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!

Yahoo Censors Tumblr Porn

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the some-people-reportedly-surprised dept.

Yahoo! 216

coolnumbr12 writes "When Yahoo purchased Tumblr in May, Tumblr founder David Karp said Tumblr wouldn't be changing, and Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer said, 'Part of our strategy here is to let Tumblr be Tumblr.' But a new search policy went into effect Thursday that excludes all adult blogs from Google, Bing, Yahoo and other search engines by disabling indexing of anything it tags as 'adult.' The policy effectively makes the content and 10 percent of Tumblr users completely invisible."

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

Not really... (-1, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#44329933)

A new search policy went into effect Thursday that excludes all adult blogs from Google, Bing, Yahoo and other search engines by disabling indexing of anything it tags as "adult." ... The policy effectively makes the content and 10 percent of Tumblr users completely invisible.

Only if you're one of the 10 people that use Yahoo to search the Intertubes...

Re:Not really... (5, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#44329955)

I think the point is that they're not allowing spiders to crawl pornographic tumblrs. That affects everyone who uses a search engine that respects robots.txt.

Re:Not really... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44330075)

it's sort of a half assed stance on the issue though.
pretty stupid too.

OOH NOW I GET IT! they're funding another search engine of their own that ignores robots.txt and will kill google off with that!

(seriously, that could be the only way googles search dominance will be beat).

Re:Not really... (-1, Troll)

noh8rz9 (2716595) | about a year ago | (#44331087)

good. i hate porn and people who look at porn.

Re:Not really... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44331199)

We hate you back

give duh people wut dey want! (3, Funny)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year ago | (#44331221)

Fine! I'm gonna go build my own image microblog, with blackjack and hookers!

Probably should make it distributed and censorship-resistant by design.
I propose this new site be named bendr!

Re:Not really... (4, Interesting)

ron_ivi (607351) | about a year ago | (#44330089)

Someone should make a search engine that *only* indexes the stuff that robots.txt suggests against.

I imagine a lot more interesting content is on that part of the network.

Re:Not really... (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#44330147)

That was really to stop two robots at either end fighting, forcing links to auto-generated pages to be instantiated, repeat ad infinitum. It wasn't really a censorship tool.

Re:Not really... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330379)

my robots.txt contains one item which doesn't exist.
If you try to access that item your IP is added to the firewall drop list. (until the next reboot)

I don't even have much hosted, just some pictures I don't want to give to flikr.

Re:Not really... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330417)

Not exactly hard to detect and bypass that. Just need 2 IPs.

Re:Not really... (2)

localman57 (1340533) | about a year ago | (#44330451)

Yeah, but how do you know it's a honeypot, and not just a normal 404 situation? If you start excluding every site on the internet that has missing pages in one of its indexes, you aren't going to have a very good data set.

Re:Not really... (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#44330493)

That could be interpreted as unauthorized access under the CFAA.

Re:Not really... (1)

slartibartfastatp (613727) | about a year ago | (#44330875)

This

Slashdot is unusable without noscript.

is a really old signature, isn't it?

Re:Not really... (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#44330943)

Yes, I don't change my sig often. I whitelisted slashdot in noscript, with the classic discussion system it's a lot better than it was when I wrote that. I will edit my sig, thanks.

Re:Not really... (2, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#44330959)

Someone should make a search engine that *only* indexes the stuff that robots.txt suggests against.

I imagine a lot more interesting content is on that part of the network.

Yep. I want "Unsafe search" as an option for my search results - filter out all the mundane crap.

Re:Not really... (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#44330991)

Someone should make a search engine that *only* indexes the stuff that robots.txt suggests against.

Those entries aren't "suggestions" - they are instructions I want search engine spiders to unquestionably follow.

Re:Not really... (5, Insightful)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#44330443)

point is that they're not allowing spiders to crawl

No, that's tangential. The point is people have made different types of information publicly available, using a private service, and now that information is being effectively taken offline with no recourse. The content is content tagged as "NSFW" or "Adult" which could affect educational content, or content not approrpriate for minors -- which isn't always porn.

