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!

Internet Only 1% Porn

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the and-ninety-three-percent-spam dept.

422

Eli Gottlieb writes "In what surely comes as a complete and utter surprise to everyone here, a new calculation shows that only one percent of web pages contain pornography. While the calculations were performed using data forced from Google's and Microsoft's search indices by the government, they will help the American Civil Liberties Union to keep enforcement of the Children's Online Protection Act of 1998 banned. A loss for business privacy has become a victory for free speech, even though netizens lose a beloved old proverb."

cancel ×

422 comments

In about 1 per cent of the Slashdot articles (2, Funny)

igny (716218) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851398)

I get "Nothing to see here, move along".

1% by number of pages, 99% by bandwidth consumed (5, Insightful)

mrops (927562) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851796)

On a more serious note: So what makes up the Internet? Webpages or the data that flows over networks.

Re:1% by number of pages, 99% by bandwidth consume (4, Insightful)

penix1 (722987) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851940)

Add to that the different avenues to pr0n (P2P, Usenet, IRC, etc) that this study didn't even consider that is likely to raise that 1% some. All-in-all, I still think (right or wrong) that pr0n is a big motivator for Internet access especially broadband.

B.

Random Slashdot Quote (1)

Morphine007 (207082) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851874)

Oh Random Slashdot Quote at the bottom of the page... sometimes you are just soooo apropos:

hard, adj.: The quality of your own...etc... ;-)

1%... No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16851406)

1%... No... it's... not... possible...

I suspect (5, Funny)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851408)

that everyone's hard drive pron content percentage is much higher, however.

1% pornography, 93% "art" (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16851512)

Well, you see it's like this -- the internet contains only 1% "pornography"; but of the remaining 99%, 93% consists of "artistic nudity" and "adult performance art". :-)

Re:1% pornography, 93% "art" (1)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851826)

That is true. Only true artists do the ATM thing to make a statement about the current state of affairs.

Re:I suspect (5, Funny)

Salvance (1014001) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851584)

Hmmm .... a few years ago the journal Nature found that 2% of the internet was porn [216.109.125.130] . This would explain why it now takes me twice as long to find what I'm looking for.

Re:I suspect (5, Funny)

grazzy (56382) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851670)

We must take this threat to internet porn seriously and ACT before it's to late. According to these statistics internet porn will be down to 0% in just a couple of years. Save the porn before it goes extinct!

Re:I suspect (5, Insightful)

ghyd (981064) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851662)

What would be interesting is the amount of data transfered.

Re:I suspect (0, Redundant)

Kelt (85402) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851724)

DING DING DING! Get this man a donut. And a mod of +1 a couple of times.

Re:I suspect (5, Insightful)

ajs (35943) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851666)

I suspect that the porn content of the Net is highly underrated. Having done such surveys in my life for businesses, I can say that any metric that you're looking for can be skewed drastically by looking at the numbers differently. For example, if you many porn sites want only a handful of pages to be indexed, so if you go by page count, porn will be very low. If you go by machine or domain names, then porn will rank fairly high, since many porn sites use domains to isolate different types of content for the same service.

If you discount auto-generated pages, you willl also eliminate a huge fraction of the Web.

There's an awful lot of play in these numbers, so don't be too shocked if they're just dead wrong from most points of view.

really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16851414)

Internet != (a bunch of webpages)

oh no! (5, Funny)

rayde (738949) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851416)

Dang! Now what am I gonna do with my new Dell [youtube.com] ?

Re:oh no! (4, Funny)

neoform (551705) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851864)

Get yourself a hotmail account. You'll be shown where to get porn in a few hours.

99-1 law (5, Funny)

cucucu (953756) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851418)

99% of the people spend their time in 1% of the web

Only 1%? (1)

Digitus1337 (671442) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851428)

What have we become?

Re:Only 1%? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16851736)

my sweetest friend

Re:Only 1%? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16851980)

everyone I know

But what percentage of the traffic (0, Redundant)

shine (1502) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851434)

is porn???

~S

Re:But what percentage of the traffic (1)

artemis67 (93453) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851868)

Somebody modded you down, but that really is a far more useful measurement.

