Google-Funded Free Wi-Fi Kiosks Are Scrapping Web Browsing Because Too Many People Were Using it For Porn (businessinsider.com) 140
This is why New Yorkers can't have nice things. LinkNYC, the initiative to install super-fast wifi hubs in New York City, is suspending web browsing on all its tablets after 8 months due to "inappropriate behavior," the company says, according to a report on BusinessInsider. From the article:Google parent company Alphabet funds LinkNYC through its spinoff Sidewalk Labs. "... Some users have been monopolizing the Link tablets and using them inappropriately, preventing others from being able to use them while frustrating the residents and businesses around them," the company writes in a statement. DNAInfo previously reported that people were using the hubs to watch porn.
Lol (Score:2, Funny)
Like there's any other use for the Internet.
Re: (Score:3)
However, I expect it is just people leaving pages open for the "shock" value. Then actual enjoyment of the content.
Re:Lol (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
When every succeeding generation is playing with less of a deck than the predecessor then what else could one expect? Make stupid people, people will use things for stupid reasons.
Re: (Score:1)
When every succeeding generation is playing with less of a deck than the predecessor then what else could one expect? Make stupid people, people will use things for stupid reasons.
At the rate grammar is collapsing (not to mention spelling) each succeeding generation will be so increasingly stupid that eventually they will no longer be able to write, probably saving us all from horribly misspelt and worded words and phrases. Not to mention unreadable comments and articles. Even (especially) in /.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably. You can't really enjoy porn in public, but leaving porn in unexpected places is a classic prank. Trivial in execution, good for a laugh if you can witness or hear about the reaction.
Not me though. I have more class than that.
Re:Lol (Score:5, Insightful)
Trivial in execution, good for a laugh
Yeah, amateur shock is "funny" in the same way that my brother in law dropping trou at Thanksgiving was funny. He isn't allowed in my house until he apologizes, and at 55 years old, still hasn't figured out what he did wrong.
At some point, the shock value isn't funny anymore (if it was ever that way) People usually grow out of that once they get out of puberty, some people never do.
Re: (Score:1)
respectfully, I disagree...the older you get, the better shock value becomes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is only shocking how little people respect others. IT is pure lack of respect to be disrespectful for "shock" value. If you don't value respect, then don't be "shocked" when I don't respect you. Except, you'll have earned my disrespect.
Re: (Score:2)
An important element of the prank is that it depends upon the victim's 'cooperation.' Any person finding the pornography page open could, in seconds, close the tab and get on with whatever they wanted. That would be the sensible course of action, and the end of the attempted prank. The fun comes when the victim cannot help but overreact - when they jump and scream, try to shield the eyes of children, cower in fear from the controls and start shouting their outrage to all nearby. That's funny, and it's all t
what? (Score:2)
I find it shocking that you find it shocking that little people (this includes dwarfs and midgets, I assume) respect others!
In fact, I find it disrespectful to call them 'little people'. :-p
Re: (Score:1)
He isn't allowed in my house until he apologizes, and at 55 years old, still hasn't figured out what he did wrong.
To be perfectly honest I can't figure out what he did wrong either. I do however notice that someone in your family is incredibly easily offended.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki... [wiktionary.org]
Not really a phrase I would use for it, but he bared his rear end for the Thanksgiving attendees.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh calamity! Thou must be banished!
As I said, some people offend too easily.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta shove them back into alleyways and get them out of sight again.
This is Manhattan. No alleys.
Re: (Score:2)
What virtue you have. You're opinion is based on just that, your personal opinion. Unless there are free kiosks that cannot display porn, you have nothing to substantiate your claim.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't really enjoy porn in public...
Maybe you can't... http://nypost.com/2016/09/11/b... [nypost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Slashdot, where the trolls are honest (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Can confirm, his wife helped me with my wanking problem.
Don't blame Google (Score:2)
Well, no one could have anticipated this. Or at the very least the organization that put up these kiosks would have needed a lot of Internet experience to think that this might happen.
If the problem is that porn is being left on equipment when a user is done I might suggest simply resetting and rebooting the device after each use. That would be easy enough to do with one or more simple sensors and should be done for the security of all users anyway. If it is that Google doesn't like what the users are usi
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no one could have anticipated this. Or at the very least the organization that put up these kiosks would have needed a lot of Internet experience to think that this might happen.
All it would have taken to anticipate this is five minutes shoulder surfing the computers in the nearest public library. Any library. Anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
So what (Score:5, Funny)
If I want to watch porn and masturbate at a kiosk, who are you to take away my American freedoms? George Washington fought for my right to masturbate at kiosks.
Re: (Score:2)
Right to bare your gun?
DNAInfo (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Throttle and Filter. Very simple solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
They found an even simpler solution.
addressing the wrong problem. again. (Score:4, Insightful)
Porn or cat videos. Or playing Candy Crush for hours. Once again, addressing the wrong problem. Why should it matter what I watch on them. The real problem is here is monopolisation of the devices. I can monopolise one of those devices just as easily watching cat videos.
