Court To Hear Porn Case

President · 11-12-2002

The Supreme Court that is!

I think Gearge W has a valid point with this statement:

The Bush administration argued that libraries are not required to have X-rated movies and pornographic magazines and shouldn’t have to offer access to porn on library computers.

Supreme Court to hear case

Gonna be interesting!

Almighty Colin · 11-12-2002

Those kids at the library are a bunch of freeloaders anyway.

Everytime I get clicks from .lib, I redirect them to disney.com

I haven't run into porn while not looking for it in years. Popularity ranking algorithms have saved the day.

11-12-2002

I was thinking about this today, aren't some of these parental controls companies taking the wrong approach?

I realize the net-oriented ones like NetNanny, etc. have places to review sites or submit sites to be blocked, but why not companies like AOL and MSN?

It benefits noone in the adult world to have underage children on their sites. They cannot buy legally, and it is way more legal trouble than it is worth. So why don't MSN 8 and AOL 8 have a proactive content filtering system?

It could be as simple as a small gif image or line of html code that the MSN/AOL browsers would pick up and block if the parental level on that particular surfer was high enough. Make the webmasters proactive, that way they are shielded a bit from the obscenity busts, and MSN/AOL users can't bitch about their kids stumbling across porn and puking all over themselves (recent story.)

Just my two cents, but it seems like a real no brainer. I'd put that code up in a heartbeat if I knew it'd block out millions of kids from seeing a porn site I ran.

C.

RawAlex · 11-12-2002

Cal, sadly, some people are more interested in counter stats than they are in doing good business. Creating anything that requires ALL webmasters to do something is just as unlikely as stopping tides.

Remember, you block, the next guy won't... he has more traffic that he trades with TGPs and link sites and gets more real traffic. Using the less than good traffic, he is able to grow his business.

Why would he block?

Alex

11-12-2002

Good point, I meant only on POE pages (point of entry) anyhow. Most TGPs trade 'qualified' traffic (don't throw lettuce at me for calling it that) from their main gallery listing pages. It wouldn't be hard for billing companies to require adult sites to have a warning page even if all their affiliate links (basically 'qualified' traffic, to the best of their knowledge) was sent to the main pages. I doubt this would cause too many site owners to lose sleep.

Like I said this would only be for the concerned webmasters, I agree that not everyone would, but is the inactivity of others ever an excuse for one not to be proactive?

C.

--edit: that was a little unclear. I just meant if you typed in FARMSLUTS.COM in a browser you'd have a warning page with your MSN/AOL/whatever block code in place. that way kids who are actively seeking out porn wouldn't get it for free or otherwise. put warning pages on your root index pages, send all your pre-qualified traffic to your main.html or what-have-you.--

Last edited by Cal at Nov 12 2002, 02:10 PM

11-12-2002	#1
President Members Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 102	The Supreme Court that is! I think Gearge W has a valid point with this statement: The Bush administration argued that libraries are not required to have X-rated movies and pornographic magazines and shouldn’t have to offer access to porn on library computers. Supreme Court to hear case Gonna be interesting! __________________ XXX Productions .com

11-12-2002	#2
Almighty Colin Members Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,059	Those kids at the library are a bunch of freeloaders anyway. Everytime I get clicks from .lib, I redirect them to disney.com I haven't run into porn while not looking for it in years. Popularity ranking algorithms have saved the day. __________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content. Secret Friends, LATINA Secret Friends , My Cam Friends

11-12-2002	#4
RawAlex Members $100 for every ImLive sign-up Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 4,036	Cal, sadly, some people are more interested in counter stats than they are in doing good business. Creating anything that requires ALL webmasters to do something is just as unlikely as stopping tides. Remember, you block, the next guy won't... he has more traffic that he trades with TGPs and link sites and gets more real traffic. Using the less than good traffic, he is able to grow his business. Why would he block? Alex __________________ Let's go to the edge of disaster Push the pedal and go a little faster Let's slam into a wall at ramming speed Let's go to the edge of a mountain Jump off and lets start countin' Hit the ground and tell me if it bleeds

11-12-2002	#3
Cal Guest Posts: n/a	I was thinking about this today, aren't some of these parental controls companies taking the wrong approach? I realize the net-oriented ones like NetNanny, etc. have places to review sites or submit sites to be blocked, but why not companies like AOL and MSN? It benefits noone in the adult world to have underage children on their sites. They cannot buy legally, and it is way more legal trouble than it is worth. So why don't MSN 8 and AOL 8 have a proactive content filtering system? It could be as simple as a small gif image or line of html code that the MSN/AOL browsers would pick up and block if the parental level on that particular surfer was high enough. Make the webmasters proactive, that way they are shielded a bit from the obscenity busts, and MSN/AOL users can't bitch about their kids stumbling across porn and puking all over themselves (recent story.) Just my two cents, but it seems like a real no brainer. I'd put that code up in a heartbeat if I knew it'd block out millions of kids from seeing a porn site I ran. C.