Still, 1% of 5 billion is still a significant number.

500,000,000 pages, many of which are entry pages to sites that Google can't index, so the number skews even higher.

Missed a word (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16851440)

Are you sure it's not "Internet Only 1% Not Porn"?

you mean (1)

EspressoFreak (237002) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851452)

i have only captilized 1% of the resources that are available to me?

The other 99% (2, Interesting)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851712)

I can't be the only one here left wondering ... "if 1% of the Internet is porn, what's the other 99%?"

Re:The other 99% (2, Informative)

EinZweiDrei (955497) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851746)

Tubes.

Irrelevant to policy makers (5, Insightful)

regular_gonzalez (926606) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851454)

As if this will change the opinions of any of the powers that be in favor of increased legislation and restriction of online content? The argument will shift to "...but that 1% makes up (20 / 30 / 50 / arbitrary number) % of internet traffic! Save the children now!"

Re:Irrelevant to policy makers (4, Funny)

Apocalypse111 (597674) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851676)

All that porn is clogging up the tubes, and it making them really sticky - that's why it takes so long for me to get the internets that my staff sends me.

Re:Irrelevant to policy makers (1)

regular_gonzalez (926606) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851718)

Your tubes are particularly sticky, eh? Time to stop IMing pages, Senator.

Don't blame just the policy makers. (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851756)

As with any government endeavour they hired scientist, computer experts, and a slew of other specialities. Do you think those people are come back with data that doesn't support their continued existance?

Government driven research leads to one thing, more government driven research usually by the same groups. When you don't have to show a profit from your results you return what best profits you.

The other 99% (2, Insightful)

Baal Sebub (797455) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851464)

are link farms to porn sites.

But, but... I thought... (1)

cswiii (11061) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851468)

that The Internet is for Porn [google.com] ?

(Old link by now, sorry).

The Internet is... (5, Funny)

consumer_whore (652448) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851480)

99% useless

Re:The Internet is... (4, Informative)

owlnation (858981) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852022)

Of course the whole 99% isn't useless. However a significant percentage does indeed seem to be.

For example if I use English words to search for something in Google.de....

(At this point I would like to point out to any web designers who code to redirect users to country specific sites and languages based on their IP address, that if I ever find you I will hurt you, that's a promise. I live in Germany and travel a lot in the EU, but I speak English, I'm damned if I can ever get the page I'm looking for after a cookie clear. Seriously, do you think I'm too stupid to know the difference between .com and .de; that's why I typed one not the other, why on earth should you redirect me?)

...anyway, using almost any English words in Google.de pulls up almost nothing but link farms, SEO pages and click fraud sites, etc. It makes me seriously wonder about the true value of my Adwords account - I really don't think enough is being done about this issue. (And to anyone from Google who's reading, please encourage your German colleagues to do some work, SEO is rampant here.)

Or perhaps we're just long overdue for the next generation of search engine. Google is better than that which came before it, but it still has a long way to go. I want to find my porn without click fraud crap.

Why I usually don't RTFA... (4, Funny)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851494)

A giant, annoying ad floating over the page and they still can't earn enough money to hire a copyeditor who can spell "Microsoft" correctly? How can I subscribe to this fine publication?

Supply, Demand, Availability (4, Insightful)

Rahga (13479) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851496)

Let's face it... The supply of women ready to put themselves out on display on the internet pales in comparison to the sheer mass of teen angst that flows out onto myspace/youtube/livjournals etc. :)

Ok but... (5, Insightful)

otacon (445694) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851502)

Search engines don't index all of the things on porn sites that are for members only i.e. Terabytes of member's only pages, video, and pics. For example sex.com could only have a few pages for the public that Google would show, but in reality they have thousands more. So it would be hard to be accurate at only 1%

Re:Ok but... (2, Interesting)

Daemonstar (84116) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851638)

Also, it depends on of they were searching with Google's "Safe Search" on or not (it is on by default; you have to turn it off in the "Advanced Search").

