Google Knocks Explicit Adult Content On Blogger From Public View 285
Ellie K writes As of 23 March 2015, Google will remove blogs on its Blogger platform that don't conform to its new anti-adult policies. This is an abrupt reversal of policy. Until today, Google allowed "images or videos that contain nudity or sexual activity," and stated that "Censoring this content is contrary to a service that bases itself on freedom of expression." The linked article quotes the message which has been sent to Blogger users thus: (...) In the coming weeks, we'll no longer allow blogs that contain sexually explicit or graphic nude images or video. We'll still allow nudity presented in artistic, educational, documentary, or scientific contexts, or presented where there are other substantial benefits to the public from not taking action on the content.
The new policy will go into effect on the 23rd of March 2015. After this policy goes into effect, Google will restrict access to any blog identified as being in violation of our revised policy. No content will be deleted, but only blog authors and those with whom they have expressly shared the blog will be able to see the content we've made private.
Oh great... (Score:5, Funny)
NOW where am I going to go for my sexual content?
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube?
Re: (Score:2)
iPorn?
Re: (Score:2)
iPorn?
What the iWife/iHubby not good enough for you? Just wait until you have an iKid.
The Feds (Score:3, Informative)
The Feds have been effectively censoring/destroying entire industries by getting banks to withhold services via Operation Choke Point [washingtonpost.com].
Make you wonder what the Feds may have to hold over Google's head.
Re:The Feds (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt this one's the Feds. Google has consistently been a prudish company. Blogger is now under the same rules as YouTube. Google seems determined to make the internet as tame as American TV. No good will come of that (well, I'm sure Google knows where the money is, so some good will come to the stockholders).
Re:The Feds (Score:4, Informative)
to make the internet as tame as American TV
"Tame" for very specific definitions of that word. As many comedians here in Europe have said in one way or the other: American movies is where children are protected from seing the nipple they suckled on some years ago, but hacking people into pieces is perfectly fine.
Re: (Score:3)
Good point. Perhaps it was the porn industry that wanted Google to do this.
Re: (Score:2)
pornhub?
Re: (Score:2)
Do no evil... (Score:3, Insightful)
Good thing that the definition of "evil" is sooooo malleable.
Re:Do no evil... (Score:4, Insightful)
That was a long time ago. Google has ignored that line the minute they became a publicly traded company. Every decision they make is how to benefit their stockholders.
Re: (Score:2)
Which rises some interesting questions about the true nature of the stock market.
No, because making censorship more socially acceptable through its omnipresence hurts stockholders too. What Google is maximizing is the value of holding Google stock: even if a decision hurts everyone, it's okay as long as it hurts stockholders less than non-stockholders.
Perhaps the ongo
Re: (Score:2)
That was a long time ago. Google has ignored that line the minute they became a publicly traded company. Every decision they make is how to benefit their stockholders.
Oh really? Because it sounds like they are basically shutting out the adult industry from their Blogger platform. If they wanted to maximize money, they would analyze adult content and serve up relevent ads, the same as any other industry. Budweiser certainly doesn't have a problem with selling alcohol to strip clubs. Johnson & Johnson doesn't take offense when adult stores stock K-Y Jelly. Google's business is analyzing data and serving up ads. Not leveraging a specific type of data to make money
Re: (Score:2)
Just at long as it's raising shareholder value (short term will do).
Re: (Score:2)
The NYT doesn't publish racy advertisements or articles either. Because they are Evil!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You're evil if you don't run a porn site? (Score:3, Insightful)
Google doesn't want to run a porn site. That makes them evil?
Re:You're evil if you don't run a porn site? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not running a porn site, not evil.
Back pedaling on their stance on censorship, evil.
At this point, I more or less assume that Google is a multinational corporation which will do whatever the fuck it wants, and that any claims of "do no evil" have long since been wiped out by the sheer amount of evil they actually do.
Google cares about one thing, and that's their revenue stream.
Pretty much everything else they do is just standard greedy, evil corporation ... no matter what story they like to tell.
