Censorware Failure: Kiddle's "Child-Safe" Search Engine (thestack.com) 197
An anonymous reader writes: In a bid to protect young internet users from inappropriate content, a new visual search engine designed for children has launched this week. Kiddle.co filters its results so that only 'safe' sites are displayed and page descriptions are written in simple language. It also claims to get rid of indecent images and 'bad words.' However, tests have revealed that the odd risque image will still slip by into the listings. The words 'gay' and 'lesbian' have also controversially been removed from the 'child-friendly' platform. Other reports claimed that references to killing rabbits, naked images of Vanessa Hudgens and Khloe Kardashian's sex tape had initially slipped into the results. While Kiddle, based in the U.S. and the Netherlands, is a separate and unrelated venture to Google, the system uses the web giant's safe search mode in addition to its own team of human editors to pick out the unsuitable content.
Name change please (Score:1, Funny)
'Kiddle' is waay too close to 'Diddle', which is what my Uncle used to call our secret happy fun play time.
heh. Captcha 'explore'
Re: (Score:1)
I was thinking the same thing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, I thought it sounded like a shorternym for "Kiddy Fiddle"
over protection and coddling (Score:4, Interesting)
children in western countries are over protected and coddled, and as result, even as adults they have a warped sense of the world; they see moral landscape of the world simplistically, preach 'tolerance' of everything, but feel entitled to a lot, ignore the costs of that entitlement(be it blood or money), etc etc
when those who are paying the costs ( be it victims/instruments of their governments) refuse to pay(voting for 'outsiders' or perhaps resist violently or otherwise), they are branded racists, reactionaries, or terrorists,
of course in the long run those who pay will end up with the upper hand. its a ugly future for the coddled masses in west .
Re:over protection and coddling (Score:5, Insightful)
There is porn on the internet. The kids should just be taught what that is and that they can ignore it, close the tab and get on with whatever they were doing. Instead they learn that there is something forbidden, something so dangerous that adults will go in to a panic at the thought of their seeing it. That's probably more damaging than an occasional glimpse of porn.
Re:over protection and coddling (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it helps if you get a bit of sex ed beforehand. And I don't mean the careful and considerate way modern educators go about it. Our sex ed consisted of one lesson slipped into biology class, with a drawing of a naked adult man and woman on the blackboard and the teacher talking a little about reproduction. Let the kids ask their inevitable questions, and I assure you they will quickly get bored and move on. That and the porn mag was enough to convince us kids that sex and porn are firmly in the "boring adult stuff" category.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds about right... I remember a porn mag circulating amongst the boys back in elementary school. We were suitably impressed but only because it was "forbidden stuff"; it was way before anyone got sexually active and the actual content was, well, boring as hell. And not one little bit scary .
For me, it was middle school. It was impressive, but not because it was forbidden. It's because it was sexually exciting and 'fit' with other things that were going on with me. I had been noticing various young lady parts for a while, and then to be able to see a picture of them uncovered was truly awesome.
Assuming this is a fairly standard episode, the question is what this would mean for what kids should be exposed to. Does it mean that kids should be exposed to naked parts earlier (so that when the
Re: (Score:3)
When I was a kid, porn was definitely scary. It had big women, covered in hair, and not one bit of air-brushing.
Hmm... It was black and white. Hugh and Larry have done great things for this world.
Re:over protection and coddling (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a reason we have an 18 certificate for films, and it's not just because people are prudes. Child psychology has learnt a lot about how children process certain things, and it's not just with a lack of interest.
So while I agree that trying to block all access to porn until age 18 is a bad idea, we do need to make sure children get a solid education and controlled exposure so that they can interpret it in a healthy way. A lot of porn is quite violent and derogatory when you look at it objectively, and definitely is not at all realistic. It's really important that children understand that porn isn't normal behaviour and that they are not expected to act that way.
Young children might just close the tab, but as they start to reach their teenage years they will be curious. What it really boils down to is that schools need to show children much more graphic depictions of healthy, consensual and respectful sex. It's really hard to overcome society's objection to that, and to produce something that doesn't come over as cheesy and lame. There are porn companies that specialise in this sort of thing who could be involved.
Re: (Score:3)
children in western countries are over protected and coddled, and as result, even as adults they have a warped sense of the world; they see moral landscape of the world simplistically, preach 'tolerance' of everything, but feel entitled to a lot...
Preach it. But it's even worse. The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In case no-one gets it, that is a quote from Socrates, showing the GP's lamentations on this matter to be desperately unoriginal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the opposite, people have realized that they have the power to change things and are taking it, even at some risk to themselves. They have become more willing to speak up on divisive social issues, that previously people just tended to stay quiet about because they knew they were controversial.
Some people get rather upset about this and describe it as preaching or even shaming, but actually it's just that young people today are more willing to exercise their right to free speech and an opinion. We got
Re: (Score:3)
Also, not all of the charges were rape like you haters claim.
Stop hating on the merely occasional child rapist ffs peeps.