For once. Just once, will somebody look at a problem and address it properly rather than taking a side-swipe at some unrelated hot-button topic?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:addressing the wrong problem. again. (Score:5, Informative)
LinkNYC says that it's working with city officials to come up with potential solutions, like time limits, so that it can allow users to browse the web once more. In the meantime, people will still be able to use the tablets to make calls and look at maps.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder when such a service, when offered for free, is subject to net neutrality. Watching art photos in a museum is art porn. Maps of Indian restaurants for those that are palak paneer-deprived is also porn.
The only way to limit this is to curate it, which then removes liability protection for services rendered, if I'm not mistaken.
I understand the purpose, but without curation of some type, it's an open platform for users. Curating it costs $$, and so the ad revenue drops, making it less useful. Oh, wait
Re: (Score:3)
This is just a temporary measure until they come up with a better solution.
Sorry, I don't buy that. If the problem is that some people are over-using the systems preventing others from using them, then completely disabling them for everybody while you look for a better solution is worse than doing nothing. You've turned unavailable for some people in some places at some times to unavailable for all people every place all the time.
There's no question this was a knee jerk reaction to "pr0n is bad!" They're not trying to prevent people from hogging them. They're preventing people
Re:addressing the wrong problem. again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Their hubs, their rules. This is a classic example of the tragedy of the commons. There's always some douche who wants to abuse it. I'm curious as to why your ire isn't directed at the abusers.
Re: (Score:1)
Their hubs, their rules. This is a classic example of the tragedy of the commons. There's always some douche who wants to abuse it. I'm curious as to why your ire isn't directed at the abusers.
When you're offering a community service "my stuff, my rules" doesn't fly, or at least, doesn't make you a good guy for offering that service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's mostly my position. 2 distinct points:
* If you offer a community service, that makes you a good person, unless there are a lot of strings attached to the "gift", in which case it makes you a bad person.
* If you offer a community service, and people come to depend on it, you incur a responsibility to keep doing it. You chose to become responsible, and congrats you succeeded.
It's the nature of responsibility that you are required to plan ahead.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes it does, it's your stuff. If people abuse it, even in just your opinion, it's your prerogative simply stop making it available. Unless you're promoting that once offered the "community" can *force* you to keep making it available instead of ponying up the resources you were. Is that your position?
They were GRANTED the right to install it on the streets. That comes with a responsibility.
But what they grand-parent post said though was that, it at least takes away the value of the gift. It is like giving your kid a car but then saying it can only be used to vist grandmom and fetch you yourself when your are too drunk at the pub. Sure it your gift and your kid, so you can set any rules you want, but it does take away nearly 100% of the value as a gift.
Re: (Score:2)
That is basically what the tragedy of the commons is about--what happened isn't like giving your kid a car, it's like giving your kid keys to the family car...and having your kid decide that hey, since it's not their car, there's nothing wrong with doing things to it that run up mechanics' and body shop bills...and rarely bringing the car home so you can see what the damage is this time.
See also 'diffusion of responsibility' and other related concepts, though honestly most places deal with this overall prob
Re: (Score:2)
isn't directed at the abusers.
Was the abuse defined upfront? If I go to an all you can eat dinner is it abuse if I eat all I can eat? If I use a free service, is it abuse that I do what I want with it for free when no restrictions are placed on it up front?
There is someone doing some abusing here, but it's not the people using the service.
Re: (Score:2)
More likely they are trying to prevent a backlash - get them pulled quick before some state congressman introduces another 'ban the porn' bill or the local tabloid fills with stories of how Google is endangering children.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just a temporary measure until they come up with a better solution.
Sorry, I don't buy that. If the problem is that some people are over-using the systems preventing others from using them, then completely disabling them for everybody while you look for a better solution is worse than doing nothing. You've turned unavailable for some people in some places at some times to unavailable for all people every place all the time.
No, they're not. You can still use the other functions - wifi services, free calls, and maps - as the poster you responded to points out! You can't do any of those things while someone is hogging the booth with porn (or anything else).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I live on the stretch of Third Avenue that first got these kiosks. I don't care what people watch on them, but it's a pretty regular thing to see somebody camping out next to one of them. Often they've overturned a trash can or newspaper vending box to use as a seat - though I've seen some wheelchairs being used for more comfortable seating. In any case, they're there for hours at a time, and the overall effect isn't much more appealing than a homeless guy sleeping in a cardboard box...
That said, the who
Re: (Score:1)
Ahhh. You live in that magic land where everybody can afford smartphones and big data plans to browse and watch videos for hours on end.
How do I get there?
Re: (Score:2)
At least said homeless guy doesn't have time to mug you if he's on the internet kiosk all day.
Re: (Score:1)
This is google we are talking about. I'm sure they have tons of data about what people were actually watching while monopolizing the devices. My guess is there data shows that it was not pussycat videos that were being watched.
It begs to say... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The should have had a terms of use thing saying that if access to porn sites were made, a warning would pop up, and if the user accepted, their use would be recorded and sent to an admin team who could check out what was being watched through the tablets. Then said team would have an excuse for looking at porn on the payroll.