Remember kids (Score:3, Funny)
your body is evil.
Copyright issue? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if this isn't motivated at least in substantial part by copyright concerns. A huge portion of adult content posted is in violation of copyright, and if Google was seeing that they were getting DMCA notices for adult content on Blogger at rates that far exceed the overall average, and the cost/effort of responding to those notices was outstripping the ad revenue from the adult blogs, then maybe they just decided it's not worth it.
Purely speculation on my part, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Re:Copyright issue? (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought the same thing.
The VAST majority of pornographic images/videos on the various sites are being used without permission (as the joke goes "Who pays for porn on the internet?"). The porn industry has been more aggressive in trying to stop that in recent years. Google either got a pile of DMCA notices from some porn producers, or is trying to AVOID getting DMCA notices.
Who's watching pro porn? (Score:3)
Who's watching pro porn anymore?
The trend in adult content seems to be amateur, whether that means actual amateurs in purloined home-made photos and videos or "prosumer" amateurs where some money changed hands but nobody other than the male/cameraman/site owner (the same guy) is actually trying to make a living at it -- certainly the female talent doesn't seem to be a prototypical porn star.
And even when the content is for sale, the same companies selling it often have all you need to see for free on their
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just say that in the press release?
I mean at the end of the day the result is the same. However I would consider that explanation as "plausible" (I still would not buy it without some verifiable facts posted along with it).
Re:Copyright issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it's more like a few conservative flash mobs went and complained.
Remember when Apple was forced to remove all porn apps from the App Store? I'm sure it wasn't because they wanted to, but there's a group of dedicated social conservatives who do nothing but complain about anything even remotely explicit.
Think back to the superbowl "wardrobe malfunction" - it probably wouldn't have gotten anywhere if not for the group being vocal in their complaints. When the FCC decided to filter out mass complaints of their nature, well, they went after the next target - Apple.
And you can easily bet they're the ones flagging tons of videos off YouTube, and probably they discovered Blogger.
Hell, I won't be surprised if they discover Android next and start getting all the more explicity apps there removed. (Yes, you can sideload, but that cuts down your visibility tremendously, and sideloading these kind of apps is already sort of questionable, given they're very ripe vectors for getting malware on Android).
These sort of groups will stop at nothing to ensure society is clean and full of "pure Christian values".
Re: (Score:2)
I see your point, however one would imagine there would be as much copyrighted material posted that is not R rated....So why the focus on adult content exclusively?
There is obviously more going on here than we are aware of. Maybe they made a deal with an adult content company (or just outright bought one). Or maybe they are looking to cut some major deals with some kind of conservative organizations that look down on adult entertainment. Who knows.....
Re: (Score:2)
This is like when the hotels put up signs that say "In order to protect the environment, we will only trade out the linens every other day", instead of saying "In order to make more money for our stockholders, we will only trade out the linens every other day."
Re: (Score:2)
If you say "we're doing it because of copyright," then you get everyone saying "hey, my material doesn't violate copyright," and Google's in a place it DEFINITELY doesn't want to be, which is proactively checking content for violations.
Agreed on the linens thing - I like Starwood's approach on that - if you don't want your room made up, they give you a discount or some extra points.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe the blogs were being blocked at many schools, businesses and libraries limiting their usefulness and by proxy having much of their non-sex content censored....
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you are correct it, it is censorship and it is against the public interest.
However when you use their services, they can do with them as they please since they own the servers, the software and their end of the bandwidth.
Worst part is that there is nothing you can (realistically) do about it. Government is of no help, since they like censorship more than corporations.
Re:Google and censorship... (Score:5, Informative)
Google's usual spin to try to sound equitable and egalitarian. They're anything but. Remember the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill? Remember when Google took payments from BP to redirect search queries to results that pointed to pro BP (PR agency) websites and religated real journalism and articles about public concern to the back pages of search results that rarely, if ever get seen? Isn't that efectively censorship that's against the public interest?
