Google Reverses Stance, Allows Porn On Blogger After Backlash 102
mpicpp writes In a reversal, Google says that porn will continue to be allowed on its Blogger site. Google said it has received a big backlash after deciding earlier in the week that bloggers will no longer be able to "publicly share images and video that are sexually explicit or show graphic nudity." The ban was to have taken place on March 23.
Instead, Google said that the company would simply double down on its crackdown of bloggers who use their sites to sell porn.
In July, Google stopped porn from appearing in its online ads that appear on Blogger. And in 2013, Google decided to remove blogs from its Blogger network that contained advertisements for online porn sites. "We've had a ton of feedback, in particular about the introduction of a retroactive change (some people have had accounts for 10+ years), but also about the negative impact on individuals who post sexually explicit content to express their identities," wrote Jessica Pelegio, Google's social product support manager, in a post on Google product forums. "So rather than implement this change, we've decided to step up enforcement around our existing policy prohibiting commercial porn.
Instead, Google said that the company would simply double down on its crackdown of bloggers who use their sites to sell porn.
In July, Google stopped porn from appearing in its online ads that appear on Blogger. And in 2013, Google decided to remove blogs from its Blogger network that contained advertisements for online porn sites. "We've had a ton of feedback, in particular about the introduction of a retroactive change (some people have had accounts for 10+ years), but also about the negative impact on individuals who post sexually explicit content to express their identities," wrote Jessica Pelegio, Google's social product support manager, in a post on Google product forums. "So rather than implement this change, we've decided to step up enforcement around our existing policy prohibiting commercial porn.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In many circles anything related to the LGBT community is rated adult and considered explicit.
Re: (Score:2)
How'd we get into Google fiber?
Sticks and stones may break my bones,
but whips and chains excite me.
(I suppose fiber would be a pretty kinky whip, at least to AT&T, Time-Warner and the rest of those perverts.)
Re: (Score:1)
You have posted one of the ugliest comments in the thread. Do you need a prize?
Re: (Score:1)
And the contingency from 8chan is heard from.
They have a little notice that pops up on their PCs when somebody mentions "porn" and "transsexuals" because it makes them feel funny in the pants. To which they respond with ugliness and hate because they just don't know how to admit their true feelings.
Car geeks (Score:5, Funny)
There are whole huge swathes of blogspot.com that are tranny porn
So /r/carporn [reddit.com] isn't enough transmission porn for car geeks?
Re:Bigger Markets (Score:5, Informative)
the more conservative the area of the country (and the world) the more online pornography is consumed:
http://www.newscientist.com/ar... [newscientist.com]
pointlessly uptight people still need their biological release, and since their bullshit "morals" don't allow them to express their natural proclivities in real life, they're all closet perverts
so southerners need that fiber, they won't oppose it
Re:Bigger Markets (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That moment when you realize that fervor, hysteria, and blue balls all describe the same condition.
Those things are not the same at all.
Re:Bigger Markets (Score:5, Insightful)
yes
because conservative countries that disallow expression of sexuality, and also disallow censor pornography, create murderous assholes and bitter hatemongers
so allowing sexuality is best, but allowing pornography is second best
blocking both creates hellholes of human suffering. that's religious conservative "morals" at work
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know much about religions other than my own, but blocking sexuality seems impossible to be true, because sexuality ensures that they have members for a long time.
If pornography is consumed by sick people, as you claim, is it positive that Google enables more people to become sick?
It is true that often blocking sexuality makes people suffer. It is also true that people often suffer because of their inability to control themselves, e.g. by contracting a sexually transmitted disease. If the first is re
Re:Bigger Markets (Score:4, Insightful)
if you live in a society where rich men can have many wives so there's less women to go around, female infanticide is ripe, and your economy sucks so you can't get a job: no woman will look at you
you have no pornography, women are wrapped up and hidden from sight
your corrupt broken government censors the internet
so you have no outlet for your sexuality
none. zero
this is extremely unnatural
and this is what fuels all the suffering and hatred in conservative societies and with men from conservative backgrounds: a young man with no options to express his natural biological desires turns to the worst choices in life: murder and psychopathy
meanwhile, in "decadent", "immoral" societies, where expression of natural human sexuality is easy, young men and women are productive, happy and content
the greatest creator of evil in this world is traditional religion
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then. You seem to have everything figured out. . . .
