavior, or the moral feature set to keep you from thinking it's how you should behave towards real women, isn't really relevant. The desensitization is there.

Re:How stupid. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32595194)

Umm... no?

It treats the prostitutes as prostitutes, who -can- be murdered, robbed, or slept with, because freedom is the entire theme of the game.

It treats random woemn on the street as random women on the street. You can murder and rob them if you want to, but there's no unique incentive for it. They dress nicely. They talk to each other about their likes and dislikes. They have places to go. They dress differently in different areas. It's a rich, complex, and -satirical- simulation of a large city.

The two women who feature prominently in the plot of the game or almost entirely supportive of the player character and his cousin (who deserves less).

The player can write emails to his momma telling her how things are going. They always leave out the gritty details, because, as I think Russell Crowe said, "even bad men love their mommas". I'd say it's the second best game ever made, after Fallout 3.

Re:How stupid. (5, Funny)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594870)

Yes because Crocheting & Knitting RPGs would sell so well.

Bitches don't know about my cross-stitch porn.

--
BMO

Re:How stupid. (1)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 4 years ago | (#32595056)

Rotta reckons, "There is a growing trend for online role-playing games to encourage negative behaviour, by rewarding violent and brutal activities within the online games."

Yes because Crocheting & Knitting RPGs would sell so well.

Have you never heard of Farmville? I'd say that with the right positioning, a virtual knitting game might be - well - no less unlikely than a virtual farming one.

Re:How stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32595218)

Internet shopping pages have increased by nine per cent this year, but Rotta managed not to find this worrying. What might kids be buying? Has she thought of that?

She finds shopping sites worrying?

No, she doesn't.

37%? (5, Funny)

hoboroadie (1726896) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594464)

I clearly need to spend more time surfing the web.

Rule 34 (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32594466)

Applying Rule 34 in reverse, one could say that all of the internet is pornographic. I mean, there's got to be someone who gets off reading papers on arXiv, right?

Re:Rule 34 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32594610)

I DO!

Re:Rule 34 (1)

dieth (951868) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594710)

Don't tell the aussies, they'll filter the ENTIRE internets!

You Lie! (1)

DaveRexel (887813) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594470)

it's 100% if you count the fans ;-)

And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32594472)

...the other two thirds are lying.

Only 1/3 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32594490)

That's shocking!

Anonymous Coward (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32594492)

The Internet is for porn.

Correction: 37% is NUDITY (4, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594500)

A lot of sites are nothing more than naked bodies. I'd estimate only about ~20% are actual porn (sex).

I wish people would stop confusing the two, because they are not the same.

Re:Correction: 37% is NUDITY (4, Funny)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594578)

I'd estimate only about ~20% are actual porn (sex).

You also have to remember the difference between porn and erotica, the differences being of course the lighting.

Re:Correction: 37% is NUDITY (4, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32595114)

You also have to remember the difference between porn and erotica, the differences being of course the lighting.

I thought that porn is naked, whereas erotica is nude.

Re:Correction: 37% is NUDITY (2, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32595596)

>>>porn and erotica

I don't see any difference. If there's a real or fake dick being inserted in a hole, or a pussy being licked, then it's sex and qualifies as "porn" for me. i.e. Not something I'd show children under age 13.

On the other hand nudity is just that - a body without clothes. Lots of cultures think nudity is acceptable, and a photo of that nudity is not "porn" (or evil as some Puritan-americans claim). I don't care if my kid sees it.

Re:Correction: 37% is NUDITY (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594682)

thanks for defining pornography for the world~

Re:Correction: 37% is NUDITY (0, Flamebait)

xoundmind (932373) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594740)

Start posting photos of children and you'll quickly find out that there is not a difference.

Re:Correction: 37% is NUDITY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32594904)

Variety's the spice of life. I like a wide selection. Sometimes I'm in the mood for nasty close-ups, sometimes I like them arty and air-brushed. Sometimes it's a spread brown-eye kind of night, sometimes it's girl-on-girl time. Sometimes a steamy letter will do it, sometimes -- not often, but sometimes -- I like the idea of a chick with a horse. --Banky Edwards

Re:Correction: 37% is NUDITY (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#32595100)

I highly, HIGHLY doubt that almost half of the nudity online is non-erotic. I think your estimates are whack. Nudity as art or lifestyle or what-have-you probably accounts for 5% or or less of that figure, not ~17%.