This is really falls into the broader category of censoring information which was previously publicly available. FTFA that's about 12 million sites apparently

Re:Not really... (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year ago | (#44330999)

well said

Re:Not really... (0)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about a year ago | (#44329993)

"When Yahoo purchased Tumblr in May, Tumblr founder David Karp said Tumblr wouldn't be changing, and Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer said, 'Part of our strategy here is to let Tumblr be Tumblr.'

And Tumblr hasn't changed.
Yahoo's search index changed (if anyone actually uses it).

Why is this story worth babbling about? It's not news for nerds, and certainly not stuff that matters.

Re:Not really... (5, Insightful)

Urban Garlic (447282) | about a year ago | (#44330163)

Not only Yahoo's index, they're blocking indexing for Google and Bing also. Presumably via robots.txt or similar.

Re:Not really... (5, Informative)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | about a year ago | (#44330509)

And, they are stipping the tags from those sites as well so that in internal search will not show those sites either. You have to either see their content through a reblog or if you're following them.

Re:Not really... (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about a year ago | (#44330969)

You have to either see their content through a reblog or if you're following them.

A new use for magnet links, perhaps?

Re: Not really... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330729)

Ok maybe not to you, but Porn do matters. Specifically to nerds with poor social life skills. Regardless of sexual orientation.

Re:Not really... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330043)

More like 95% of Tumblr. Not reason to use it anymore....

Re:Not really... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330507)

If only. Tumblr is incredibly awful in its design and execution, and it would be a blessing if it caused its users to flock to a better services, ideally leaving behind the social 'justice' thugs.

Re:Not really... (1)

Flozzin (626330) | about a year ago | (#44330159)

The summary fails. Not a big surprise, FTFA.

"Now, around 12 million Tumblr blogs marked "adult" have been removed from Tumblr's internal search; "

Re:Not really... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44331161)

I've never used Tumblr, but it sounds like they are saying that people with blogs marked 'adult' should mark their blogs as 'unicorns and puppys' so that they get indexed again?

Re: Not really... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330435)

Not only did you not read TFA, you didn't read TFS.

Unsearchable != Censored (0, Flamebait)

SQLGuru (980662) | about a year ago | (#44329939)

They didn't censor the content.....the just made it harder to find. Sensational headline.

Re:Unsearchable != Censored (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330003)

It's like if I took something of yours that I didn't like, and welded into a box, then buried it in concrete. It's not as if I was censoring or stealing from you, right?

Re:Unsearchable != Censored (1)

The End Of Days (1243248) | about a year ago | (#44330393)

You're not too good at that whole "analogy" thing, huh?

Re:Unsearchable != Censored (4, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#44331041)

Be fair - it's hard to think up cogent analogies for other situations when you're inside a welded box that's been encased in concrete.

I'm surprised he's got any Internet access in there at all, frankly. I'll have to figure out how that happened before the next time.

Re:Unsearchable != Censored (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#44330005)

Isn't the result the same? Whether you take it down or hide it, people who want it can't find it.

Re:Unsearchable != Censored (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330173)

Speak for yourself. I got 'em bookmarked.

Re:Unsearchable != Censored (3, Insightful)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | about a year ago | (#44330365)

Host $5 website. Post redirect to tumblr. Let google index your $5 website.

Google Penalizes most redirects (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330647)

You need to be able to do a 301 redirect rather than a $5 website meta redirect. And when you redirect to tumblr, it's going to hit the same robots.txt you would normally.

Re:Unsearchable != Censored (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44331075)

Would a hyperlink suffice? Do search engine spiders parse robots.txt when they arrive at a page from an external link?

Re:Unsearchable != Censored (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44330007)

They didn't censor the content.....the just made it harder to find. Sensational headline.

yea.. so now you have to find some other blog that indexes them!