You mean when BP bought ads on Google based on Deepwater Horizon-related search terms? The same ads that anybody could have purchased, and that were clearly marked as ads? Nobody was being "redirected," unless you think that the law firms that buy ads on "mesothelioma" looking for clients for asbestos lawsuits are somehow "redirecting" searchers from the mesothelioma web page?
Re:Google and censorship... (Score:5, Informative)
Remember when Google took payments from BP to redirect search queries to results that pointed to pro BP (PR agency) websites and religated real journalism and articles about public concern to the back pages of search results that rarely, if ever get seen?
No, because it didn't happen. BP bought some adwords, the same as anyone else can, and they were displayed in the same way as anyone else's. There was no redirection. It didn't knock news articles off the front page because adwords don't work like that. They don't alter search results, just display a clearly marked advert along side those results.
Google doesn't want porn on its blogging service. Fair enough, they don't owe you anything, run your porn site on your own dime.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, yeah? Well, I'll make my own porn site. With blackjack! And hookers! Actually, forget the porn site. And the blackjack...
Re: (Score:2)
but I'll defend to the death your right to say it (Score:4, Interesting)
The full quote is Voltaire's, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
I'm unimpressed by Google's position: in other countries they push back against restriction on free speech. It seem incongrous to impose speech limitations in the US, which actually has the right to free speech as part of their constitution.
Re:but I'll defend to the death your right to say (Score:5, Insightful)
It seem incongrous to impose speech limitations in the US, which actually has the right to free speech as part of their constitution.
The US constitution limits powers of Congress, it does not regulate private entities. Your right to free speech does not depend on Google willing to host that speech on Blogger.
Re:but I'll defend to the death your right to say (Score:5, Funny)
US company
I thought they were Irish...
Re:but I'll defend to the death your right to say (Score:4, Informative)
Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich to be precise.
Re:but I'll defend to the death your right to say (Score:5, Insightful)
"The full quote is Voltaire's, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.""
To quote Google. "But I do not have to pay for you to say it."
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, that sounds familiar....
Re:but I'll defend to the death your right to say (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm unimpressed by Google's position: in other countries they push back against restriction on free speech. It seem incongrous to impose speech limitations in the US, which actually has the right to free speech as part of their constitution.
No offense, but like most non-lawyers you fail to understand what "part of the constitution" really means in reality. Your right to free speech or for that matter anything is not infinite. SCOTUS judges Thomas and Scalia, both as conservative as they come, stated a few years ago in a 2nd amendment case that the 2nd amendment didn't mean that there could never be any restrictions on guns at all. Your right to free speech is not infinite either, with the classic example that you certainly don't have the ri
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, maybe PRIVATE schools can have content-based speech restrictions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, maybe PRIVATE schools can have content-based speech restrictions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]
So can public schools. Not politically content-based (i.e. can't allow people to wear "Republicans Suck" t-shirts while prohibiting "Democrats Suck" t-shirts), but public schools can certainly place greater restrictions on speech than would be allowed for the public at large. The federal government can't ban Playboy, but a public school can certainly prohibit students from bringing it to class.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a free speech issue at all. People were using Blogger to advertise their porn sites by giving away free samples and posting spammy links. Blogger is a commercial service and not at all obliged to provide hosting for porn advertising.
In fact, I'm not sure anything has actually changed. Blogger was always for non-commercial blogs, and very few people make non-commercial porn. It seems like they are just enforcing the existing rules.
Re: (Score:2)
No, a lot of people make non-commercial porn. After any invention, the first question humanity asks themselves is how they can use that technology for sex.
Google will link your porn site, not run it (Score:2)
Google isn't saying you can;t run a porn site. They'll even index your porn site and send traffic to it. They just don't want to run a porn site. Blogger is Google's site. They don't want THEIR site to be a porn site.
Adult? (Score:2, Insightful)
There are fewer pieces of more obvious Newspeak than so-called "adult" content. When did "this is adult content" become synonymous with "for juveniles only" ?
David Anderson
Re: (Score:2)
There are fewer pieces of more obvious Newspeak than so-called "adult" content. When did "this is adult content" become synonymous with "for juveniles only" ?
