'Porn King' Says Google Should Block Porn Access 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.'"
Oh the Humanity! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:2, Funny)
Thank you, thank you, thank you *ducks*.
Re:Oh the Humanity! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
average user cannot make this distinction (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh the Humanity! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh the Humanity! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh the Humanity! (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, there's somebody at the local grocery stores who likes to cover up the women's magazines
Re:Oh the Humanity! (Score:4, Insightful)
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! (Score:4, Insightful)
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! (Score:4, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Oh the Humanity! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Oh the Humanity! (Score:5, Insightful)
PLUG THE HOLES! (Score:5, Insightful)
"No free peeks" says profit-oriented smut-peddler!
Re:Oh the Humanity! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Funny)
I think I saw this Vivid video.
Re:Oh the Humanity! (Score:5, Funny)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:XXX domain names. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:XXX domain names. (Score:5, Insightful)
And, yeah, I think there should be a
Re:.kids domain names. (Score:3, Informative)
The main issues with your proposal is that only parents can truly decide what is "kid safe". For example, my 4 year old might not need to access wikipedia, but my 9 year old will.
"Kid safe" is mostly shorthand for "let me use the Internet as a babysitter and blame someone else when my kids inevitably find something I would have objected to had I been paying attention to my children".
A
Re:XXX domain names. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way
Re: (Score:2)
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.
.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.
The only way
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 a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 o
It wouldn't solve anything. (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:XXX domain names. (Score:5, Insightful)
" 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
So, if porn slowly migrated over to
You'll note that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:XXX domain names. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Interesting)
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
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
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds good, but what exactly is "porn"?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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,
But that does nothing to stop porn sites (or museums or schools) from having
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Title is incorrect (Score:5, Insightful)
'Porn King' Says Google Should Block Internet Competition As It Hurts Video Sales
Re: (Score:2)
If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
If you block or filter the internet, only outlaws will have porn.
If you
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Meta Tags (Score:2)
Re:Meta Tags (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.icra.org/label/ [icra.org]
http://www.w3.org/PICS/ [w3.org]
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/wcl/ [w3.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There simply is zero hope to ever get everybody to mark their 'bad' content, but there is a good chance that so
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What about me? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 m
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry about that, that is from a pop-up virus I have on my computer. What we were talking about again?
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, nice try (Score:5, Insightful)
SafeSearch?? (Score:3, Informative)
Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
Reminds me... (Score:2)
Of course, this was back when 5 of the top 10 results o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="NSFW; charset=iso-8859-1">
is it on the internet? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is pr0n on the internet.
I think it's pretty simple...
Re: (Score:2)
Google Does, Its Called SafeSearch (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
In other news, Microsoft denounces Open Source (Score:3, Insightful)
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?? (Score:2)
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
Flickr? (Score:2, Interesting)
Leisure Suit Larry (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but when it actually comes to finding it...
Re: (Score:2)
.xxx domains (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know about Yale. (Score:3, Interesting)
wha? (Score:2)
Who's Protecting Whom? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Will never work... (Score:4, Funny)
right, because kids legally can't pay (Score:2)
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.
All about Free Porn (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
-
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, no. I think they have been doing what they can do deter non-paying people from accessing adult material.
Bingo. This is a clear case of rent seeking [wikipedia.org] on the part of Vivid. They don't like all of the competition in their industry so they are lobbying the government to throw up barriers to entry by imposing regulation and licensing. This is the same reason why cosmetologists are licensed, taxicabs have medallions, and labor unions lobby for the minimum wage. They claim to be concerned about workers, customers, or even the children but in reality they are concerned with protecting themselves from competition and
Vivid (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with what he is saying (Score:2)
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.
Solution to kids + porn. (Score:2)
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 obviousl
Dr. Cox (from Scrubs the TV series) (Score:5, Funny)
There is already a solution to this - robots.txt (Score:3, Interesting)
Robots.txt [wikipedia.org]
Maybe a simple addition to this standard for a couple of categories like "adult" or "dynamic" or "temp" to designate a simplistic "why" content should not be indexed, thus allowing for some flexibility
Comcast deja vu.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this porn king, whoever he is and I don't care, isn't worried so much about free peeks on *his* servers but rather about "social networking" style sites and other collections that "take away" profits from him.
So what this is really about is old-model media distribution versus new business models. This guy gets rich by selling content, and obviously he's "suffering" from the thousands of amateur sites available on the web. Welcome to the 21st century.
Going back to the "think of the children" thread, the