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!

'Porn King' Says Google Should Block Porn Access

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the i-guess-he's-thinking-of-the-children dept.

Google 424

mikesd81 writes "The Register has a story saying that one of the world's biggest porn producers wants Google and other search sites to put up barriers between kids and adult entertainment. 'Steven Hirsch, the co-chairman and co-founder of Vivid Entertainment, is to deliver this message on Saturday in New Haven, Connecticut as he addresses an army of Yale University MBA candidates. "Responsible companies in the adult industry such as ours have done a great deal to deter minors from accessing adult material," Hirsch proclaims from inside a Vivid press release. "None of the search engines and portals, but particularly Yahoo and Google, has taken any significant steps in this direction.'"

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

Oh the Humanity! (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438604)

Steven Hirsch: "Won't somebody please think of my profit margins ... *cough* I mean ... children?!"

Re:Oh the Humanity! (1, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438750)

Steven Hirsch: "Won't somebody please think of my profit margins ... *cough* I mean ... children?!"
Absolutely. And what's wrong with that approach? Businesses, especially porn, aren't there as a community service. Porn sites are required to make at least some minimal attempt to screen out kids from access, why shouldn't Google? Google is very much more than just a search engine, they are a content provider.

Re:Oh the Humanity! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22438880)

Porn sites are required to make at least some minimal attempt to screen out kids from access, why shouldn't Google?
Because Google isn't a porn site?

Google is very much more than just a search engine, they are a content provider.
So you're saying that children should not be allowed to visit "content providers"?

That pretty much means the entire internet - so you're advocating banning kids from the web altogether?

Re:Oh the Humanity! (2, Informative)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438942)

Because Google isn't a porn site?
Really? Do an image search for some porn. See all those thumbnails? Generated by Google's own software and hosted on Googles own servers.

Re:Oh the Humanity! (5, Insightful)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438988)

Because Google isn't a porn site?
Really? Do an image search for some porn. See all those thumbnails? Generated by Google's own software and hosted on Googles own servers.
And in doing this research did you happen to notice the "Safe Search" feature that blocks those images unless you agree to view them?

PLUG THE HOLES! (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439154)

Pun intended.

"No free peeks" says profit-oriented smut-peddler!

Re:Oh the Humanity! (5, Insightful)

dpilot (134227) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439166)

He's not concerned about people with "safe search" checked. He's fussing over people without it checked getting access to his images without his getting any money for it.

Or you could say that he's either "insufficiently diligent" or "insufficiently knowledgeable" to protect images on his sites from deep searching.

Re:Oh the Humanity! (5, Insightful)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438948)

Google already has a "Safe Search" feature on google images that's enabled by default and blocks (or attempts at any rate) pornographic images. I see no reason to implement something similar in the regular search results, as you won't see anything unless you click through to the site anyway. I'm going to be supremely pissed if I have to start clicking a "Yes I'm 18 or older" link every time I want to do a damn search on google because of this stupid whining. Google is not a "content provider", they are a content aggregator, the fact that they attempt to categorize and sort the content is incidental and they can't be held responsible for it because they didn't actually create it and therefor cannot guarantee it's been identified properly.

Re:Oh the Humanity! (-1, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439050)

Google is not a "content provider", they are a content aggregator
Do an image search for porn. See all those thumbnails of giant cocks thrusting into gaping pussies? All those buff white guys going down on humongous black pile-drivers, big assed bitches wearing latex power tools thrusting their gigantic bosoms covered in white frosty jiz, on plastic sheets...

Re:Oh the Humanity! (1)

Binestar (28861) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439084)

Plastic? Man, you had me right up until that part. I wanted Lacra sheets. =/

Re:Oh the Humanity! (-1, Offtopic)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439098)

No actually, and you're trolling. I expect to see you moderated into oblivion shortly.

Re:Oh the Humanity! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22439126)

Gee, Slappy, did you figure that out all by yourself? His name is Frosty Piss, for fuck's sake.

Re:Oh the Humanity! (5, Insightful)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439142)

Do an image search for porn.
The image filter is on by default. If it's not filtering, it's broken.

Also, if parents let their kids search for porn on Google, it's up to the parents to stop it, not Google. Google is not a Net Nanny (TM) [netnanny.com] nor should it be one.