Re:Ok but... (1)

pacalis (970205) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852072)

Google and MS don't push porn in ads, so I'm certain their indexes are optimized on minimizing impact of porn content. For example, google weighs text links, not porn related data content, as a measure of 'votes'. That is, if a jpg file is not treated as a vote, a porn gallery counts as 1 page, no votes. In a more porn friendly index, 1 page with 90 jpg addresses would count as 91 voting pages. 3rd party ads probably aren't treated as votes either. In the final anaylsis, Google and MS should deliver for their ad programs, and their indices should match their customers needs - ie. adwords is likely 99% not porn.

1% ? (0)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851506)

I am sorry, does anyone here really believe this?

The only reason that internet porn is down is that every web page now comes with 5 or 6 aggressive pop ups for some type of medication scam, and about 100 spam emails.

Normal internet usage, from what i can tell is visiting sites many times a day. An example would be:

9:00 am

Slashdot
Fark
Groklaw
Pornsite
Google News

Now repeat that about 50 times a day.

Seems like porn accounts for 20(something) percent of normal internet usage to me.

Cheers

Re:1% ? (1)

regular_gonzalez (926606) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851660)

This is a logical fallacy called a Biased Sample [nizkor.org] , also known as a "Pauline Kael" [linguistlist.org]

Re:1% ? (1)

wiz31337 (154231) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851766)

I'm at work so I don't feel safe Ring'TFA, but this just seems wrong!

If you do a Google search for pr0n you get way more hits than searching for, I don't know, say, OMG PONIEZ! Obviously, I'm not going to try that now at work, so I'm guessing on this one.

Does someone want to do this study over?

How embarrassing (1)

tooyoung (853621) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851896)

Slashdot
Fark
Groklaw
Pornsite
Google News
You admit that you read Fark without posting anonymously? Wait, what if your family sees this?!?

Not a good metric (3, Insightful)

RISTMO (926726) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851508)

People don't view "pages" of porn. They view graphics and videos. Each page might contain several dozen images. Then there are zip files full of images that are never displayed in the page itself and videos that only count as one file. A much better measurement would be the total size of all porn related files vs. the total filesize of the web.

Other figures: (2, Funny)

From A Far Away Land (930780) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851530)

1% Porn
49% Erotica
2% Goatse
30% Bush haters
15% Bush supporters
2% Slashdot articles
10% Blogs
8% Math geniuses
42% AOL and MySpace pages .3% Good Stuff .01% Abandoned Stuff
69% Potty humour
80% Top Ten and Stupid Lists

Re:Other figures: (1)

otacon (445694) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851578)

interesting theory considering that's like 308 percent

Re:Other figures: (4, Funny)

vidnet (580068) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851700)

Many of them overlap. Take Bush supporters and Potty humour for instance.

Re:Other figures: (1)

Gefd (562296) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851828)

I guess you're one of those 8%'ers

Re:Other figures: (1)

idugcoal (965425) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851890)

you'd think the "42% Math geniuses" would give this away as a joke...

Re:Other figures: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16851688)

>8% Math geniuses
You, sir, are not one of them, otherwise you'd find out that the total sum of all % is significantly greater than 100% :-)

Re:Other figures: (1)

Combatjuan (693131) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851998)

While obviously the poster was joking, many of those items are not mutually exclusive. His list does allow for overlap. For instance, one can imagine a page with both Bush haters and Bush supporters on slashdot with potty humor. Although there will seldom be overlap between for instance, myspace pages and math geniuses. (-8

Diluted (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851544)

>> Internet Only 1% Porn

That's because the porn is diluted 99:1 with spam.

Re:Diluted (2, Funny)

An ominous Cow art (320322) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851820)

And is that 1% by weight, or by volume?

Doing my part... (5, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851546)

...to skew the odds back where they belong. --------> (_Y_)

Easy now... (4, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852052)

People could be looking at this from work. You don't want to get anyone fired, do you?

Another way of loooking at it... (4, Funny)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851548)

Google indexes somewhere around 4000 million web pages. This means that the internet is flooded with 40 million pages of porn!

Numbers are great when you make them dance.

Re:Another way of loooking at it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16851902)

Word on the street is that they invented a word for 1000 million ... 91degrees meet "1 billion", "1 billion" meet 91degrees.

