Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Facebook censorship and internet porn

Expand Messages
  • Bruce Bostwick
    ... The porn industry was originally in favor of it, I believe, until there was discussion of the fact that porn sites would not be statutorily required to be
    Message 1 of 7 , Dec 26, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      On Dec 26, 2010, at 5:03 PM, Julia wrote:
      > On Dec 11, 2010, at 7:42 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote:
      >>> ..."net nanny" software block and report any search for any string
      >>> containing the word "breast"
      >>> ...that may prevent a woman from learning how to examine herself for
      >>> cancer or her options if she is diagnosed...
      >>> ...policy of removing pictures of breastfeeding. I know of a few
      >>> images that disappeared even though they were privacy-restricted in
      >>> such a way that the only possible audience was
      >>> clothing-optional-aware and I doubt there were any complaints to
      >>> speak of, so I may very well be wrong. The rules seem to be somewhat
      >>> variable, and the only consistent cases seem to be ones with one or
      >>> both nipples visible.
      >>> one friend who pushed that about as close to the limit as they seem
      >>> to tolerate -- the one of her in *only* a skirt and pasties is still
      >>> up...
      >>> Charlie
      >> thanks for the link, charlie all is explained:
      >> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/breastfeeding-facebook-
      >> photos/
      >> i found this on facebook:
      >> http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39521488436
      >> evidently there are a lot of riled up women about this. evidently,
      >> some few were using breastfeeding as a way around the facebook
      >> restriction on frontal nudity. i still think this is a tempest in a
      >> teapot.
      >> personally, i think free speech is being abused on the internet. i
      >> do
      >> not want my eight year old to accidentally access porn when clicking
      >> on some spam site, or by googling white house.
      >> i don't want to censor the internet, but perhaps there should be a
      >> separate internet isolating any porn related material?
      >> jon
      > This would be an excellent idea if the porn industry could be
      > persuaded to
      > go along with it.
      > As perverse and counterproductive as this sounds, said industry, as
      > a whole,
      > seems bent on the exact opposite, and in fact, in many cases the less
      > scrupulous players in the industry go to great lengths to invade
      > inboxes and
      > hijack web searches specifically to avoid being confined to the target
      > market that would be happy to go find them wherever they are.
      > This was made abundantly clear by the somewhat paradoxical maneuvering
      > surrounding the proposed .xxx TLD for porn domains. The idea of a
      > porn-specific TLD made perfect sense, as it would have provided a
      > place
      > where interested adults could easily have gone looking for whatever
      > they
      > wanted, and would have made the process of blocking porn from underage
      > computer users (or any others whom society feels the need to protect
      > from
      > porn) relatively trivial and straightforward.
      > * * * * * * * * * *
      > Really?
      > When I was first aware of an attempt to create the top-level
      > domain .xxx,
      > the porn industry was on board at the time, it was a bunch of
      > religious
      > leaders that were so vocal that it was blocked it then. At least,
      > this was
      > what I heard from someone who was in close communication with folks
      > members
      > of the ICANN board.... Said individual expressed disbelief and
      > couldn't
      > figure out why the *hell* any religious folks would get involved in
      > trying
      > to *block* something like that.
      > Julia

      The porn industry was originally in favor of it, I believe, until
      there was discussion of the fact that porn sites would not be
      statutorily required to be in the .xxx TLD (and in fact might start a
      land-rush to register both in and out of .xxx and possibly crowd out
      more cooperative actors in the market who were trying to register new
      sites/domains in .xxx) , and then discussion of the possibility of
      *creating* such a statutory requirement (which was the gist of my
      devil's-advocate followup) was what spooked the industry, as I
      understand it.

      The religious groups seemed to object on the grounds that creating a
      TLD would somehow legitimize and/or admit the existence of pornography
      itself, which (disturbingly) was also the position of the US Commerce

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.xxx (this also jibes somewhat with my
      own memory of all this)

      Somewhere along the line (again, both from the article and my own
      recollection), ICANN made a statement to the effect that they don't
      regulate content of sites they provide registrations for, so
      discussion became somewhat moot at that point.

      I think I'm going to back away from my earlier statement that it would
      be an excellent idea. In retrospect, it would be an excellent idea on
      paper and implemented entirely by cooperative actors (like the ones
      who could be trusted not to use open SMTP relays to send mass
      quantities of unsolicited commercial email). In the real world, with
      a significant minority of cynical and pragmatic, if not outright
      dishonest, actors, within a dysfunctionally skewed framework of social
      perceptions and rules, I'm thinking it's not a good idea at all, just
      because there's no way to get to a fair implementation of it from
      here. The problem is a lot deeper than domain registration.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.