Re:Correction: 37% is NUDITY (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32595192)

What difference does it make anyway?

Personally as long as i find the content i need, i don't care what else is there.

Re:Correction: 37% is NUDITY (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32595362)

Jon Stewart's "America" notes that Justice Potter Stewart said "I shall not today attempt further to define... [hard-core pornography];. But I know it when I see it..." Later, he settled on the more descriptive "That which gives me wood."*

So I guess we'd have to dig up Potter Stewart to decide if your definition is right or wrong.

* pretty sure JS made that last part up though.

I Don't Believe It (1)

Favonius Cornelius (1691688) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594506)

I doubt this is true honestly. I wonder how this figure was come to. Does a one page web page count as one count, right next to expansive wikipedia? That would be misleading.

Re:I Don't Believe It (1)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594638)

Trust me, you'll believe it when you see it...

Unfortunately 90% of them are TGP driver sites (2, Interesting)

Vekseid (1528215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594522)

Always frustrating to see them littering all over the place.

Glad for the RPG mention though. Good to know I'm part of what's corrupting America.

Re:Unfortunately 90% of them are TGP driver sites (2, Funny)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#32595144)

Unfortunately? TGPs kick ass. How else could I quickly become acquainted enough with pornstars/producers that I like so that I can find torrents of them? Forums I suppose... but IDK... porn forums are kind of creepy. Oh LOL... I just noticed your sig.

That's All? (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594556)

Was I the only one surprised at how low 37% seems?

Re:That's All? (5, Funny)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594588)

Was I the only one surprised at how low 37% seems?

Lower still when you consider your mom accounts for half of that (or two-thirds by mass...)

Re:That's All? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32594594)

They must be measuring by domain names, not bandwidth usage or content size.
There's only 37% porn, but it's probably 70%+ by weight.

Remember that 107% of statistics on the Internet are made up.

Yes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32594816)

Was I the only one

Yep. You are all alone in your surprise, because you are that unique.

I might even go so far as to say that brilliant, since only someone of your supreme intellect and education could produce estimates on this topic with greater accuracy than this study, and with resultant numbers that are staggeringly different.

You truly are a rare specimen adrift in an ocean of conformist mediocrity. My hat is off to you, sir.

Re:That's All? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594972)

Nope. At least 66% of my thoughts are pornographic. I'm a little disturbed that I'm raunchier than the internet.

Re:That's All? (1)

kdogg73 (771674) | more than 4 years ago | (#32595214)

I'll play troll and make this political. And people were outraged because Steve Jobs won't perpetuate it on the App Store. I mean it's like he depriving his clients! Steve knows the porn industry doesn't need his help. Wow, a third. That is a lot of porn.

New controversy: Google leading porn industry. (1)

BlueKitties (1541613) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594584)

Google now processes hundreds of thousands of Gigabytes of pornography per day. Each second, Google processes more porn than you have on your flash drive, iPhone, and desktop combined.

Re:New controversy: Google leading porn industry. (1)

AxemRed (755470) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594774)

Each second, Google processes more porn than you have on your flash drive, iPhone, and desktop combined.

Want to bet?

Re:New controversy: Google leading porn industry. (5, Informative)

BlueKitties (1541613) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594814)

Well, ever since I learned google images has a "find similar images" feature, I have been using it as a sort of cloud-porn-computing system. And google videos is nice too... google is my GOTO porn site these days.

Re:New controversy: Google leading porn industry. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32594872)

Ok, now I have to try that feature in Google Images.

Strictly for scientific purposes you understand ...

Re:New controversy: Google leading porn industry. (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#32595210)

Mod parent informative...

I'm glad we have this new technology.. (5, Funny)

greywire (78262) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594606)

FOR PORN!

Ooops, sorry..

Re:I'm glad we have this new technology.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32595024)

You forgot the reference [youtube.com] . (Warning: Semi not suitable for work!)

Re:I'm glad we have this new technology.. (2, Funny)

BlueKitties (1541613) | more than 4 years ago | (#32595364)

i can has porn? No, i cant has porn but DROID DOES.

Wait... (3, Interesting)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594608)

Does this [victoriassecret.com] count as a "porn site"?