Now, I do see an aftermarket opportunity for value-added software to work with Google, Inc., to develop filters that parents, schools, and others who want "child-friendly" computers can use that will greatly reduce adult-oriented material in Google search results. Even better if the major p0rn industry players help out.

Just keep the government out and don't make me sign in to avoid the filters.

Not that I want porn, I just don't want filters.

Re:Oh the Humanity! (4, Insightful)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439120)

Well personally I think its the parents job, and not society's, to filter what the children should see.

Re:Oh the Humanity! (1)

timewasting (1230064) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438864)

Profit margins are the single best incentive for progress in the world. If you can get someone else to expend THEIR capital for your profit margins then even better, right?

Re:Oh the Humanity! (2, Interesting)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438916)

I wish you would have added your reasons for saying "profit margin" , but since you didn't I will.

Google will find plenty of dirty pictures that don't cost a penny. This asshat's dirty pictures you have to pay for.

I'd say something about the technical impossibility of filtering out porn but since the thread has been up for two minutes I'm sure someone else has.

Dirty pictures on Google (2, Funny)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439174)

Soil [google.com] .

Thank you, thank you, thank you *ducks*.

XXX domain names. (4, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438626)

.XXX domain names would help here. Sure, it won't prevent kids from accessing 100% of adult content, but it would certainly make it easier for sites like Google and applications like Net-Nanny filter the adult sites with that domain. It would also go a long way toward showing that adult site operators can be responsible and are putting forth an honest effort to limit "adult content" to adults only.

Re:XXX domain names. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22438714)

No they wouldn't. Repeat after me, "DNS is not a content classification system".

What would help here is a robots.txt, seems this bozo has done everything in his power apart from put a 2 line text file in his web root. The guy is full of it and is either a complete moron or has ulterior motives.

Re:XXX domain names. (4, Insightful)

rs79 (71822) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438898)

I see it took slashdotters about 3 postings to figure this out. Rocket science it aint.

" No they wouldn't. Repeat after me, "DNS is not a content classification system". "

Inherently, not, you're right. But it can be used as one. Look at .museum which is only for museums, or .arpa or .coop or .mil or .aero for example(s) which all have specific uses. New DNS names are what we define them to be and have no intrinsic semantic property that precludes using them in this or any other way.

So, if porn slowly migrated over to .xxx and google "safe search" filter ignored .xxx sites it would be possible by fairly simple technical means to do exacly what TFA wants.

You'll note that .xxx passed ICANN approval at one point and went up to the Department of Commerce, ICANN's overlord, for rubber stamp approval, the last stop before being put in the legacy root zone. Insiders tell me Karl Rove himself nixed it as a political favour to the Southern Baptist convention who demanded it never see the light of day.

Re:XXX domain names. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22439046)

Look at .museum which is only for museums, or .arpa or .coop or .mil or .aero for example(s) which all have specific uses.

None of which are content classification. Tell me, should a pornography museum be under .xxx or .museum? DNS is not a content classification system and is totally unsuited for such (mis-)use.



Re:XXX domain names. (1)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439070)

Yeah, and then what do they do when all the "Think of the Children!!!one!!" crowd are protesting because little Timmy can just check the "Yes I'm 18 or older" box before doing his search for "Hot hardcore cheerleaders"? These people are never going to be happy because what they want is a physical impossibility. They want their kids to be completely 100% safe, docile, fit, happy, and innocent, and not have to lift a finger to do anything about it themselves. Oh, and they don't want to have to pay anyone or have increased taxes either. Also, they want everyone else to be just like them.

Re:XXX domain names. (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439108)

So, if porn slowly migrated over to .xxx...
Um, yeah, and if 13-year-olds stopped looking for dirty pictures on the web, that'd solve the problem too. That's not going to happen either.

Re:XXX domain names. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22439204)

Switch over to .xxx domains so that google can block them easier? Yeah, that'll happen.

Re:XXX domain names. (1)

thewils (463314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439232)

So, if porn slowly migrated over to .xxx and google "safe search" filter ignored .xxx sites it would be possible by fairly simple technical means to do exacly what TFA wants.


Sounds good, but what exactly is "porn"?

