'Porn King' Says Google Should Block Porn Access

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.'"

Oh the Humanity!

[eldavojohn (898314)]

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

Re:

[sm62704 (957197)]

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.

Re:Oh the Humanity!

[orclevegam (940336)]

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.

average user cannot make this distinction

[v(*_*)vvvv (233078)]

Google is not a "content provider", they are a content aggregator

Technically correct. It is unfortunately the average user cannot make this distinction.

Re:Oh the Humanity!

[davidwr (791652)]

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!

[xaxa (988988)]

I'd be more worried as a parent if I saw my 14 year old son searching 'guns' on Google than 'porn'. The default filter doesn't block guns -- and it shouldn't. I don't think it should block porn either.

Re:Oh the Humanity!

[plague3106 (71849)]

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

Re:Oh the Humanity!

[crymeph0 (682581)]

I also used to think that it was the parent's, and only the parent's, job to filter out inappropriate content. But then one day, I was in the checkout aisle at the grocery store, and every single one of the women's magazines had a headline like "Have Hot Sex Tonight!!", "Make Him Wild With Desire!!!", "Naughty Nasties You Can Do To Him In The Bedroom!!!!!!!!!!". Right there, in the open, next to the freaking candy.

Granted, there weren't pictures of the mentioned techniques on the front covers of these magazines, in fact the front cover pictures were your typical fully clothed, respectable looking, successful women, as you'd expect in a modern woman's magazine. But doesn't it seem like having those kinds of headlines at eye-level to a fifth grader might make our children get some wrong ideas about sexuality, as in, it should always be on their mind, because it's always on the front cover of those magazines?

What am I supposed to do about that kind of situation, keep my kid inside and away from grocery stores until they're 18? The point is, it is the parent's primary responsibility to filter out unwanted material, but that doesn't give you the right to go around glamorizing, or even normalizing, overtly sexual behavior in places you could reasonably expect to find a preschooler.

I don't believe government regulation is the way to solve this kind of issue, but I think it's well within your rights (including your First Amendment rights), to speak out and ask the corporations, who do have some kind of control what gets displayed where, to do something about it.

For the record, I plan to use a locked-down computer with all sorts of nanny software when my child gets old enough to use one (he/she is due in July, which is why I've been thinking about it more), so this particular issue of Google and Yahoo possibly not doing enough to filter things for the populace at large isn't going to affect me. I just wanted to point out that society, including businesses and including you, the individual, isn't entirely free of responsibility when it comes to someone else's child.

Re:Oh the Humanity!

[plague3106 (71849)]

I also used to think that it was the parent's, and only the parent's, job to filter out inappropriate content. But then one day, I was in the checkout aisle at the grocery store, and every single one of the women's magazines had a headline like "Have Hot Sex Tonight!!", "Make Him Wild With Desire!!!", "Naughty Nasties You Can Do To Him In The Bedroom!!!!!!!!!!". Right there, in the open, next to the freaking candy.

Which is why many stores have a no-candy lane, which typically also don't have these magazines. The other option is to leave the kid at home. Again, society has apparently decided this is ok, so if you're in the minority that has a problem, YOU need to work around it, not bend the majority to your will.

Granted, there weren't pictures of the mentioned techniques on the front covers of these magazines, in fact the front cover pictures were your typical fully clothed, respectable looking, successful women, as you'd expect in a modern woman's magazine. But doesn't it seem like having those kinds of headlines at eye-level to a fifth grader might make our children get some wrong ideas about sexuality, as in, it should always be on their mind, because it's always on the front cover of those magazines?

That line of thinking is just plain dumb. Parents are the single greatest influence on their children, not all this outside stuff. Sex gets on your mind because of biological reasons, not because you saw magizines at an age where you might not even know what is being talked about. Do you think a kid that doesn't know about sex has any idea what the "naughty things you can do to him in the bedroom" implies?

What am I supposed to do about that kind of situation, keep my kid inside and away from grocery stores until they're 18? The point is, it is the parent's primary responsibility to filter out unwanted material, but that doesn't give you the right to go around glamorizing, or even normalizing, overtly sexual behavior in places you could reasonably expect to find a preschooler.

You're delusional if you think that a preschooler can even read the magazine cover and even know what is being talked about. You're also delusional if you think that hiding magazines will keep kids from ever knowing about sex. At some point biology enters into it. As a responsible parent, you should have discussed the relevent issues before that happens. There's a reason girls brought up in a strict Catholic upbringing and going to all Catholic schools become the campus slut in college.