Re:Unsearchable != Censored (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330131)

Three words:

Free speech zone

Re:Unsearchable != Censored (3, Insightful)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#44330369)

Your three words are meaningless. Coprorations can't censor speach (at least in this context, what actually goes on in Washington is another matter). Claiming free speach rights within the context of a private enterprise is like claiming that your free speach rights are being infringed if I throw you out of my house after you've broken in holding a megaphone. Its astounding to me how few people understand that the 1st amendment is a contraint on GOVERNMENT, not a general use wrench you can hit anyone over the head with.

Re:Unsearchable != Censored (3, Insightful)

diamondmagic (877411) | about a year ago | (#44330593)

Free speech is the right that no coercive force will be used to stop speech. It mostly applies to government, but could apply to anyone being physically threatened for what they say.

Censorship, as is commonly used, isn't limited to free speech, but also in instances where there was an implied liberty to speak one's mind. If a television show bleeps someone out, that's called "censorship". If a library removes a book over interest group pressure, that's "censorship". If a newspaper fires a columnist for something they wrote, that's "censorship" (if said newspaper refuses to print someone's letter to the editor, though, that's distinctly not censorship).

And if Tumblr is changing their policy to restrict more forms of speech, that would be censorship.

Re: Unsearchable != Censored (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330643)

Try doing your research using "speech" rather than "speach" next time. You'll get better information about how things in the Constitution apply to everyone, not just the government.

Re: Unsearchable != Censored (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44331203)

What do you expect from someone who's been listening to the same Julio "Iglecias" track since 2002?

State-enforced curation and censorship (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44330751)

If a corporation with market power [wikipedia.org] over a particular medium uses a government-granted power to curate speech, is that censorship? For example, Apple and the game console makers curate their devices' respective stores, and they enforce this through anticircumvention provisions of copyright law.

Re:Unsearchable != Censored (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330971)

Your three words are meaningless.

No they aren't. OP claimed (or rather, implied) that it is only censorship if access is completely blocked. I provided an example of censorship that did not involve complete blocking of access. It doesn't matter that in my example, it is the government doing the action, because who is doing the action was never a part of OP's claim for what qualifies as censorship.

Its astounding to me how few people understand that the 1st amendment is a contraint on GOVERNMENT

Likewise it is astounding to me how many people fail to understand that just because someone talks about the concept of free speech, doesn't mean they're talking about the 1st amendment.

Re:Unsearchable != Censored (0, Redundant)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#44330311)

Mayer can run Yahoo how ever she wants, its not like the first time a huge coporate entity made untrue statements about how they'd be moving forward. Plus, its porn. Waste of web space in my opinion. This is hardly big news.

Re:Unsearchable != Censored (5, Insightful)

hazah (807503) | about a year ago | (#44330745)

Plus, it's porn.

To be classified as porn, two opinions have to be met: provokes a sexual response, and has no artistic merit.

Given that people have rather elaborate sexual fetishes, the first part can be (and is) used to classify practically any type of content as porn by at least someone. Not to mention that some people get a hardon from leather boots -- ergo leather boots are pornography? The second aspect is grossly subjective as well, as some people find art in the arrangement of trashcan contents.

Because of this, what get's classified as porn by one individual may not be classified as such by another. Strictly speaking, it becomes a scenario of "you can't look for this because I said so". Well, excuse me, but... I've outgrown the need for parenting on that level. We're basically all adults (or on the way of becoming one), and the world is ran by adults for adults. Subjecting all of us to childlike treatment is an insult.

Re:Unsearchable != Censored (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#44330843)

To be classified as porn, two opinions have to be met: provokes a sexual response, and has no artistic merit.

Who says? Because that really sounds like the legal definition of obscenity according to the ruling in Miller v California:

The Miller test for obscenity includes the following criteria: (1) whether âthe average person, applying contemporary community standardsâ(TM) would find that the work, âtaken as a whole,â(TM) appeals to âprurient interestâ(TM) (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (3) whether the work, âtaken as a whole,â(TM) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obscenity [cornell.edu]

Sympathy? (0)

bhlowe (1803290) | about a year ago | (#44329971)

boo hoo?