Re:Bigger Markets (Score:5, Insightful)
i don't have everything figured out
but i do know strict religious upbringing that suppresses normal human sexuality feeds hatred and suffering
if you as a human being are not allowed your normal biological outlets, those urges just don't disappear, they reemerge as disappointment and hatred at the world that denies you your normal needs because of a vain shallow "morality" (aka, hypocrisy)
traditionalism, conservatism, and extreme religiosity breeds evil in this world
that is an objective fact
Re: Bigger Markets (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
good and evil are objectively described as acts which benefit another person or transgress against another person. good and evil are not mystical wishy washy bullshit, they are apparent to, now that you mention it, even elementary school children. any child of normal psychological and social development, anyone who has empathy: you don't hurt other people
children possess a basic understanding of morality, right and wrong, good and evil: putting yourself in someone else's shoes. religion does not make morali
Re: (Score:2)
if that's your best response i guess i've made an impression. glad i could give you some education today
Re: (Score:2)
that would be nice but first we have to get conservative religious countries to agree to the UN universal declaration of human rights
http://www.un.org/en/documents... [un.org]
what happens if you go to a conservative, religious country and say you don't believe in god or are from another religion?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... [bbc.com]
so conservative religious belief supports moral behavior like not hacking someone to death just for believing different that you, right?
Re: (Score:1)
So you post a link to a pseudo legit article and then add a moronic commit about mythical "southerners" that certainly isn't mentioned in your linked article. You are a bigot!
Re:Bigger Markets (Score:4, Insightful)
i'm not a bigot
if you as a human being are not allowed your normal biological outlets, those urges just don't disappear, they reemerge as disappointment and hatred at the world that denies you your normal needs because of a vain shallow "morality" (aka, hypocrisy)
traditionalism, conservatism, and extreme religiosity breeds evil in this world
that is an objective fact
find a deeply conservative place in the world, and you also find poverty, misery, and hatred
find a liberal place in the world, and you also find fortune, happiness, and tolerance
chart religiousity versus happiness in this world and it is inversely proportional
Re: (Score:2)
i made a valid coherent argument that can be substantiated with facts
you reply with empty insults
if that's the best you can do, then it seems i've made a valid point here and the best you can do is sputter in response. so you're welcome for the education today
btw, progress is real and the hallmark of human civilization. the screen and the keyboard you use to read and respond to me are marks of progress. those who use the word as an insult, that's very telling about their intellect and character
Re: (Score:2)
"no, you!"
clearly you've reached the intellectual rhetorical heights of a 5 year old
faced with such a devastating response, how could i do anything but admit my humble defeat at your extreme intellect and wonder at how badly i've erred in my ways?
Re: (Score:2)
i've laid out my reasoning intelligently and convincingly. all you've done is bounce one empty unsupported insult reflexively. you haven't reasoned with me at all, you've made no argument. because you have no argument. when someone is left with nothing more than sputtering insults, they've lost the argument
if you're not the same AC (anonymous COWARD), as the other one i'm responding to, then here is genuine reasoning for your education:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
good luck on opening your mind and unde
Re: (Score:2)
intolerance itself
intolerance of intolerance
not the same thing
pointing a gun at a man
pointing a gun back
not the same thing
if you really can't tell the difference between who initiates a transgression and who defends against it, you're not worth the time. you lack fundamental social and moral sense
Re: (Score:2)
speaking against bigotry is not the same as bigotry. you can't keep sputtering the one reflexive insult you know and sound like you are making a coherent argument. so if that's all you can do, then i guess i've made my point pretty well to you today. you're welcome for the education
Re: (Score:2)
hilarious
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]
"no, you!" is not a valid argument
me arguing against bigotry is not the same as bigotry
if i define bigotry, and say it is wrong, going "so you're the bigot!" is only a reflexive, thoughtless defense on the order of 5 year olds
it's like you point a gun at me, so i point one back in defense, and you go "see! you're a murderer!" the defense taken against a transgressive action is not the same as the actual transgressive action. defining and condemning bigotry is not th
Re: (Score:2)
more like: if denied a normal healthy impulse like sex, it doesn't disappear, it rots and festers and reasserts itself as transgression and annihilation
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure you're both right. :/
SPEND the most money on porn (Score:3)
It's an IQ test, and they failed!