Kiddle huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure I'd want my kid using a 'visual search engine' that's a portmanteau of 'kid' and 'diddle'.
what next? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Are they? I've always had great success buying on eBay, but maybe it's the things I buy. I mostly use the shops rather than auctions. I even had one of those Chinese vendors with a fulfillment warehouse in England ship me a power transformer when the one in my cheap re work station died, quickly. Given they don't sell them as independent items, they must have used quick shipping from China, not the slow boat.
Maybe I avoid things that look too good to be true?
I also use it as a source of very much second han
Re: (Score:3)
The biggest issue with eBay is the way it circumvents consumer protection laws. For example you get commercial sellers using private accounts, which gets them out of the usual commercial vendor requirements for accepting returns and the like.
The worst aspect is PayPal. In most European countries there are rules requiring credit card companies to deal with disputes and pay a full refund if the item is over a certain value, regardless of what the seller does. There is also the possibility of doing a chargebac
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, as a US Paypal user (and as someone who sets up Paypal payments for clients), Paypal is overly generous with refunding customers, to the point of sellers not wanting to deal with it anymore and enabling fraud by the consumer.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest issue with eBay is the way it circumvents consumer protection laws. For example you get commercial sellers using private accounts, which gets them out of the usual commercial vendor requirements for accepting returns and the like.
Interesting... I've not personally encountered that. At what point do sales turn from being a private transaction to covered under the sales of goods act? I don't know the law on this, but you automatically become a sole trader whether or not you register with HMRC at
Re: (Score:2)
eBay has a per month selling limit for private individuals. What some businesses do is have a primary account and a number of burner private accounts. The private accounts get all the crap that is likely to be returned, like old hard drives marked as "untested" (meaning they were tested and found to be broken and out of warranty) or fake goods.
eBay tries to detect them by looking at the addresses and banking details they use, but it's easy to avoid.
Re:what next? (Score:4, Interesting)
I assume that censorship blocking on certain words is just a sneaky way to get the kids to learn a foreign language...
Gets rid of bad words? (Score:2)
It also claims to get rid of indecent images and 'bad words.'
What does it replace "censorship" with?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Make America Great Again"
Re: (Score:2)
"All you have to do is follow the worms"
Re: (Score:2)
How do you figure it is censorship?
Because it is censorship. As I implied, "censorship" is considered a bad word, although as you said, it's sometimes a useful tool when optional and done by a non-government entity.
Kindle (Score:2)
Am I the only one who read the entire summary and thought the entire time that this was an extension for the Amazon Kindle, only to finally realize that I was reading the name wrong all along!?
Kid internet (Score:4, Interesting)
Really.
We already have mobile versions of websites. Why not kid versions? Little Billy can go to Samsung.kid and get treated the kid friendly page, instead of blah blah blah about investor relations and global operations etc. If Samsung doesn't want to put in a kid page with cartoons advertising their wares, they can just not have anything at all
Other educational sites can operate at whatever level of maturity the account holder can view.
Don't allow anonymous access. Have registration through the school system. Make it a crime to post content unsuitable for children on it.
I can see this not being ideal when you might start expecting a child to do research into subjects. 11? 12?
But younger than that, I can't see why children would need anything close to unfettered web access.
It still has the pitfalls of stolen identities/credentials being used to view or post inappropriate content.
And how do you handle children posting bad content? That I do not know.
Re: (Score:3)
Because what you mention as examples of other "special" forms of internet are what the user wants. You really think kids want to be censored? Please. If anything, being "cool" (or whatever the word for it is today) entails evading parents' limitations.
Can I somehow keep you from surfing to a non-mobile page with your cell phone? Nope. Can I keep Billy from watching porn? Nope.
Re: (Score:1)
Because mobile sites double as the kid version.
Re: (Score:2)
This is about at "nanny state" bullshit as it comes.
What the hell do you really want? -Mandatory- "kids internet"? What if the parents think you should stay out of their fucking business? I don't want your creepy morals near my kid. Now GTFOML.
Re: (Score:2)
Make another internet just for kids.
It would have a *lot* less content. And it would probably consist largely of content harmful to kids. Not porn, cuss words, or violence -- worse than that.
Bad Science (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Parents want it, parents pay for it, so there's a market for it.
In the end, if everything works as it should, parents are happy they did something to protect little Billy from the bad reality out there and little Billy, being far more computer savvy than his parents, easily circumvents it and is happy that he can still have all the content he wants. Plus a company makes money from gullible people.
I.e. internet business as usual.
observations (Score:5, Interesting)
death is a bad word, die is not. mass grave is not, 2 clicks later I am looking at something I don't want to look at. suicide is a bad word, but right to die is okay. Searching for gay or lesbian returns a special message "You have entered an LGBT related search query. Please realize that while Kiddle has nothing against the LGBT community, it's hard to guarantee the safety of all the search results for such queries. We recommend that you talk to your parent or guardian about such topics." searching for suicide or kill myself just returns the same bad word message. Gun is a bad word, rifle and pistol is not. deep throat is banned, throat deep is not.
Why did they choose a mad looking robot as the mascot?