Re:XXX domain names. (2, Insightful)

hymie! (95907) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439234)

" No they wouldn't. Repeat after me, "DNS is not a content classification system". "

Inherently, not, you're right. But it can be used as one.


You're only half-right. DNS as content classification can be used to keep people out -- as you noted, .museum is only for museums, .edu is only for schools. No non-porn sites would have a .xxx domain name.

But that does nothing to stop porn sites (or museums or schools) from having .com addresses.

Re:XXX domain names. (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438804)

Heh, thats the very first thing that I thought of when I read the article title.

Re:XXX domain names. (3, Interesting)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438970)

That's stupid. If you must do something with domain names, then create '.kids' and make it kiddy safe. This makes much more sense, since then you can 'deny all; allow *.kids' on your censoring device of choice.

Re:XXX domain names. (4, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439132)

That's stupid. If you must do something with domain names, then create '.kids' and make it kiddy safe. This makes much more sense, since then you can 'deny all; allow *.kids' on your censoring device of choice.
So you're telling me I should block all content, including Linux.com, distowatch, slashdot, CNN.com, NYT.com, FoxNews.com and so on just so my 12-yr old doesn't accidentally stumble upon a porno site while researching the dangers of breast enlargement surgery? Why not just block the bad stuff. Sorry, but it doesn't make much sense to stunt the intellectual development of kids just so you can still "accidentally" stumble upon porn. If you want to find porn, you should LOOK for porn! Using the .xxx domain also keeps those pesky breast enlargement danger sites off my porn search!

And, yeah, I think there should be a .kids domain as well. It would work great for small kids in the home. Unfortunately, there is a large range where they are too old for the .kids stuff, but not quite ready for hard core animal anal action yet.

Re:XXX domain names. (4, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438996)

The problem with .xxx is that - no matter how many times people thoughtlessly suppose otherwise - it would not remove a single pussy or cock shot from the .com namespace. The owner of xxxample.com isn't going to drop that domain; he'll just fork over the cash for xxxample.xxx and operate both.

The only way .xxx would accomplish anything is if its use were required by law. Even if the U.S. legislature did that, and it passed Constitutional review, all that would do is send the porn sites to incorporate and operate overseas... so not only would it be ineffective, we'd be exporting yet another industry out of the U.S.

Re:XXX domain names. (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439208)

The problem with .xxx is that - no matter how many times people thoughtlessly suppose otherwise - it would not remove a single pussy or cock shot from the .com namespace. The owner of xxxample.com isn't going to drop that domain; he'll just fork over the cash for xxxample.xxx and operate both.

The only way .xxx would accomplish anything is if its use were required by law. Even if the U.S. legislature did that, and it passed Constitutional review, all that would do is send the porn sites to incorporate and operate overseas... so not only would it be ineffective, we'd be exporting yet another industry out of the U.S.
Oh. Then we should do nothing at all then since there is no way to prevent problems 100% of the time. Why even bother? While we are at it, since there is no anti-virus or web security application that can make 100% of web sites 100% secure, we should simply turn the Internet off completely (using your logic, of course). While we are at it, nothing can stop 100% of drunk driving, speeding, gun crime, child molestation, unplanned pregnancies... and the list goes on. Fuck it. Let's just give it all up and only do the things that are 100% effective, 100% of the time.

Re:XXX domain names. (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439080)

Yeah? Well, my site has a page with that nice picture of a soldier and a coffee cup with the caption "Have a nice cup of shut the fuck up". [mcgrew.info] It also has a cartoon of Bush in diapers somewhere.

It has lots of swearing, and guess what? Slashdot has lots of fucking badass words, too. You want your kids to see this fucking filth?

If I want to put goatse on my site are you going to stop me? If I want to post pictures of me and some crack whores [slashdot.org] who's going to stop me? Not my government; its central document, the one piece of paper that all its other laws are based on, say I can say anything I damned well please.

If I want to post porn I'll post porn. If you don't want your kids seeing goatse or hearing the word "fuck" or seeing a picture of someone getting their brains blown out [mcgrew.info] then keep your kids off the goddamn internet.

Sorry about the language but it was needed to make the point.