Re:Another way of loooking at it... (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851916)

No. The word you're looking for is "milliard". Billion is ambiguous since it can be used to mean 1 000 000 000 or 1 000 000 000 000.

Mod parent hilarious! (1)

walruz (851125) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851550)

Perhaps they have the wrong concept of what pr0n is. Or maybe they are labeling "porn sites" to the fetish-less, old school, straight sex porn sites?

The internet is for porn... (2, Funny)

Kirgin (983046) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851556)

Google and Microsoft search indices. Sounds like too pure a fountain to draw from. Try mining from a dirtier source, like my browser history.

The internet == the web? (3, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851562)

Well, I'm glad we've cleared up that little misunderstanding. I guess ISPs can block everything except port 80 now. Many thanks.

Lies, damn lies - and statistics (4, Insightful)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851570)

Percentages mean absolutely nothing if you don't know the sample upon which the percentage is based.

"30% of the Internet is porn".

Was the entire Internet checked? of course not. So what sample was taken? was it a list of random domains, or a list of random pages - which will produce quite different results. If it was random domains, which list was the sample taken from? was it from all sites, or just .com sites? how was the random number generated? presumably sites beginning with "s" (e.g. sex) will tend to be porn sites - was the generator biased in any way? if *pages* were chosen (unlikely, I guess, since it means indexing entire sites, and some porn sites will be pay access, so their pages will be hidden), was it a sample of pages from a sample of sites, or a full set of pages from a sample of sites?

Also, pointedly, what exactly *is* a site with porn? do we mean hardcore porn (peneratration) or do we include softcore porn (glamour)? shouldn't we differentiate between the two, and have two percentages?

So propositions like "the xxx is nn% yyy" are so trite that they are meaningless.

Re:Lies, damn lies - and statistics (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851854)

More importantly, most free porn is not easily linked to from sites like google. If you do an image search on google you might find one 1000th of the amount of porn content that you would if you were to find a TPG site and then use an incremental URL to get to the rest.

Many free porn sites are now going to URLs that are not easy to guess and thus you cannot get to their content unless you know the specific URLs (linked by TPG listing sites like thehun, elephantlist, sublimedirectory, etc).

So while they might be using google and MSFT data, they aren't going to find shit which is a good thing.

I kind of think this is true... (2, Interesting)

bealzabobs_youruncle (971430) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851574)

It is pretty easy to avoid porn if you don't want it, I'm always amused when a relative wants me to scrape all the spyware off their XP box and I suggest this could be avoided if they would stay off the porn. They act all indignant and confused until I pull up their IE history and look through their documents and find the videos they save.

Left out of the report (-1, Redundant)

hc5duke (930493) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851586)

1% contains pornography. The other 99% is actual hardcore pr0n. Then another 1% is torrent sites (1% margin of error).

The last official count? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16851590)

The last "official" number I heard were estimates on Wall Street Journal of about 50% right around 2000.

Either way: 1% or 50%, it's not high enough.

How the definition of "pornography" differs..... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16851616)

During a business trip to Alabama several weeks back, I met a fellow who I'd describe as the typical sort of Christian fundamentalist you'd find in the southeastern US. He's not a bad person, but his views are somewhat, in my mind, unusual.

We were talking about the Internet, and some of the work he'd done speeding up the TCP implementation for an embedded OS. He mentioned at one point that he was worried it'd be used to transmit pornography at a faster rate. I found this absurd, so I asked him to elaborate on what he considered pornography. He was telling me that he thought pictures of the adult women modelling underwear and bras in Wal-Mart flyers were pornographic!

Now, I don't know this guy very well. My best guess is that he's got a raging erection most of the time, but due to the beliefs and customs of the society and religion he has been exposed to his entire life, he's had to build up this anti-pronographic personality. It seems he's taken it to the extreme. But it showed to me the problem with pornography: its definition differs so widely between different individuals.

Uh... (1)

badenglishihave (944178) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851636)

Most of the people I know who are serious about pornography use p2p, not the web. Bittorrent anyone?