Re:Sympathy? (1)

hazah (807503) | about a year ago | (#44330767)

Hey, if you like being treated like a retarded child that cannot decide this for himself for no apparent reason, sure... no sympathy necessary for you.

whew (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330069)

Good thing I have already found my favorite Tumblr, Short Shorts Obsession [tumblr.com] .

Re: whew (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330629)

Those shorts only look like short shorts because of the massive girth of the asses they are stretched around and wedged into.

Ten percent? My ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330091)

Unintended consequence - "adult" tag gets dropped

Re:Ten percent? My ass (5, Informative)

Dwarfgoat (472356) | about a year ago | (#44330477)

It's not just blogs that feature posts tagged as "adult," it's the entirety of any blog tumblr has already flagged as NSFW or adult (the overall blog flag, not just posts). My personal photography blog has been branded as NSFW, as I sometimes post risque work. Basically, there will be no new discovery of my blog, since Tumblr's also blocked internal tag searches for such blogs as well (unless one is already following said blog). My rate of addition of new followers dropped precipitously after that. Bastards...like the occasional nipple is going to end the world.

Make your own red light district (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44330765)

Can you segregate your adult stuff into a separate blog, or is there a limit of one blog per account and one account per person?

Bad Idea? (0)

parallel_prankster (1455313) | about a year ago | (#44330109)

I dont think somehow this is such a bad idea. I mean, they could have just deleted all those pages really ( I know this is a not a good enough excuse). If you use Tumblr, you know most pages are inter-linked. So it is easy to go from one to next. Did they stop that as well? Also, I had noticed that most Tumblr pages did not have any warning for adult content.

Re:Bad Idea? (3, Insightful)

DigitAl56K (805623) | about a year ago | (#44330249)

I dont think somehow this is such a bad idea. I mean, they could have just deleted all those pages really

If nobody can find them what's the difference? Is this like getting out of a speeding ticket on a technicality?

Nobody is going to publish content to places no visitors will go. That defeats the whole point of publishing.

Re:Bad Idea? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330463)

If someone's idea of self-expressive "publishing" is copy-pasting the 10 billionth porn image to somewhere else on the internet, they really should re-evaluate whether they had a point worth making in the first place.

Re:Bad Idea? (3, Interesting)

hazah (807503) | about a year ago | (#44330893)

Self expression need not be limited to original content. Self expression is completely satisfied by the following statement: "I like X" (or XXX, or whatever). Publishing is no longer a profession in of itself (types of publishing may be). Furthermore, you don't really get a say whether their point was worth making, it's subjective and irrelevant to the discussion.

Re:Bad Idea? (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#44330641)

Also, I had noticed that most Tumblr pages did not have any warning for adult content.

When are they going to start warning people about childish content?

Re:Bad Idea? (1)

hazah (807503) | about a year ago | (#44330923)

No shit... and where's the same treatment for stupidity? At least sex is wired up through biology. Stupidity legacy is that it's often responsible for shorter lifespans.

Google Still Showing my Tumblporn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330145)

My tumblporn is still turning up on google search...

10% completely invisible... (3, Funny)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about a year ago | (#44330169)

Really? Erm, I think we should be given a list so that, you know, we can, err.., check their data-collating algorithms for accuracy. Yeah, that.

Re:10% completely invisible... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330585)

Here you go [tumblr.com] . Just don't try to Google it.

Re:10% completely invisible... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330901)

FOR SCIENCE!

The worst kind of censorship... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330183)

1984 had the idea of the State turning people into 'non-persons', even if they agreed to allow them to continue living. The idea was not original, but taken from standard Communist practice at the time.

Acceptable censorship MUST be honest and open. For Yahoo (an extreme zionist organisation, by the way) to use the trick of preventing third party search engines from indexing certain content, Yahoo uses the self same tactic detailed by George Orwell.

What Yahoo should do is one of the following:
1) ban the content
2) place the content under the name of a different service
3) create an 'adult-only' walled-garden within Tumblr
4) 'sell' the 'service' hosting the adult blogs to a third party

Yahoo, instead, chooses to play the dirtiest of games, and rely on a army of filthy shills to justify the move (like the scum who dribble "it isn't censorship when a company does it").