RFC 3675, .sex Considered Dangerous (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22439086)

Periodically there are proposals to mandate the use of a special top level name or an IP address bit to flag "adult" or "unsafe" material or the like. This document explains why this is an ill considered idea from the legal, philosophical, and particularly, the technical points of view.


http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3675.txt [ietf.org]

captcha = ethics

Re:XXX domain names. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22439094)

Yeah, but who gets the XXX domain. Cumbucket.net or Cumbucket.com. Both selling sex, both with the same name, who gets it.

It wouldn't solve anything. (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439170)

If you make it mandatory then who is going to enforce it and who is going to decide what is pornographic? It opens the doors for all sorts of government censorship problems that are best avoided.

If it isn't mandatory then porn sites are not going to stop using their com, net, and org sites just because xxx exists. Even if some "responsible" companies would be willing to do so, others will immediately buy up those old names, and reap all the traffic from people who haven't updated their links, or mistype the domain. So you still have the exact same problem that you have now with filtering the porn in the non-xxx sites.

The only people that would benefit from creating a new xxx TLD, would be the registrars, who now get even multiple times for each new domain registered. The same holds for nearly all of the new TLDs with the possible exception of the proposed language-based and region-based TLDs.

"Adult content"? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22439236)

OK, first define "adult content".

Is a website showing how to check for breast cancer "adult content"? How about a website describing circumcision? How about a website advocating safe sex or masturbation? Or a description of the physical changes of puberty? Pictures of Holocaust violence? A description of the Rape of Nanking? Nudity in National Geographic? Wikipedia?

I can think of a million things that some parents would love their children to have access to, and which other parents would still want the guv'men' to regulate to death.

Adding an .XXX tld would not stop one child from being able to access things their parents didn't want, and since we probably can't find even two people who agree what "adult site operators" means, it will simply turn into a witchhunt.

Title is incorrect (5, Insightful)

Malevolent Tester (1201209) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438646)

Should read:
'Porn King' Says Google Should Block Internet Competition As It Hurts Video Sales

Re:Title is incorrect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22438770)

Or, "Porn King says, "we can't figure out how to block kids so we think Google should do it.""

Re:Title is incorrect (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439018)

No, more like "We can't figure out how to block kids from getting it for free instead of ordering DVD's from Vivid Video, so we think Google should do it."

Re:Title is incorrect (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438774)

EXACTLY!

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
If you block or filter the internet, only outlaws will have porn.
If you ... wait, that means I'll have to become an outlaw... kewl!!

Re:Title is incorrect (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439010)

'Porn King' Says Google Should Block Internet Competition As It Hurts Video Sales

No it should read:
Yo! Listen up pimpz. This be my territory and dees be my hos. You stay the fuck out or I'll break your kneecaps.
 

Meta Tags (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438648)

Why not just add a meta tag for porn. Or something more specific like: Adult-Only. That should be easy for Google to detect and flag in its database.

Re:Meta Tags (1)

croddy (659025) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438696)

Adult-only is less specific than porn.

Re:Meta Tags (2, Insightful)

grumbel (592662) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438924)

How about the other way around? Add a meta tag for stuff that isn't porn. Pages that are ok for children can be unlocked and the rest be easily blocked. This would be basically the same like most other rating works, when you have a game that isn't ESRB, USK, PEGI or whatever rated it is handled the same as an age-18/AO title, it doesn't go into the shops, it doesn't even get released for a console.

There simply is zero hope to ever get everybody to mark their 'bad' content, but there is a good chance that some people will mark their 'good' content.

Re:Meta Tags (2, Funny)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439036)

Or just implement RFC 3514 [ietf.org] . That would solve so many problems in addition to porn.

What about me? (4, Funny)

edmicman (830206) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438650)

How the heck am I supposed to find stuff?

Re:What about me? (2, Interesting)

edmicman (830206) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438710)

On a more serious note, it's not Google's job (nor should it ever) to filter it's results. This idea is horrible - does this guy even understand how the Internet and search engines work??? Does he expect Google to have one of those "I agree I'm of legal age to view these results" screens? Because those work so well as it is.....

Re:What about me? (0, Flamebait)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438824)

On a more serious note, it's not Google's job (nor should it ever) to filter it's results. This idea is horrible - does this guy even understand how the Internet and search engines work???
That might be so if Google where just a search engine, returning cold results based on hard inputs. But that's not what Google is. Google is not some cold search utility, Google is a content provider that makes money on returning the kind of results their customers are looking for, just like any other Web content provider.