Never. "Adult content" is an abbreviated version of "adult-oriented content", which is content that is NOT for juveniles. So, "adult content" has always been synonymous with "not for juveniles", and the fact that the adjective "adult" has been applied to the noun "content" should make that obvious. Content for everyone is called just "content"; the adjective is necessary to limit the scope.
Just like people who say "I'd like you to meet my beautiful wife ..." are actually saying they have at least one ugly
War on Blogs continues (Score:2)
Google's war on blogs continues, this time on their own properties. What they want is clear: move adult content onto some other host, and pay them to drive traffic to it since it won't show up in organic search anymore.
Hello, search fragmentation (Score:5, Interesting)
We have grown used to using Google to search everything on the Web. If we suddenly are no longer able to google one particular kind of content, someone will offer their own search engine, supported by specialized advertising, for it. Economics will dictate that specialized search engines will not try to compete with Google in general search, so in a fairly short time I can see "googling" be replaced by use of a number of search engines for different kinds of activity. An unintended consequence may be that the half-mystical "deep Web" that Google cannot access will become just another specialized search arena, equal to all the others.
Anyone remember (Score:2)
It's been done before ... (Score:2)
... Yahoo! groups was a "wild west" place to discuss just about any subject at all, period.
You name it ... it was there.
Some of the group headings got out of hand, like "14 year old boys," "8 year old girls," "gang rape," "snuff," etc.
There was a big bang when parents were finally made aware of these groups and Yahoo!, reluctantly, brought the entire group tree down.
It was a free site, so providing human monitors was out of the question, and the bad press for the Yahoo! brand offset the eyeball count.
I have the solution (Score:2)
Get your own domain name.
Pay for your own hosting.
Post whatever you want.
Move to a new host any time you feel the need.
Problem solved.
IMHO, it's foolish to trust a free service to host something you care about and want to see continue indefinitely.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point is that google once said: Come to us, you can play in our sandbox, use our stuff, create your account with us, you can do whatever you want... ...now they close down those services, one by one.
Granted, this time, this event was rather minuscule.
The question is: Why do they keep shutting down things?
Re:Not Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
it may be their servers, but it's still censorship.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Get your own blogging platform.
Re:Not Censorship (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
You bet it's censorship. So what? Most people want some forms of censorship, if only for the simple matter of organizing your content. In this case, those with explicit materials will not be deleted, they will be made private, and those who wish to view it, will need to be invited to the sites. I personally would like to see more changes like this because not everyone on the internet can discern between what they click on... (like kids, which are increasingly getting wifi smartphones, and such which have little to no protections...)
Re:Not Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Reality isn't always safe for kids either. Why should the net be? This constant dumbing down and treating everyone as errant children is destroying society.
Re:Not Censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That doesn't mean it's wrong to encourage them not to censor in particular areas. As in "hey, you shouldn't do this, here's why."
Of course when the whole is made up of relatively few, large private entities which have ties to the state, it becomes more complex.
Re:Definitely not censorship (Score:4, Informative)
No, it's not censorship. Censorship is the government controlling your actions by coercion, the threat of using force against you.
Untrue. "Government censorship" is not redundant. Government censorship is the kind backed with force, sure, but anyone with a communications platform can be a censor. And it's no more appealing when a big player like Google indulges in censorship than when the government does.
Re:Not Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, owning the platform does not mean that censoring something on it is not censorship.
Re:Not Censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
But not in the constitutional freedom of speech sense. Not sure why this is even news.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only news because it's a reversal of their stated policy, and could lead to problems if it's indicative of a larger trend on Google's part (i.e. if they started to censor their other platforms, such as their search engine, this way).
Re:Not Censorship (Score:4, Informative)
Hello? Where have you been the last couple of years? Google is already censoring and self-censoring, as in taking down content with no external prompt to do so. They are most definitely censoring their search engine as well.
Re:Not Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
People keep using that word but do not really seem to know what it means.
If I own a store I can decided what is for sale in that store.