Re: (Score:2)
i was just buying stuff at victoriasecret.com for the last 10 hours... occifer
Because Utopia is possible (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Many, many years ago, my company rolled out its first Intranet. Not all staff were able to use computers during their jobs so we set up a kiosk in the cafeteria (a very public area) to let them look up information on their lunch break. On an almost weekly basis, I would be called down to the cafeteria because the kiosk was showing pornographic pop-up ads. (This was before my company installed a web filter.) Needless to say, some night staff member was using the computer to browse porn sites and kept agreein
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Because US Christians don't like nude or sex.
There, I fixed it for you.
Re:Porn is bad (Score:4, Funny)
You have it all wrong bro.
Christians love sex. But, they only want sex that is:
1) only performed by married people.
2) who are married to each other
3) are a man and a woman
4) in the missionary position
And, if Catholic,
5) for the purposes of reproduction only. No contraceptives!
Re:Porn is bad (Score:4, Insightful)
You are quite wrong on point 4, however. While it may be a matter of personal preference for some christians, there is nothing in the Bible that can even remotely be interpreted as condemning other copulatory positions than 'missionary'. This might be a a particular church denomonation's view (similar to the Catholic church's prohibition on artificial birth control), but is not reflective of most even extremely strict Christian views.
Re: (Score:1)
Party pooper, ruining my joke. ;p
Re: (Score:2)
It is not reflective any more. There was a time when some churches did forbid any other position, even the big RC, on the grounds that they could serve only to inflame man's base and sinful lusts.
(Though, popular legend aside, this is not where the term 'missionary position' comes from.)
Re: (Score:2)
Predating Christianity, popular Jewish folklore concerning Lillith makes it pretty clear that the practice of reverse cowgirl is not good, god fearing behavior from a woman, and will lead to wanton sexual debauchery. (And thus, a woman's place is beneath the man. While not necessarily missionary position, it does put limits in place. Man must be on top, it's tradition!)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the christian bible revises that with no he story of On an.
That dirty bastard refused to get his dead brother's wife preggers, and sprayed his spunk on the ground instead after doing the rhythm method.
God struck him blind for it. ;)
Re: (Score:1)
Wow. So much wrong. Let me count the ways...
1) The account of Tamar is in Genesis, which is about as pre-Christian as it gets in the Bible.
2) There is no support for the "sprayed his spunk on the ground", as the exact phrase means something more along the lines of "wasted his semen". He basically didn't do what he was supposed to do with it and wasted it.
3) God didn't strike him blind. Instead, his punishment was death.
4) Why was he killed? Greed and covetousness. He was greedily having extramarital sex wit
Re: (Score:3)
Iirc, it was Jewish common law for a brother to take his deceased brother's wife as his own, and then sire a child in his brother's name. The intent was to assure that his brother's widow was cared for (because she likely couldn't remarry in the normal way, having had sex), as well as assure an heir to his brother's lands and flocks.
onan did not want to sire such a child.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No, homosexual marriage is a thing. That makes it three truths, one amusing falsehood, and a point of contention. ;p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Because Christians don't like nude or sex.
Oh, they like it just fine. They just won't admit it, and the absolutely hate anyone who will.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Said someone who obviously doesn't know any Christians.
In the biblical sense? Is that plural for a group or serially over a period of time?
Who would have guessed? Tragedy of the commons (Score:4, Insightful)
This issue seems to come up a lot, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who would have guessed that a free service would be abused? It's almost like there should be a word or saying for that. Oh yea, there is: Tragedy of the Commons This issue seems to come up a lot, doesn't it?
I've only ever seen homeless people using these things. I've seen them doing all sorts of things with them - one was signing up for a Twitter account, another was watching music videos on Vimeo or whatever it is and dancing in the street while singing along. I'm not at all surprised that porn is being watched also.
Re: (Score:2)
Who would have guessed that a free service would be abused? It's almost like there should be a word or saying for that. Oh yea, there is: Tragedy of the Commons
Tragedy of the Commons isn't about this case. Tragedy of the Commons when there's a common resource, and individual self-interest results in that resource being depleted even though that's contrary to the collective group-interest.
This doesn't apply at all in this case. The only plausible resource is "time on the tablet". It's not being depleted at any faster rate by one person using it exclusively then it would be if everyone shared time more equally.
No! (Score:2)
New headline: (Score:2)
Lol (Score:1)
Hypocrisy is innate to humans (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
+ as there is no google-owned porn.com or google-porn ads they dont make any money out of the porn watchers
A lot of people like porn apparently (Score:1)
The second story about "free Wi-Fi" in one day (Score:2)
See? This is why we, the unwashed Yankees can not have nice things, while the wise and enlightened Europeans [slashdot.org] are going to enjoy the Wi-Fi provided by their loving and caring governments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There are many ways to prevents this (Score:2)
Well.. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you offer free potatoes, you must take into account that somebody will come with a truck.
Re: (Score:2)
More like somebody will come with a still.