Re:What about me? (1)

kcbanner (929309) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439016)

Its not like "any other Web content provider". Google does not provide content. It provides links to content created by others, that's its job and its doing it very well.

Re:What about me? (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439060)

Google does filter results in some countries though. Nazi related things are filtered in Germany and France.

While I understand why those countries think they should have laws like that -- Google should still refuse. It's a retarded policy that only drives the Nazis into hiding, and adds a layer of forbidden attraction. Exactly the same thing would happen with porn -- or ANYTHING else that someone wants to make forbidden.

Re:What about me? (1)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439138)

On a more serious note, it's not Google's job (nor should it ever) to filter it's results. This idea is horrible - does this guy even understand how the Internet and search engines work???


If Google's shareholders think that is Google's job, then it will be.

Your argument (by implication) that the technology has shit to do with what should be done is completely and utterly stupid. And the premise of the article is a good one. Parents should have the tools to control what their young children do and at least monitor the nature of what their older children do. Really they should. Whether it's a matter of turning the question inside out (mark child safe sites as opposed to marking porn sites) or some other solution, this is something that search engines should be thinking about.

Re:What about me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22438778)

Aint that what bittorrent is for?

Re:What about me? (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438826)

Certainly not by going through Google. Free listing services like Elephantlist [elephantlist.com] , The Hun [thehun.com] and Sublime Directory [sublimedirectory.com] along with pussy.org [pussy.org] (which has gone severely downhill recently) or Empornium [empornium.us] (torrents and lots of them).

Sorry about that, that is from a pop-up virus I have on my computer. What we were talking about again?

Re:What about me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22438886)

www.buyourexpensiveshittyorthodoxporn.com

Re:What about me? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438978)

Don't worry, you can mailorder it through Vivid Video, of course.

Re:What about me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22439068)

While I know you already know - here are some techniques a *friend of mine* uses:

- lock the door and close the curtains
- Use Firefox with no-script (think of it like a condom) and a bunch of other plug-ins - Slideshow, customize google (stream results), abp, video downloader, stealthier, batch downloader.. etc..
- Install truecrypt and create a hidden volume (if you plan on storing anything for off-line use later)
- Go to google > preferences and check " Do not filter my search results"
- Search for the type of stuff you're into - make sure you keep it legal.
- Look for free galleries, Use slideshow to view, use batch downloader to save it
- search a site that has good free galleries, then using the google "site: " search - search for phrases on the page - i.e 'monica likes it like that' or whatever... to narrow the hits so you don't get all their ad pages - just all the free galleris google has indexed. (google toolbar has a nice 'search site' button)
- if you find a good gallery, it might have a number in the URL. Just manually enter numbers either side to see if they've got pages of the stuff. i.e www.xxxx.com/galleries/59/index.html next one is ...galleries/60/index.html
- sometimes sites dont block their folders, so you can browse to "www.xxxx.com/galleries/ " and see all the folders of the pages they're serving.
- ensure you set truecrypt to dismount when left unattended or if inactive for more than 30 mins. (don't want to accidentally leave that folder open ..)

i'm sure other users have a few more usefull tips and tricks up their sleeve too....

Heh, nice try (4, Insightful)

Applekid (993327) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438654)

I sure wish I could call for google to block searches that wind up returning my competitors' sites in the name of the children.

Article is incorrect! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22438658)

I said nothing of the sort

So they can monetize on a porn search engine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22438670)

duh

SafeSearch?? (3, Informative)

Zebraheaded (1229302) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438688)

Google has a SafeSearch option. That's a deterrent to accessing adult content. Granted, it's only default on for images...and there's no restriction I know of to turning it off. But it's certainly something.

Translation: (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438690)

Translation: It isn't OUR fault that children can see porn on the Net, it's Google's and Yahoo's, since they don't filter search results for children. (Which is not actually entirely true in either case.)