I don't believe government regulation is the way to solve this kind of issue, but I think it's well within your rights (including your First Amendment rights), to speak out and ask the corporations, who do have some kind of control what gets displayed where, to do something about it.

No, its not. Instead of getting government to censor people, you're trying to get corporations to do it for you. Same result, different tactic. Censorship is censorship no matter what group is enforcing it.

For the record, I plan to use a locked-down computer with all sorts of nanny software when my child gets old enough to use one (he/she is due in July, which is why I've been thinking about it more), so this particular issue of Google and Yahoo possibly not doing enough to filter things for the populace at large isn't going to affect me. I just wanted to point out that society, including businesses and including you, the individual, isn't entirely free of responsibility when it comes to someone else's child.

If its my responsiblity to help raise your child, than I should get a say in how you're raising your child. If you're going to blame me because your child didn't come out the way you wanted, then I certainly can be more involved in how you raise your kid. For the record, I think religon is garbage, so when raising your kid, raise them atheist. I don't want you filling your kid's head with fairy tales and myths.

Re:Oh the Humanity!

[crymeph0 (682581)]

If its my responsiblity to help raise your child, than I should get a say in how you're raising your child. If you're going to blame me because your child didn't come out the way you wanted, then I certainly can be more involved in how you raise your kid. For the record, I think religon is garbage, so when raising your kid, raise them atheist. I don't want you filling your kid's head with fairy tales and myths.

So you agree with my idea in principle, we're just quibbling over price. I can deal. I will agree that my child will be raised to respect your opinions, and not in a Southern Baptist "I respect your opinion, you hell-bound faggot" sense, but really to accept that you have the right to live your life the way you want. My child will also not kill you or your family for sport.

In exchange, I only ask that you not swear or talk about sex in front of my child before they're at least in middle school. That's all

Everybody in this thread has assumed that I am somehow hell-bent on keeping my child away from all uncomfortable subjects until they're 18, and that I want everyone else to stop what they're doing so it doesn't interfere with my master plan. That's not the case, I just think people need to respect that children are impressionable, and just because it's primarily the parent's job to filter out the bad, it's not necessarily alright for you to act like there will never be children in a public place.

Re:Oh the Humanity!

[im_thatoneguy (819432)]

Here's an easy solution and you don't even have to teach your kid to not kill atheists in their spare time.

Every time you see a magazine: tell your kid how stupid those magazine are. By the time they can read the word sex they'll have gotten impressed into their impressionable young mind that those magazine are stupid and to be disregarded. If they don't trust your assessment then you're screwed either way and no headline is ever going to do more damage than that setback. Don't say the magazine are "bad". Just belittle them and immature and stupid.

While they're young they'll believe you because you're like a God to them. When they're old they'll believe you because you've told them every day of their lives that they're for "desperate old ugly housewives who have nothing to do with their time and live sad pathetic lives". Nothing enticing. Just something the 'uncool' mom would read. Something you wouldn't be caught dead by your friends reading or even looking at.

Re:Oh the Humanity!

[greenbird (859670)]

but that doesn't give you the right to go around glamorizing, or even normalizing, overtly sexual behavior in places you could reasonably expect to find a preschooler.

Yeah, because we all know that any kind of sexual behavior is abnormal and only perverted sickos think otherwise. Now hurry up so I can get home and watch my Rambo V rental video.

Why is it sex is sick and perverted while glamorization of mayhem and violence is accepted as good and normal. A video game company makes a game in which the objective is murder and mayhem of every form but when it comes out that is has a hidden scene depicting consensual sex it becomes a major scandal. A nipple slipping out during halftime of a game dedicated to violently slamming people to the ground turns into a national crisis. I just don't get it.

Re:Oh the Humanity!

[crymeph0 (682581)]

If they're smart enough to sneak around the walls I set up around them undetected, I've raised them right, and they're probably ready to start facing the "real world". If they aren't, they need to get smarter and start thinking more for themselves before they can get out. The "wall" is as much a training mechanism as a protection mechanism, in that it makes them think.

Re:Oh the Humanity!