An brand new algorithm to classify terrorism? (1)

zill (1690130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594646)

Web sites that contain violence have grown by 10.8 per cent, terrorism content by 8.5 per cent,

Let me guess, they just classified every web-page containing Arabic characters to be "terrorism content", didn't they?

Re:An brand new algorithm to classify terrorism? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594696)

yep, those pesky Arab Numerals.

Re:An brand new algorithm to classify terrorism? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594938)

Amusingly enough, Arabic numerals (0123456789) aren’t used in Arabic-language writing. These [wikipedia.org] are.

Slightly offtopic, I realise, but what on Idle isn’t?

Re:An brand new algorithm to classify terrorism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32595450)

Actually...

It depends on where you are in the Arab world.

In Mediterranean countries, you'll see Western-style numbers. (and some Eastern Arabic numbers.)

Only as you travel further east do you only see Eastern Arabic numbers.

Re:An brand new algorithm to classify terrorism? (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 4 years ago | (#32595570)

I thought it interesting that the Eastern Arabic character for eight is the same as the Japanese character.

Re:An brand new algorithm to classify terrorism? (1)

jbezorg (1263978) | more than 4 years ago | (#32595528)

Agreed. "terrorism content" is such a broad term. I wonder if, for instance, an exiled North Korean citizen blogging about the overthrow of the North Korean Government would fall into "terrorism content"?

But it does make good "frighten the masses" material. I suspect some politician will be citing "a recent study". Complete with unorthodox rounding....

"40% of the internet is porn and 10% is linked to terrorism!!!!!! We need to control this!!!!!"

And later in the campaign...

"Half! I'll repeat. Half of the internet is porn and almost a quarter of it is linked to terrorism!!!!!! We need to control this!!!!!"

And even later in the campaign...

"90% of the internet is porn and linked to terrorism!!!!!! OMG!!! Think of the children!!! We need to control this!!!!!"

Dr Cox quote (Scrubs) (4, Funny)

amstrad (60839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594648)

Dr Cox: I'm fairly sure that if they took all the porn off the Internet, there'd only be one website left, and it would be called bring-back-the-porn.com

no content (3, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594652)

There is no content in this article, just a statement of random unsubstantiated statistics.

And what if the random trivia is true? What if half the internet is for adults? Aren't half the people in the world adults? Why should they not have a representative portion of the internet? So we have to sanitize the world for the developmentally challenged that have never seen a real vagina or penis.

And then, what is pornographic? If I write a story with a plot and gratuitous sex scene is that pornographic? We want definitions.

This is just a useless piece of fluff intended to make people who aren't getting laid mess in their pants. Oh, think of the kids. Oh, Oh, the kids. We have to protect, the Oh, kids.

We already know that 99.99999% of the interent has no useful content. Yahoo is evidently becoming the ultimate porn site by advertising it is the place of entertainment news. Pretty soon the only safe place to be will be /. Even XKCD can't be trusted. Fuck.

Re:no content (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594822)

Oh, think of the kids. Oh, Oh, the kids. We have to protect, the Oh, kids.

fap fap fap ... yes, go on...

Re:no content (1)

DogPhilosopher (1149275) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594982)

| There is no content in this article, just a statement of random unsubstantiated statistics.

Yes, the good people of Optenet pulled these numbers out of their ass. I know because I saw the video on gmilfspullingthingsoutoftheirass.com

63% of the internet is useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32594656)

A better title for slashdot readers.. 63% of the internet is useless

That little? (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594658)

I'm both surprised and feeling more hope for humanity.

Slashdot (1)

d4nowar (941785) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594662)

News for nerds. Stuff that matters.

Ohh and how it matters.

"child protection projects at Optenet" (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32594680)

"Ana Luisa Rotta, director of child protection projects at Optenet"

So they have a commercial interest in this topic and to make things even worse, they claim to be "child protection"... those are the worst. I don't trust this study or them at all.

Let me fix that summary for you (3, Insightful)

rundgong (1575963) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594758)

According to the report, which probably looked at a well chosen sample of around four million extracted URLs, adult content on the Internet increased by 17% in the first quarter of 2010, as compared to the same period in 2009."

When someone tries to sell you software to protect you from the evil porn that you might accidentally see on the internet, I'm not sure I'm gonna believe their claims of how much porn there is.

Te distinction should be made: (2, Insightful)

amanicdroid (1822516) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594766)

How much of that is malware disguised as porn?