If I own a newspaper I can decide what I publish in the paper.
If I own newspaper I can decide what kind of ads are put in the paper.
Ebay does not allow the sale of guns or live animals is that evil?
Craigslist does not allow "adult services" adds anymore.
That is all called editorial control.
The government saying that you can not publish something is censorship.
Google is not preventing them from publishing anything. They are just enforcing their guidelines for their free service. If you do not like it find an hosting service, download a free blogging platform like wordpress and you are good to go.
Re:Not Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
The government saying that you can not publish something is censorship.
You must be working from a different dictionary than me. Censorship is when something is deleted or hidden from view. There is no requirement on who is the one doing it.
If I decide not to say "fuck" in this post and replace it with "fudge", that's self censoring.
If a newspaper removes the word "fuck" from a letter to the editor, the newspaper is censoring.
If Google hides all adult content from view, Google is censoring.
If the Government tells a newspaper they can't run an article critical of it, the Government is censoring.
Only one of these things is illegal.
Just because Google is censoring adult themed websites doesn't make it wrong or illegal. You can't decide that a word means less than it does just because you don't like the connotations.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually (<-- no good posts start with that word, sorry), I am quite on board with GPs interpretation of censorship. The original, more narrow, meaning of the word relates specifically to government. It has later been transposed and used in other contexts.
The whole point with keeping the notion ear-marked for governmental censorship is that it is the kind of censorship that is generally really bad. Editorial freedom and such should in my eyes not be mentioned in the same breath as goverment controlled ce
Re: (Score:3)
There are almost no private venues that are literally censorship free so the dictionary usage of the term is trivial in this context.
Re: (Score:2)
Editorial freedom and such should in my eyes not be mentioned in the same breath as goverment controlled censorship -- unless the editorial restraints actually originate from the state, in which case we are back at rightfully calling it "censorship".
Except that "censoring" is the only word that correctly addresses the situation; what other word would you use to describe refusal to publish something based upon a moral decision? "Editorial freedom" is most definitely not it unless you're practicing Newspeak.
Additionally, saying that only government censorship is bad is simply denying the reality of the modern age. Due to the multi-national nature of corporations, and of the internet, a decision by a company can actually affect more people than one by a g
Re: (Score:3)
Is it a mere "editorial choice" when all notable publishers make the same choice and new publishers are kept from the market by entry barriers enforced by the government?
Re: (Score:2)
If a book publisher refuses to publish your manuscript, is that considered censorship too?
That depends. Were they going to publish it, and then decided not to based on the content?
You're confusing an editor choosing what to publish with an otherwise open forum suppressing certain subject matter.
Here's a crash course in how to tell if it's censorship:
Not censorship: By default nothing is published. The selection board chooses which select few items out of many to publish.
Censorship: By default everything is published. The selection board chooses which select items out of many to not publish.
Now,
Re:Not Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree with the sentiment that this isn't to be considered unlawful or anything, the word censorship does apply. The word censorship means simply that content is reviewed and objectionable portions suppressed/deleted, not that a state institution is doing it or that there is no alternative way of producing that content.
If a private radio station bleeps out something, it's still called censorship. Sometimes it's for FCC guidelines so it's at least related to government in such cases, but different radio stations exercise different disciplines. For example a song that references weed gets bleeped on one local station, but not another in my area.
The meaning of a word is not something that should be politicized...
Re: (Score:2)
It would be, but it'd be impossible to prove unless someone in the State or at Google spoke up about it.
Re:Not Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
However, in the cases of the stores selling stuff, or newspapers publishing stuff, every item is chosen for and cleared by the entity selling/publishing them. That's different from a service that solicits self-publication by the masses.
The key difference is that newspapers, stores, etc. start with nothing and choose what to add. This type of censorship starts with everything and chooses what to exclude.
The eBay/Craigslist examples are the companies not wanting to enable illegal activity (many of the ads/sales would fall into illegal activity depending on where/how the transactions occurred - this is them not wanting to be an accessory to illegal activity).
Google is not preventing them from publishing anything. They are just enforcing their guidelines for their free service.