Well, we know the Internet routes around censorship, and in this case that means another popular service will arise that hosts similar content and services. And yes, when this new service becomes valuable enough, it too will be sold to some scumbag giant that LOVES genocidal violence in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria (Yahoo actively supports all of Obama's wars) but hates and fears Human sexuality. And so we go round and round in the same circle.

  In the meantime, what happens when enterprising new search engines start to ignore "do not index" requests that are clearly attempts at unreasonable censorship? A search engine company is under ZERO legal obligation to assist companies who wish to censor access to material they publicly host. If Tumblr hasn't banned it, and it is visible to ordinary Internet users (no matter how hard it is to find), a search engine SHOULD index the content, regardless of what the scum at Yahoo say.

Re:The worst kind of censorship... (1)

hazah (807503) | about a year ago | (#44330949)

Is it satisfying to show the world your bigotry and then have it tell you, in response, that it wants you dead (preferably unborn, but we're past that bit)?

Re:The worst kind of censorship... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44331019)

For Yahoo (an extreme zionist organisation, by the way)

Citation?

I'm shocked! (4, Interesting)

SeaFox (739806) | about a year ago | (#44330215)

"When Yahoo purchased Tumblr in May, Tumblr founder David Karp said Tumblr wouldn't be changing, and Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer said, 'Part of our strategy here is to let Tumblr be Tumblr.'

Yeah, and when an independent website gets purchased by a large corporation the executives never lie to the users of a new acquisition to keep them from doing a mass exodus. After all, the users themselves are a part of the deal.

Re:I'm shocked! (0)

Dracolytch (714699) | about a year ago | (#44330597)

If you are not a paying client, you are the product.

So just download wordpress (1, Insightful)

Spy Handler (822350) | about a year ago | (#44330217)

and make your own blog. Or use Google blogger. Or any of a thousand different ways. Why is this even news?

I like pr0n as much as the next guy but a Slashdot groupthink seems to be developing that any entity restricting porn is bad evil censorship. Even if that entity is not government and it's not telling anyone else what to do except on its own site.

Re:So just download wordpress (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330403)

>any entity restricting porn is bad evil censorship

What differences does it make if it's Yahoo or a country's government? Censorship is censorship, it doesn't matter who's doing it. Especially when they suddenly decide to do it after saying they wouldn't.

The moment you start saying that censorship isn't censorship just because it's taking place "on someone's property" is the moment you forget what censorship is and excuse the one who's doing it. Technically, they're the "government" in that case, if you MUST believe that only a government can censor.

Re:So just download wordpress (1)

localman57 (1340533) | about a year ago | (#44330577)

Do we know for a fact that it is Yahoo that is in fact driving this change? Maybe it was a strategic decision that has been in the works for some time. Without transparency into the organization, we don't know for sure where it came from.

The other thing to remember is that its fun to scream at corporations about censoring you, but most of the stuff we use is funded by advertising. If the place becomes a pornorific cesspool, their ability to get legitimate companies to advertise there will vanish, and then the thing will likely be gone. It's just like the old free press argument. It applies to YOUR press. If some other paper won't print your letter to the editor, buy a press and start your own paper. Or create your own Tumbler. If your proposed culture is really that much better, people will move.

Re:So just download wordpress (5, Interesting)

Dixie_Flatline (5077) | about a year ago | (#44330427)

Well, first of all, there's the question of who determines whether or not it's 'Adult' or merely 'NSFW', since they're treated differently. Since the barrier for 'adult' appears to be that you post nudity often, there are some non-pornographic photographers that are being caught in the net.

Secondly, as of right now, #gay is a verbatim search term. This affects not just porn, but posts about LGBT politics.

Thirdly, lots of artists were migrating to tumblr BECAUSE it was a way to join a network where you could be discovered by fans. Painters and cartoon artists that post pornographic art also can't be found anymore. I know more than one artist that stopped hosting their own portfolio site because it was easier to post on tumblr and provide a DNS redirect. It was a good system, and now the rug has been pulled out from under them.