That may be true, but... (1)

Conchobair (1648793) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594776)

I read the internet for the articles.

All growing and no shrinking (1)

dustin_0099 (877013) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594812)

For "Web sites that contain violence have grown by 10.8 per cent, terrorism content by 8.5 per cent, and illegal drugs purchase by 6.8 per cent".

Does that mean all web sites are converting to terrorist web pages selling porn and drugs?

That seems a little low (1)

tylersoze (789256) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594828)

*Only* 37%?

Re:That seems a little low (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32595128)

37?!?!

Try not to suck any dick on your way to the parking lot! ... Hey, get back here!

More than that according to Joyce (4, Interesting)

fyoder (857358) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594864)

James Joyce defined pornographic art as art created with the intention of inspiring desire to possess the object. By this definition, advertising art is pornographic [starvingartistguide.com] , and there's no shortage of that on the web! Perhaps a third of the content on the web isn't pornographic.

Who cares about #'s we need solutions (2, Informative)

Orga (1720130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594866)

This is dire news indeed. I wish the article has discussed possible solutions to the lack of porn found on the internet

Awesome. (3, Informative)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594868)

Awesome, that means we only have 2/3rds left to go!

That's it?! (1)

RLU486983 (1792220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594952)

They say this as if it were a bad thing; /me continues cataloging the internet.....

Re:That's it?! (1)

AthleteMusicianNerd (1633805) | more than 4 years ago | (#32595134)

You fucker, you took my line!!! :P I thought that's what the internet was for.

What about traffic? (5, Interesting)

sirrunsalot (1575073) | more than 4 years ago | (#32594986)

The interesting question, if you ask me, is how much traffic is devoted to porn. This is the result of a survey of four million URLs, but I could set up thousands of sites about pomegranates if I wanted, and it wouldn't have much to do with interest in pomegranates. (Don't ask why pomegranates. I just thought a pomegranate sounded good right now. Too much darn work though.) I suppose in large volume the quantity correlates with the size of the industry, but that still doesn't take into account the number of sites required to meet the needs of the people. Other people, that is, am I right?

As a wise man once said (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32595010)

and I quote :

"The internet is for porn"

Sad (1)

X10 (186866) | more than 4 years ago | (#32595052)

37%? What does that tell you about the average marriage?

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32595102)

The internet is for porn. Avenue Q told me so.

At first I thought, "no way" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32595152)

At first I thought, "no way", but then I considered that they were saying web pages, not web domains. No doubt, any single porn website might have thousands of individual pages, whereas most websites only have a few dozen. So yeah, I could see 37%.

Explained (1)

the_hellspawn (908071) | more than 4 years ago | (#32595208)

"...adult content on the Internet increased by 17% in the first quarter of 2010, as compared to the same period in 2009." can be explained by the global recession and people looking to keep paying the bills. It will drop off once the recession is over.

Baseless guessing? (1)

Kenoli (934612) | more than 4 years ago | (#32595236)

Pornography makes up 37 per cent of the total number of Web pages online

According to the report, which looked at a representative sample of around four million extracted URLs ...

So they used sheer number of URLs to make up shit about the overall composition of content on the internet?
Retarded.

Besides URLs being a poor indicator of amount/accessibility of content, they didn't even draw any conclusions.
If it turned out that 1% of sites were porn, or that 99% of sites were porn, there would have been no difference in the article.
It's just "Yep, porn exists. Maybe you should think about security! *WINK WINK*" -security provider

Netcraft (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 4 years ago | (#32595240)

Has anyone asked Netcraft if 2010 will be the year of the porn desktop?

But.. (1)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 4 years ago | (#32595318)

MUCH of this porn is being made by pretty good looking women with utterly no self respect and clearly no standards insofar as that goes.

My question is then: why don't I *ever* sit next to them on the plane/bus/park bench?

Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32595394)

That little?
By who's definition?
And I missed it... *sigh*

Need better FILTERS (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 4 years ago | (#32595396)

This statistic really underlines the need for better filtering software. If 1/3 of the internet is porn, that is fully 2/3 of most people's time that is wasted on news, technology, sports statistics and the like. We really need a reliable filtering algorithm that will allow us to filter out that useless 2/3rds.

At least it's something (2, Funny)

minstrelmike (1602771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32595442)

Therefore, only 2/3rds of the internet is a compleat waste of time.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...