Reminds me... (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438698)

...of an idea I once had about putting a tag in images to say that the image contains "Adult Content". The idea being that someone who didn't want to see such content would be able to turn off access. (Especially for kids.) Sold as a method of keeping kids from accidentally accessing such materials (vs. intentionally accessing; an issue which you're unlikely to ever be able to block against) why wouldn't content producers want to integrate the solution?

Of course, this was back when 5 of the top 10 results on nearly any Altavista search were for pornographic content. Google managed to solve this issue by producing a better search engine. It's fairly rare to "accidently" come across a pornographic website these days.

So I'd say Google has already done quite a lot.

Re:Reminds me... (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438936)

How about just calling it "sexual entertainment", I don't think porn is by definition adult only.

Re:Reminds me... (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439152)

tag in images to say that the image contains "Adult Content".

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="NSFW; charset=iso-8859-1">

is it on the internet? (5, Insightful)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438702)

I use a search engine to search the internet.

There is pr0n on the internet.

I think it's pretty simple...

Re:is it on the internet? (1)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438950)

How is this a troll?

Google Does, Its Called SafeSearch (2, Interesting)

Johnny_Law (701208) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438718)

Google does block results for certain sites unless you turn off SafeSearch.

http://www.google.com/safesearch_help.html [google.com]

This is merely a PR ploy, which is fine, to deflect some question away from Vivid.

On His Title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22438726)

'Porn King'
I'm so glad our university experienced such a unanimous vote in declaring Steven as our 'Porn King.' It makes me proud to be a University of Porn student and I can't wait to see him riding next to our school mascot, pornstar, in our porncoming parade after porn week. Hopefully we claim victory in that memorable game against the Furman University Christian Knights (F.U.C.K.).

Re:On His Title (1)

popmaker (570147) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438790)

Have you got a date to the pron?

In other news, Microsoft denounces Open Source (2, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438730)

"People are finding the same sort of stuff we're selling but they're getting it for free," Mr. Gates fumed.

Though I do have to say, I sure am glad Google hosts the thumbnails on image searches, especially when a wholly innocent search returns the occasional hardcore goatporn image. "No, I can explain! It was actually a quite humorous and unexpected confluence of search terms!" "Yeah, yeah. Yell it to HR."

Vivid?? (1)

PolyDwarf (156355) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438742)

Come on... go to Vivid's homepage, and the first thing you see is a woman's face in the chest of another woman. Yeah you go to Vivid's homepage, what do you expect? But, since the url doesn't actually hint that it's an adult related website, someone could be "inadvertently" exposed to something.

I don't really buy into the whole "xxx" domain thing, because it's just not workable. I don't have a problem with porn on the internet, even, nor with it being searchable in google, yahoo, etc. I understand this guy is doing it to avoid a government mandated solution (which wouldn't work anyways). But seriously.. he could try to be at least a little more believable.

Children? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22438756)

Yeah right. He just wants to block porn password sites because nobody in their right mind will actually pay for porn.

Flickr? (3, Interesting)

SilverBlade2k (1005695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438762)

Better do something about Flickr too...it is pretty much the largest source of free pornographic pictures.

Leisure Suit Larry (2, Interesting)

Statecraftsman (718862) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438768)

The most entertaining way to keep children away from inappropriate content is to quiz them on things only adults would know. Of course, if a kid knows how to google for answers it may not work so well but there must still be some questions most adults know but for which google can't provide a solid answer. Not that I can think of any of those questions. If you can think of any please reply.

The central problem is that adult content providers(which could just be some guy with a big hard drive and the ability to upload to a youtube clone) have an incentive to make it simple to access their content if only for the ad revenues. So maybe the best way to attack this is via the advertising. Don't block the content. Block getting paid for posting the content in a form that's too easy for minors to access.

Re:Leisure Suit Larry (1)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438876)

The most entertaining way to keep children away from inappropriate content is to quiz them on things only adults would know.
If a one night stand calls you up a month later and tells you that she's pregnant, do you:
  1. hang the phone up and run like hell
  2. tell her you love her and ask her to marry you
  3. demand a paternity test
  4. offer to pay 50% for the abortion

Re:Leisure Suit Larry (1)

danzona (779560) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439202)

But three of those are the correct answer, so a kid that guessed would be right 75% of the time.