This isn't just about hardcore porn; most (all?) of that stuff is discoverable through google, even if it's not packaged up as nicely. There's a lot of fandom and art going on that counts as 'adult' content, and it seems to me that it's being unfairly punished.

Plus, honestly, it's nice for users like me to be able to follow some of these people and discover new things that I like and have it all mixed in with my goofy fandom gifs and gender politics and whatnot. I LIKE how tumblr works right now. To me, this is just the puritanical nature of North American culture and law rearing its ugly head.

Re:So just download wordpress (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330475)

If they were hiding blogs about muslims or blacks, would it be news? I agree that Slashdot-groupthink is inane, but part of Slashdot's knee-jerk response whenever a corporation suppresses expression on their formely open forum is "ain't the goverment, go elsewhere, cry more".

It's their choice to suppress, but that choice is always news, and there's usually room for debate.

Re:So just download wordpress (5, Insightful)

Lendrick (314723) | about a year ago | (#44330497)

It's still a dick move, and you know it.

Some people use their blog as a source of income. That income depends on their blog having an established, searchable presence. Some of those blogs may have the kind of content (like porn) that you or other people may personally look down on.

"Just make your own blog" is a terrible option when you already *have* an established blog, because it means moving and losing a lot of your traffic.

I don't see anyone where arguing that what Yahoo is doing should be *illegal*. They're arguing that it's not a good thing to do, and I agree with them. Finally, I fail to see any good reason that they need to do it, since the major search engines all have adult content filtering already. It's unlikely that Google or Bing demanded that they de-index adult oriented blogs.

Re:So just download wordpress (2)

PhxBlue (562201) | about a year ago | (#44330501)

I like pr0n as much as the next guy but a Slashdot groupthink seems to be developing that any entity restricting porn is bad evil censorship.

That would be because it is censorship [google.com] .

Re:So just download wordpress (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#44330623)

and make your own blog. Or use Google blogger. Or any of a thousand different ways. Why is this even news?

If generic blogs were an acceptable substitute for what Tumblr does, they wouldn't have 100 million users.

I like pr0n as much as the next guy but a Slashdot groupthink seems to be developing that any entity restricting porn is bad evil censorship.

Why is it good when it's non-governmental? The loss of utility is the same whether it's done by a government or by a corporation. It may be less bad when it's not backed up by force, but it's still a shameful act by Yahoo, and they deserve to be shamed for it.

Re:So just download wordpress (2)

Princeofcups (150855) | about a year ago | (#44330909)

and make your own blog. Or use Google blogger. Or any of a thousand different ways. Why is this even news?

Because they didn't come out and say, "Starting in two months we will stop indexing any site that we think is questionable. This will give you time to move your adult material to a new site." Instead they do it without any warning whatsoever. That's a big fuck you to their customers. How many times will this do this kind of thing again in the future?

Re:So just download wordpress (5, Insightful)

pauljlucas (529435) | about a year ago | (#44331043)

That's a big fuck you to their customers.

If you're using a service for free, chances are you're not the customer.

Tumblr censors tumblr porn (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#44330229)

Try to replicate this behavior which was in place before the Yahoo buyout:

1. Place pornographic term in tumblr's own search engine
2. Receive lolcats

Improvement. (5, Funny)

Seumas (6865) | about a year ago | (#44330303)

Rendering 10% of Tumblr invisible is an improvement and a great start. Please get to work on the other 90%, too.

Re:Improvement. (0)

H0p313ss (811249) | about a year ago | (#44330787)

Rendering 10% of Tumblr invisible is an improvement and a great start. Please get to work on the other 90%, too.

Exactly, I was going to say "And nothing of value was lost", but I think you captured it better.

Why even buy Tumblr? (1)

BLToday (1777712) | about a year ago | (#44330349)

Isn't this the equivalent of buying Slashdot and then censoring "Anonymous Cowards"?

Re:Why even buy Tumblr? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330635)

We will never be censored! We will always be here! Anonymous Cowards forever and ever and

oh wait, someone's knocking on the door....