A few calculations (5, Funny)

el_womble (779715) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851642)

My maths isn't great, but I did a few simple calculations and that is still a metric fuckload of porn.

Feel free to convert it into imperial. I think rods would be an appropriate measure.

Re:A few calculations (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16851802)

How many Rods to a Fuckload?

More than one percent porn spam (3, Interesting)

yancey (136972) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851658)

It may be true that only one percent of pages on the Internet contain porn, but porn-related spam gets to much more than one percent of Internet mailboxes.

Of course it's only 1% of sites... (4, Interesting)

Phat_Tony (661117) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851668)

I'm not in the least surprised it's only 1% of sites. I think the interesting thing is, what percent of traffic is it?

Millions of people can belong to one huge site and spend all their time there. Dozens and dozens of "mini" sites all just feed into the same big site, and depending on how they counted this, those might all be "one site." A whole ton of the porn out there probably isn't indexed, because you have to have an account and log in to the one accessible page the crawler saw to get to the ten million pages of porn behind it. A huge amount of the porn online probably never has anything to do with the web, as it's moving over bittorrent, usenet, gnutella, etc.

Estimates I've seen of the percent of internet traffic that's porn have been much, much higher than 1%.

Quote From TFA (4, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851684)

``What we are learning about the Internet is that it reflects life and that the Internet is not -- contrary to what some people might think -- more sexual than people are in general.''

That might be the most insightful thing that I've read all week...

So thats why.... (1)

gothzilla (676407) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851708)

So THATS why it's so hard to find. Oh wait....

Just one question... (1)

Pollux (102520) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851720)

...did they included P2P in their calculations? I'm pretty confident that more than 1% of that traffic is porn.

ONLY 1% Porn? (5, Funny)

gambler_mtu (1006967) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851738)

Given the size of the Internet, I find that rather sad. Too many people's lives are damaged/ruined by porn for even 1% to be acceptable. It would be better for society if that number were 0, we'd have a lot less child predators and rapists on the streets. I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the right to debase themselves...I just think it is sad that it is made so easy by the internet.

I'd believe it (0)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851748)

Pornography just isn't as big online as some people seem to think. Sure, it's there if you look for it...but for the most part, the Web gets used for other things. The ratio might be a bit higher on IRC and the p2p nets, but not actually all that much.

In terms of my own porn-viewing days, it was primarily before I got into a relationship. The other thing was that even at the time, I was aware that porn itself wasn't what I really wanted; sex was. From that point of view, porn is vicarious and frustrating. To a degree masturbation works, yes...but to nowhere near the same extent as sex itself.

Now that I'm able to have sex on a regular basis, I find that porn just isn't something I feel I need.

Re:I'd believe it (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851884)

...except of course that porn doesn't get "headaches" and is still there waiting for you even though "you haven't mown the lawn like you promised"!

Re:I'd believe it (1)

n2art2 (945661) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852050)

Your thinking about Masturbation, not Porn. Enjoy Rosey all you want, but please realize that Porn is just to help you with your Maturbation fantisies.

Without lonely people not getting any sex, except through Masterbation, there would be no such thing as Porn.

Re:I'd believe it (1)

Control Group (105494) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851914)

So basically, your post is just the long way of saying: "I HAVE LOTS OF SEX"

No surprise (4, Insightful)

sacrilicious (316896) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851794)

In what surely comes as a complete and utter surprise to everyone here, a new calculation shows that only one percent of web pages contain pornography.

Doesn't surprise me. Less than 1% of my house's floor space is occupied by dining room chairs, yet somehow I manage to spend nearly 10% of my time in these chairs daily. Likewise, the percent of waking time spent by our household watching the 0.1% of our wallspace occupied by the television is a (disproportionate) 10%.

Percentage of Internet traffic pls, not web sites (1)

slashdotmsiriv (922939) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851798)

I would be much more interested in a statistic on what percentage of IP traffic carries porn-related information. That would be a much better metric metric for finding out what the Internet really ... is for.

And SPAM (1)

pato101 (851725) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851876)

metric for finding out what the Internet really ... is for.