[crymeph0 (682581)]

Your kid cannot perceive the information the same way as you. They have no running history or experience that might even give them the faintest insight into what "Make Him Wild With Desire!!!" might mean. The closest they can get is to relate it to sex, and in 5th grade, sex is just a barely recognizable concept to them.

Even if the child doesn't really understand what sex is, those headlines will make him or her think it's something they should be doing a lot of, because those magazines straight-up glamorize it on the front page. I don't think I can say with a straight face that won't have an effect on how they view sex, and particularly how much they should be having, when they do come to understand more about it. "The formative years" isn't a cliche, it's true.

I will agree that the particular issue of these magazines in the newsstands is a gray area, where reasonable people can disagree (you and I are two such). The gray area aspect of the whole "where is the border between acceptable displays of sexuality and porn" is precisely why I say I am against government intervention in this space, and would rather have a conversation with the owners of the newsstands/websites/etc. directly, as a consumer. This allows them to make an informed choice themselves about what their consumers want. I'm not going to sue them if they refuse to take the magazines down, but I will go to another store if I can find one that does agree with me.

Re:Oh the Humanity!

[orclevegam (940336)]

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!

[Jeremiah Cornelius (137)]

Pun intended.

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

Re:Oh the Humanity!

[dpilot (134227)]

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!

[g0bshiTe (596213)]

deep searching

I think I saw this Vivid video.

Re:Oh the Humanity!

[mental666 (147077)]

The OP brings up a very good issue. Webmasters should have a means to tell search engines what type of content is ok to index vs what kind is not. For instance, a plain text file at the document root that spelled out what subpaths were ok to spider and cache or not. We could establish a convention for this directive. Perhaps a convention of calling this file of directives something consistent across sites... a 'robots.txt' if you will. Oh..... wait.....

Seriously though, perhaps it is time to extend robots.txt to include more metadata about more conditions where content can be spidered. Simple augmentation of paths with a few tags such as NSFW, Pr0n, and goatse could go a long way to helping.... blah blah.. insert semantic web tripe here....

Re:Oh the Humanity!

[mental666 (147077)]

Oh, the abuse is a side issue. I understood the article as someone trying to push the burden of not displaying smut onto google. The reality is that had they implemented a sane robots.txt file in the first place, this would never have happened.

So, from the perspective of liability, IMO the webmaster is responsible for exercising due diligence in creating a robots.txt that would have prevented booby thumbnails from turning up on google when little johnny was searching for legos (spelled 'big titty chicks', but he really meant legos... his mom swears).

Now, in that circumstance abuse or compliance of the contents of a robots.txt file still falls to the site owner and not some third party (google).

Are there flaws in my idea? Certainly, it's the product of 5 minutes of thought and a bit of sarcasm. However, it seems to me that demanding google or any other search engine not show porn it spidered is silly especially since google actually honors robots.txt. Were the situation different I would argue that if a webmaster doesn't want something spidered you should adhere to that.

Re:Oh the Humanity!

[severoon (536737)]

In all fairness, I like Google and freedom and all that good stuff, but they messed up safe search. It shouldn't be a user settable option, the safe Google search engine should be at a different URL. Like safe.google.com or something like that. This way, if I'm a parent I can whitelist safe.google.com and ban www.google.com at my router. Kids still get google and all the wonders of the Internet and I get to exercise soul-crushing control over every aspect of their lives. (Not that I would, as a parent, do this...but we must recognize that there are irrational people out there that believe it's a good idea to shield their kids from having to deal with the world in the hopes that, at some point in the future, thrusting them into said world with a complete lack of practice, understanding, and context will allow them to flourish. And these irrational people will make life difficult for us all unless we may it easy for them to corrupt their children by pervasively imposing limits on every aspect of their existence.)

Wikipedia could do the same thing too—it wouldn't be hard to create, say, a couple or three categories of safety and then create subdomains like safe1.wikipedia.org and safe2.wikipedia.org that only allow browsing of that safety level (inclusive of safer levels, obviously). Same as before, parents block wikipedia.org and whitelist the safety level they're comfortable with. Best of all, with this approach specific content can be targeted at different levels of safety. Say I view an article on xtina piercing, for example. The helpful image might be listed as "unsafe" whereas the text describing the topic might be at safety level 5. Viewing that article via www.wikipedia.org would show the whole deal. Viewing at safe5.wikipedia.org would show the text and a placeholder for the image. Viewing that article via safe4.wikipedia.org would show a placeholder for the entire article: "This content is unsafe for viewing at safety level 4." Or vice versa—maybe if I'm browsing an article on an organization called "Kill the Purple Beast", the text of the article exceeds my safety level but the image of Barney is just fine for display, so that's all I see. Then at least I know the "purple beast" they're referring to is Barney, and I've gotten some value from the experience.