Re:Leisure Suit Larry (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438892)

You mean like where is the G-spot? Oh sure you could google it or look at the wikipedia entry for the female reproductive system,
but when it actually comes to finding it...

Re:Leisure Suit Larry (1)

localman (111171) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438984)

How about you ask them which European country Budapest is the capital of [nytimes.com] . If they get it wrong, they are an adult.

Re:Leisure Suit Larry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22439182)

That won't work, for the simple fact that nobody knows where Budapest is. It's a made up word anyway.

Ask them how escrow works.

Kids don't know what it is; they think it's Spanish for crow.

.xxx domains (2, Interesting)

asterix404 (1240192) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438784)

.XXX domains were shown to actually be less effective against under age porn viewing mostly because it would create a very close grantee that any domain name with a .xxx suffix would be hit thus making even search engines useless. I mean think about it. If you are say... 14, and want to find free porn and type in freeporn.com, NO! freeporn.net, NO! ahhh freeporn.xxx oh yea...

Re:.xxx domains (1)

Asmor (775910) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438962)

But it's also a lot easier to filter on the client side. Just blacklist *.xxx.

It won't solve the problem, but the point here is not to make it impossible for children to access porn. The point is to make it simple for responsible producers of adult content to say "Hey, my stuff isn't for children." .xxx does this because it won't deter people looking for porn (if you don't mind going to to donkeymidgetgangbang.com, I can't see donkeymidgetgangbang.xxx being especially onerous) but it will allow for people that want to to filter out that content easily. They weren't going to spend any money on the adult businesses anyways.

Hell, if .xxx were approved, I'd be surprised if Internet Explorer, Firefox, et. al. didn't include a new feature specifically to lock out all .xxx domains unless a password is entered, much like the parental controls available on consoles, DVD players and televisions.

Re:.xxx domains (1)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439004)

Yup. That's why if you really want to 'protect the children', it makes a lot more sense to create a .kids tld, and then you can 'deny all; allow *.kids' in your filtering device of choice.

Don't know about Yale. (2, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438800)

But my college is putting a large effort in its MBA program to push Business Ethics. Yale may be doing the same thing. Even in a "Unethical" indrustry there is a degree of ethics that they follow and support. Either that or because minors won't pay for the stuff so by blocking them they save the trouble having to deal with "Think of the the Children Groups". There is nothing to gain by not blocking minors so why not.

wha? (1)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438806)

porn king asking for more censorship? What a clown!

Who's Protecting Whom? (4, Insightful)

Gallenod (84385) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438822)

Did Hirsch just say that the online porn industry is doing more to protect minors from porn than Google or Yahoo?

Isn't that a lot like the Mafia saying they're doing more to protect people from criminals than the police?

And, as absurd as it sounds, are those statements maybe more correct than we'd like?

Trying to make search engine providers responsible for regulating online behavior is Nannyism taken to absurd lengths.

Teach your children to make good choices, turn them loose, and be available to them when they need you.

Bootleggers and baptists (4, Interesting)

homer_s (799572) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438834)

This is just a very obvious illustration of Yandle's theory:

The Baptist and the Bootlegger [reason.com]

This happened before when the CEO of some major airline called for more regulation of the airline industry and, more recently, when big agri business corps talk about 'our dependence on foreign oil'.

Nothing to see here (for economists anyway), move along.

Vivid's Little Ploy (4, Interesting)

ausoleil (322752) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438838)

Google does have some cursory protection against adult material appearing. From the Google site's Preference's page:

Google's SafeSearch [google.com] blocks web pages containing explicit sexual content from appearing in search results.

Granted it is not a completely effective deterrent, but the Vivid web site offers little more than an assent click and age verification -- not exactly a strong wall to keep out minors either.

That leads me to believe that Vivid is more interested in squeezing out the little guys (pun unintended) in the business and gaining larger market share through greater obscurity on search engines.

Will never work... (3, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438890)

As a teenager, in the days when there was no internet and a computer took up a medium sized building, I found porn. I found it, because I was actively trying to. So were most of my friends.

I cannot think of any way you could have stopped me then, nor any way you could stop a teenager now. Age verification etc is simply a token gesture to shut-up the lunatics on the religious right-wing. It's a worthless annoyance.