It would be interesting to know the Spam volume as well.

what the hell is the internet? (1)

ChocolateBob (1027564) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851806)

"the internet is for porn!!!!!" dadadada doododododo dada

Internet by Diebold (4, Funny)

shirizaki (994008) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851810)

1% Porn
40% Useless meme and trivia
59% George W. Bush

1% of internet content accounts for 99% of viewing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16851834)

Also known as the /. ratio.

sniffle, sniffle...you are my family... (1)

evansky (997783) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851838)

it's nice to see so many folks freely relishing their porn. i feel like i'm home, at last...

What is "business privacy"? (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851850)

First off, privacy on the web doesn't exist. It wouldn't be on the web if it were meant to be private.

Also, what's the "beloved proverb" that "netizens" are losing?

Internet is more than Web sites (1)

Foundryman (306698) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851880)

More correctly they should maybe say 1% of Web Sites indexed are porn. They forget other means of porn transmittal, usenet, bittorrent, many p2p apps. Plus whose definition of porn did they use? Did sites with depictions of nudity qualify? How about lingerie model sites?

I Declare Shenanigans! (1)

lupine_stalker (1000459) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851882)

This is obviously a coverup by the International Pornographic Conspiracy, and as such is blatant lies and slander. Next you'll be saying that there is useful information available on this 'internet' and that I DON'T have to wear my tinfoil hat to prevent having my mind read by CIA satellites!

The amazing part is ..... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851888)

that they were forced to hand over the information.

Think about it. what sort of distorted view does the government have of the people it is suppose to represent.

1% is a lot (1)

still-a-geek (653160) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851898)

If there are approximately 50,000,000 web pages out there (average of 5 web pages times approximately 10,000,000 websites - very rough estimate), 1% of 50,000,000 is 500,000 web pages. To me, that's a lot of porn.

Vince

Skeptical? (2, Interesting)

jlf278 (1022347) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851910)

Okay, 1% sounds fishy at first, but if you take a look at history, you find that pictures of women's belly buttons, armpits, shoulders, etc. were considered Porn. Now we are far more selective. Furthermore, according to Moore's Law's Inernet Porn Corollary you will see that technology has increased the rate at which porn becomes both more efficient and more easily attainable. Where you once had to pay your older sister $15 to buy you a copy of Penthouse, now you download whatever messed up $&!# videos your perverted heart desires in high res! So 40 years ago we had computers occupying 70% of a research lab, now it's more like 1%. Obviously that's like comparing apples to apples, so it's no surprise the exact same thing happened to internet porn.

Yeah right. (1)

makoffee (145275) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851930)

They must not be going to the same sites I do. :)

Yeah right... (1)

the dark hero (971268) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851952)

...And 1% of your moms body weight is fat.

I for one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16851956)

...find this study hard to believe. I demand to see a list of all the websites deemed to contain "porn", so I can personally double check and cross reference these sites with my own index.

Please?

melons (1)

thinsoldier (937530) | more than 7 years ago | (#16851972)

what's important is not how much porn there is but how easy it is for minors to access it.
I remember a few years back doing coursework in the highschool computer lab and I needed information about our phone company Batelco.
A visit to Batelco.com resulted in an endless stream of porn ad pop ups.

Anyone can turn off the safe search option on google in 2 clicks.
Go turn it off and search for melons. What's the first result?

the .xxx doman idea was a good idea I think.

Only 1% Porn but... (1, Redundant)

mykhailjw (910121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852008)

95% links to it.

The real purpose for DNS (1)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852030)

"Directions to Nasty Stuff."

Who doesn't know this? This was what they trying to do!
Dont believe me? Just try to remember the IP address for "Big Asian Titties" by yourself!

1% of what, exactly? (1)

Control Group (105494) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852046)

I would love to know what they're counting. Are they talking about 1% of IPs? 1% of registered domain names? 1% of Google's cache? I've got a not-so-sneaking suspicion that the result would be significantly different depending on which of those you measured.

And, as other posters have indicated, what they ought to be measuring is the percentage of internet traffic that comprises porn, which would be (to me) a more valid metric for what impact porn has on the internet.
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...