Re: (Score:2)
so the choice is be
1. in a wonderful understanding marriage, or
2. "sorry, to hell with you"
your message seems to be: if you aren't married, or in a bad marriage, or in any way deviate from the 1950s leave it to beaver perfect cookie cutter utopia of domestic life, well then go fuck yourself (figuratively, not literally). that seems to be the conservative message
do you ever stop to consider people and their conditions in life that aren't in the same glorious spot as you?
is this the wonderful mythical "compas
Re: (Score:1)
I teach Saudi syudents in the US and they have deep wells of porn, they have stuff that is so bad it's making regular porn boring
Google Reverses Stance, Allows Porn On Blogger (Score:2, Funny)
Does google object to porn? maybe they should show some balls!
Lame (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
g(oYo)gle
Not Porn (Score:4, Insightful)
Offtopic but...wth happened to /. layout? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this the "beta" I've been hearing about?
Not a fan, I must say.
I wanted to update my signature today, and under this new layout I can't seem to find it at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not Beta. It still works, more-or-less. Beta had a comment section that was completely impossible to browse or work with - considering the comments are the only real draw, it's no surprise it was dead on arrival.
This looks like just some styling to make Slashdot look less 2002. Still odd that they don't talk about it, but that's Dice for you. We're no longer the "community", we're the "audience"; we're supposed to just sit there and take it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I was rather surprised with the new layout, and last night was buggy as all get out. Now that the bugs are worked out I like the new design. It's not beta, or if it is they built in everything we said was missing and fixed the text layout we complained about.
If there was some sort of announcement system I'd have been understanding last night. That is something Slashdot has never been good about though...
Re: (Score:2)
i noticed that.
plus, half or more of the account settings seem to be missing.
porn always triumphs (Score:2)
Competition (Score:1)
Glad to see Google cracking down on those evil advertisers.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's more likely they were afraid that Bing would continue to have the upper hand. Or the lower hand. Or maybe the hand stroking both up and down...
Identity (Score:2)
Posting porn: wrong
Expressing your identity by posting porn: good
There is something weird in this logic.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There is something weird in this logic.
Posting porn: wrong
Found it.
Re: (Score:2)
Under-rated. Even if it gets to +5
Mistake or canny PR? (Score:5, Insightful)
"We've had a ton of feedback, in particular about the introduction of a retroactive change (some people have had accounts for 10+ years), but also about the negative impact on individuals who post sexually explicit content to express their identities," wrote Jessica Pelegio, Google's social product support manager...
So did Google (a) not solicit user input that would have revealed the likelihood of a backlash, (b) not know (without even asking) there would be a backlash, or (c) know there would be a backlash that could drum up free publicity?
Re: Mistake or canny PR? (Score:1)
I have a friend at Google that says the real backlash was internal, and he thinks Matt Cutts even threatened to quit over this.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a friend at Google that says the real backlash was internal, and he thinks Matt Cutts even threatened to quit over this.
(I'm a Google employee)
Internal backlash was massive, and as far as I can tell hugely stronger than the fairly mild complaints outside the company. The strength of the internal opposition took me by surprise. I understood that while Google doesn't wish to censor the web it also doesn't wish to be the entity serving up sexual content. That seems like a reasonable position to me. I thought the 30-day notice was a bit short, even though the terms of service only offer 14 days, but other than that it seemed r
Argh (Score:3)
Here is what is so frustrating about all this.
Consensual sex is good. Consensual sex is fine. Consensual sex is entertaining.
The "bad' things about consensual sex, mostly including distributing media recording it -- disease, "moral" backlash, reputation damage, difference from how the external objector thinks it should be performed, perceived "offense", blatant rationalizations about agency magically not being present for the most ridiculous, transparent and obviously invalid reasons -- all of this stuff co
Re:Mistake or canny PR? (Score:5, Insightful)
Google changes stance (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Ack! Not the hanging chads debacle again!
Hmmm (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Google is hardly censoring its main product.
Not true, Google's advertising products (at least adsense) are heavily censored.
The Pen (Score:1)
Porn or censorship (Score:3)
Honest question: What proportion of complainers just want porn, and what proportion just don't want censorship? And what proportion of those complaining about censorship really just want porn?
All about Enforcement Costs. (Score:2)
Can't install to any of my Android devices. (Score:1)