Porn isn't a big deal. It's people having sex, it's good thing. I do not want to have to jump through hoops to find it, and I am sick of paying the price for bad parenting. Educate the damn kids and leave the rest of us alone.

Your kids are your problem, not society's.

Re:Your kids are your problem, not society's. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22439090)

Your kids are your problem, not society's.

Wow! Thank you for playing

Re:Will never work... (2, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439130)

Back in your day the book stores or your buddies dad did not have "midget fisting magazine" or "gang raped Asians weekly"

The pre internet available porn was insanely tame compared to what is easily found on the internet today. Most things on youporn.com make hustler magazine look like softcore crap in Magnum and Mens Health.

right, because kids legally can't pay (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438914)

Responsible companies in the adult industry such as ours have done a great deal to deter minors from accessing adult material,

Of course they have- kids can't legally pay for porn with a credit card (they're minors and thus unable to sign contracts/agreements.)

That and porn sites can either put up a trivial "what is your age?" or require paid "age verification services", which are just a second revenue stream. Both of which help them stave off the conservative legislators.

hrmmm (1)

zehaeva (1136559) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438920)

if none of the search engines have done anything to "combat" this then how can it be particularly google and yahoo? if all of them have done the same how can any of them done better/worse/more/less than the others?

bs (1)

KrazeeEyezKilla (955150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22438940)

it seems obvious that his real problem is search engines providing access to free pr0n rather than people paying for his content protecting the kids is a convenient story to use

fu3K. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22438968)

Sa7an's Dick And

All about Free Porn (5, Insightful)

Alsee (515537) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439072)

"Responsible companies in the adult industry such as ours have done a great deal to deter minors from accessing adult material"

Ah, no. I think they have been doing what they can do deter non-paying people from accessing adult material. When a 16-year-old types in a valid credit card number there really isn't anything they sanely can or should be expected to do to prove how old that person actually is. But heay, the fact that minors generally don't have credit cards sure is a handy-dandy public relations score for them.

And oh joy, now the porn industry wants to do as much as they can to make Google suppress all the free competition out there. Thanks but no thanks. Google is merely building a "phone book" of addresses out there and it is not reasonable or possible for them to play policemen judging each site out there if it is "acceptable" or "not acceptable", and it is not reasonable or sane to demand Google play policemen on who is forbidden to look up what phone numbers in the phone book.

Google's already going above and beyond what they need to do in offering their "safesearch" option and (if I'm not mistaken) defaulting it to on. No demand or expectation that safesearch is supposed to be accurate, just a "whatever effort we felt like putting into a maybe useful but not necessarily accurate automated grouping" sort of thing, and an if you don't like the results don't use it sort of thing.

-

Vivid (4, Insightful)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439088)

Hirsch is the CEO of a mostly offline porn company. Vivids web presence isn't as great as say Girls Gone Wild or even Playboy or Penthouse. Thus he has an economic interest in minimizing competition for porn entertainment dollars by reducing Internet porn availability.

I agree with what he is saying (1)

Altus (1034) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439116)


But since vivid makes DVDs and is threated by the growth of web sites like the ones he would like google to block, I wouldnt go praising him just yet. This is just an attempt to hold on to another dying business model.

Of course he does! (1)

el_chupanegre (1052384) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439134)

This makes total sense for people who own obvious domain names. If you don't have the ability to search for porn, you'll have to basically just guess domain names, that's one of the main reasons why obvious domain names go for so much money when up for auction.

The owner of porn.com would suddenly find himself with a lot more hits on his hands, whereas the owners of less obvious domain names would see a marked decrease. Since he's the big guy in the industry, that's exactly what he wants isn't it? Get rid of all the little competitors, reinforce his monopoly?

Solution to kids + porn. (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 6 years ago | (#22439206)

The only solution to kids + porn is whitelisting. When my kid gets old enough to use a computer I can absolutely promise he/she (either or, I'm not saying it's a hermaphrodite) will not go to any site that I haven't specifically allowed.

Now, people whose kids may know more about computers than them should just pay for a service that does this. Internet cafes, libraries, etc.. would need to do the same thing - card people and limit access to a maintained whitelist if they're under 18. Even this obviously doesn't solve the problem 100%, but it's about as close as you're going to get since Pandora's box(hehe) is already open.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?