XXX domain names.

[ArcherB (796902)]

.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.

[SCHecklerX (229973)]

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.

[ArcherB (796902)]

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.

[tverbeek (457094)]

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.

[rs79 (71822)]

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.

[houghi (78078)]

" 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

http://www.sexmuseumamsterdam.nl could then be http://www.sexmuseumamsterdam.museum/ [www.sexmus...dam.museum]

Those people are right. It is NOT about content. The welcome page has a female nipple. That could be seen as adult content in some countries. Also some of the content might not be seen as fit for children by some.

Now I am not talking wether or not it is, what I am talking about is that a museum domain does not tell anything about the content.

Re:XXX domain names.

[rs79 (71822)]

"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."

This is not a subtantive argument demonstrating the idea will not work. Just an edge-case that probably nobody cares about.

"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."

Of course not. Nothing will stop a determined 13 year old. But an 8 year old that types "pussy" into google? That's different.

The key here I think is "progess not perfection".

I don't have a dog in this fight, I jsut think it's funny a solution is sought to what some perceive is a problem and a fairly elegant tehnical solution almost made the light of day but was squashed by the Bush administration; the net effect of which keeps porn in "the mainstream".

I love irony like this. I live for it.

Re:XXX domain names.

[rs79 (71822)]

"I was pointing out that your scenario was just a naive and simple-minded as expecting people to stop looking for it. Sorry if that went over your head. "

It didn't go over my head and it's rediculous to assume people will stop searching for it. Porn is what drove the internet to the length, depth and bredth is it today. Half the .com zone are porn names - or were last time I looked at around the 30 million name mark.

Of course it's a simple plan. Very simple. You then have to ask yourself what returns you get for such a tiny amount of effort and it appears to be substantial.

The .com namespace is overloaded. There has been widespread consensus on this for almsot 15 years. It was supposed to be split up according to Jon Postel's plan a decade ago but big bussiness in the form of their intellectual property attornies colluded with the US government behind the scenes to block the introduction of new tlds. These (mostly 3-letter companies) spent tens of millions of dollars that I know of to lobby in DC to block new tlds that I know of, and dollars to donuts it was way more than that. It was never part of the "open and transparent" process the government insisted was the mandate. The inflection point should you care to look, was when Mike Robbers scuttled the 4th IFWP meeting in Boston; by then the fix was in and it was clear Ira Magaziner had lied to us.

Title is incorrect

[Malevolent Tester (1201209)]

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

What about me?

[edmicman (830206)]

How the heck am I supposed to find stuff?

Re:

[edmicman (830206)]

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.....

Heh, nice try

[Applekid (993327)]

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

SafeSearch??

[Zebraheaded (1229302)]

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:

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

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.)

is it on the internet?

[SoupGuru (723634)]

I use a search engine to search the internet.

There is pr0n on the internet.

I think it's pretty simple...

In other news, Microsoft denounces Open Source

[jollyreaper (513215)]

"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."

Leisure Suit Larry

[Statecraftsman (718862)]

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.

Don't know about Yale.

[jellomizer (103300)]

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.

Who's Protecting Whom?

[Gallenod (84385)]

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

[homer_s (799572)]

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

[ausoleil (322752)]

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...

[owlnation (858981)]

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:Will never work...

[ruggerboy (553525)]

Kids these days. To think they'll never know the joy of the JC Penny catalog's bra section. /nostalia

All about Free Porn

[Alsee (515537)]

"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

[king-manic (409855)]

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.

Dr. Cox (from Scrubs the TV series)

[El_Muerte_TDS (592157)]

I'm fairly sure that if they took all the porn off the Internet, there'd only be 1 website left, and it would be called Bring Back The Porn.

Re:Meta Tags

[KillerCow (213458)]

There are already numerous meta tag schemes for content rating.

http://www.icra.org/label/ [icra.org]
http://www.w3.org/PICS/ [w3.org]
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/wcl/ [w3.org]

Re:

[grumbel (592662)]

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 so

Re:

[tverbeek (457094)]

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