How it Works (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330371)

Yahoo decides a tag should be filtered out.

If you at some point in the several year history of your tumblr posted something with this tag enough times you account automatically becomes set to NSFW->Adult, you cannot change this once it has been set.

From then on any post from your blog is filtered from tag search results and from search engines (via robots.txt).

The site wholly functions on tags, you can't find anything without them. You might get lucky and see a reblog from another account you follow but much like twitter the only way you can follow topics and not individuals is by the tagging system.

Given that Yahoo only recently purchased tumblr this is shaking up the user community.

Corporate Half-Truths? (1)

supertall (1163993) | about a year ago | (#44330433)

Say it ain't so!!

Pay 1 billion for shit nobody will use anymore... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330445)

Someone should just create a replacement and let tumblr die off. Wouldn't take long to write either.

It's cute how people believed it (1)

Tridus (79566) | about a year ago | (#44330459)

When they said "tumblr won't be changing", it's cute how ANYBODY believed them. Acquiring companies always say that. It's always a lie. In this case, most people even predicted it was a lie.

Don't worry, this is just step one. They'll totally wreck things later.

Re:It's cute how people believed it (1)

joe_frisch (1366229) | about a year ago | (#44330715)

Its not that anyone believed, them, its just fun to post "I told you so" posts.

Re:It's cute how people believed it (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44330825)

Nobody on Tumblr believed them. Why would anyone else?

Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330505)

There is porn on Tumblr?

Karp on Colbert (4, Informative)

reve_etrange (2377702) | about a year ago | (#44330523)

David Karp insisted they weren't going to try and censor the adult blogs, while appearing on the Colbert Report just three days ago.

MOD PARENT UP (1)

citylivin (1250770) | about a year ago | (#44330711)

came here to say this as well. He just said that they would keep it pure when asked exactly this question! Hopefully colbert calls him out next week, or today.

That's what happens when you put a woman in charge (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330615)

When Yahoo and Marissa bought Tumbler, it was only a matter of time till the porn was throttled. Most women can't stand porn and some try to snuff it out. Putting women in charge of stuff they don't understand has its problems.

Yeha@ F#ckr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330821)

Way to go yehaa, someone over there has f#cked up a beautiful picture sight for EVERYONE. Dick#eads. Greedy #ucknuts tearing the world apart for a database of peoples' pics that aren't even yours just because people loaded them onto flickr. Just like every other greedy corporation out there.

Yahoo, how about innovating on this issue? (1)

slashkitty (21637) | about a year ago | (#44330945)

Here are all these blogs that are tagging themselves NSFW. It doesn't mean they are all porn, it's just that it's more adult themed. I've seen quite a lot of "adult" tumblr blogs that are quite artistic. Instead of univiversally blocking them from search engines... They should innovate and start a robots tag that tags the site or certain sections NSFW. That could be carried through to search engines and "safesearch" options that the user selects. Just as much as I want information to be free... I want user choices to be respected.

More than 10% traffic (3, Interesting)

slashkitty (21637) | about a year ago | (#44330989)

While 10% of the blogs are estimated to be tagged adult.. It's actually closer to 25% of their traffic. I'm guessing internally they knew that tumblr's adult content was rising faster than the rest of the site, and they certainly don't want it to be primarily adult. It might be better for them long term, but there should be some brushback over this.

The first thing Yahoo did... (1)

jmcvetta (153563) | about a year ago | (#44330997)

Despite their explicit promise "not to screw it up", the very first action Yahoo has taken as owner of Tumbler, is to ruin Tumblr. Major bummer! Looks like I'm going to have to remove all my - decidedly non-pornographic - content and find a new home for it. Any suggestions /. for a less prudish microblogging site?

Can someone explain to me why Yahoo is still in business? Do they have actual users/customers??

I feel a great distubance in the Force (2)

TheSpoom (715771) | about a year ago | (#44331137)

...as if millions of wankers suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

Seriously though, Yahoo has a knack for turning acquisitions to shit. Nobody should be surprised here. Expect more "improvements".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?