However, that is censorship. Practically the dictionary definition of it, even: A censor is "an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds" or "any person who supervises the manners or morality of others." Censorship is the act of acting as a censor. This situation is absolutely Google suppressing blogs on a "morality" basis.
Re:Not Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Selling guns and live animals is not illegal in the US.
Google said, "We are offering a free service for people to publish blogs that meet these requirements."
It is no difference than if I opened a free market for people to sell organic food and someone wanted to sell cans of Pepsi in their booth.
That is not the rules.
I would say that you are confusing the word suppressing with the word not supporting.
Find a different blog service or get a cheap host and Wordpress...
Google does not say you can not have the blog. You can have the blog but just not on Google's servers.
Re: (Score:2)
I know what censorship means, I can self censor I can censor someone else I can do all those things and have it not be illegal.
This is censoring pornographic material on googles web platform. It's just not illegal, evil or anything. It's a policy change.
It's minor news and those affected have had warning to move along.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not Censorship (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider:
You own a business that the Government does not like.
The Government then starts a program, maybe one called Operation Choke Point [washingtonpost.com] that pressures banks to withhold services from YOU, thereby making it near impossible for you to do business.
That is pretty much the Government forcing you out of business, or censoring you, in effect, by using a third party.
And in case you wondering, it goes like this with the banks..."That's a nice bank you have there. It'd be a shame if we had to do a top to bottom audit. Who knows what we'd find, how much it would cost you, or how long it would take. But we could avoid that if you did us a favor..."
Re: (Score:3)
That is most definitely gov't censorship
Re: (Score:3)
Here's your problem (and it's a common one): You are primed to jump down someone's throat if they say "1st Amendment rights!" and correct them, saying "1st Amendment rights are only about government actions", which is true. But when someone says "This is censorship!" and you go "censorship is only about government actions", that is false.
The 1st Amendment is the specific restriction on government censorship. But many other bodies can and do practice censorship -- like TV networks and now Google.
Re: (Score:3)
>If I own a newspaper I can decide what I publish in the paper.
If you own a newspaper, you pay people to write FOR you. These people are your employees.
If you host a *public* blogging platform, you can certainly disallow what people are allowed to publish there, but you don't get to not call it censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. Why do people (mostly American) trot out this narrow, legalistic, definition of "censorship"?
Blogger is a site where the public can post their communications. If Blogger is deciding certain communications are unacceptable and is either hiding them or disallowing them entirely, it's still censorship.
Just because Google isn't a government, doesn't mean it can't engage in censorship.
Re:Not Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
The only difference is now they are censoring it despite their original statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Be your host" is just not within reach of most people.
Even more so for adult content.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree - for the vast majority of people (at least this demographic), adult content is almost entirely 'self hosted'.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry; there is absolutely nothing stopping you from starting your own dick-pic blog. You just can't do it on Google's servers.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no "common public space" on the internet. Everything is based on someone's private infrastructure.
Hey, you finally get it!
So if other private entities decide they don't want to allow certain themes (be they sexual in nature, or political, etc...) you're hosed. Hosed with no recourse at all.
...or maybe you can get your own private space.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just Google, any of the big service providers behave like this.
It seems once they achieve a certain critical mass, where they are no longer concerned with getting new people to use it, they clamp down on pretty much everything that made them appealing in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never had porn just "pop into my face" if I wasn't going and looking for it. Are you sure you're not asking a bunch of people from Utah why they use more porn than any other state? "I swear I didn't go to pornmd.com it just popped into my face! It was a typo! a virus! moonbeams!"
That said, the only groups I can think of who tell people what they can and can't look at or listen to are liberals and bible thumping republicans (also
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
some blogger's KP stash.
A bit of a logical leap there from adult content to kiddie porn. No one in their right mind uses Google (or other similar services) for sharing KP. Its just too easy to track the material back to a source.
The whole 'private sharing' means that identities must be provided. And that's the first step to a paid membership site. It looks like Google is getting into the pay-for-porn business.