Re: (Score:2)
"Die" is a good example of why blocking on words is too inaccurate. As well as the meaning related to death, it's also a forming tool and the singular of "dice". My kids encountered Suetonius's "The die is cast" ("alea iacta est") while still at primary school (although they didn't know at that stage it was Suetonius, only that it was said to Julius Caesar, who they thought was a character in the Asterix comic books). If you block on "die", you get too many false positives, if you don't block on "die" (and
Re: (Score:2)
My kids encountered Suetonius's "The die is cast" ("alea iacta est") while still at primary school (although they didn't know at that stage it was Suetonius, only that it was said to Julius Caesar, who they thought was a character in the Asterix comic books).
Caesar died in 44BC, Suetonius was born in 69 or 70AD. So Suetonius never said anything to Caesar,
Plutarch wrote that Caesar, paraphrasing or quoting Menander, said it in Greek. Suetonius reports Caesar saying "iacta alea est".
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I get learning history from comic books.
Re: (Score:2)
Want to mess with them? (Score:4, Insightful)
Demand to censor all the religious texts. You know, the ones where they stone people to death, and where they nail the good guys to crosses. That's scary for kids! Scarring them for life! Get rid of that filth!
Then let the religious nuts and the SJWs duke it out. I bring the popcorn.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And I was with you until this [kym-cdn.com] became the generally accepted SJW behaviour. Shoveling shit on other people and accusing them of all kinds of detrimental behavior DESERVES a reaction.
You're no special snowflake, you're not entitled to anything. Grow up and stop being a whiny little asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Who?
Nah. We're just fed up with people thinking they're entitled to offending everyone and then bitching and ranting when they get the reaction they deserve. No god involved. No goddess either, btw.
slashdotted? (Score:2)
I can't actually get it to work (other than complain about certain words, like lesbian).
Is it slashdotted?
Self imposed limitations are not censorship (Score:2)
Khloe did one too?? (Score:1)
I thought it was Kim who made the sex tape, with Ray J?
Not so kid safe results even now (Score:5, Interesting)
Same Old Crap (Score:2)
Teach a man to fish... (Score:1)
If it only worked... (Score:5, Insightful)
I entered an ambiguous search term: "cute chicks", figuring a child-friendly search engine would probably show me pics of fuzzy baby chickens:
- It's either broken or incredibly slow. I waited...and waited...and waited... What is it, do the editors manually answer every query?
- I went to KidzSearch, which is also powered by Google Safe Search, entered the same term, and there are simply zero results. Zero?
- Enter the same term in Google Safe Search, and the top five results are baby chickens. So the search term works.
Ok, so I was trying to trick them, so let's try something ordinary: "puppies". Still zero results, even though Google Safe Search has zillions. Same result, i.e., nothing happened. I guess it's kid-safe if you never return any results. Boring, but safe...
- - - - -
Update: I tried refreshing the page, with the search term "puppies". This time I got a clear message "looks like your query contained some bad words." Bad puppies, bad! Somebody whack this site with a rolled up newspaper.
Just seeking my hackerspace :) (Score:1)
I hope they block wikipedia (Score:2)
I hope for their sake they block results from Wikipedia, have you seen the sexual deprivation [wikipedia.org] and, gasp, child pornography [wikipedia.org] on that encyclopaedia of filth, won't somebody please think of the children!
Not this shit again (Score:2)
"...Kiddle.co filters its results so that only 'safe' sites are displayed..."
Every few years something like this comes along and it always ends up being an abject failure.
The fact is that effective censoring is difficult, especially when the subject matter is fluid and subjective.
The usual puritan "child protection" (Score:2)
Will prevent everyone to spot a naked female nipple, but just do an image search for "beheadings", "execution" or "crucifiction" and you well get graphic pictures of extreme torture.
Yeah, the word "homosexual" is censored, but it is no problem to look at a picture showing Nazi soldiers executing people in a concentration camp.
This is obscene and disgusting, not nipples or "bad words", motherfuckers.
It's worse than that (Score:2)
This search engine blocks searches for things like Childline [wikipedia.org].
https://twitter.com/LaSouvarine/status/704651356351520768 [twitter.com]
NOT censorship (Score:2)
People have the right to speak, and other people have the right not to listen. If someone wants to browse a version of the internet where everything "inappropriate" has been removed, they have that right. This company is trying to provide that for them. When they block certain content, that isn't censorship. It's giving their customers what they want, and performing exactly the function those customers came to their site for in the first place.
You can argue this will never be very effective. Possibly t
2016: Someone else raising your kids (Score:2)
If you're so damned worried about what your kid might see on the Internet, then maybe, I dunno, you should supervise all their time using the Internet, instead of expecting some total strangers on some allegedly 'kid-safe' search site to do it for you?
Ultimate filter (Score:2)
They successfully built the ultimate filter: whatever words I type, it keeps telling me the query contains bad words.
"Atom", "China", "Kid", "Robot", "Obama", "School", "Neutral" are reported bad. Even "Mickey Mouse" is bad (well, I may agree...)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, "Gay" used to be a fairly common given name, it's still a fairly common family name, and if the kids are old enough to be looking at classic texts they'll still see it used a lot to mean "happy" (kids are unlikely to be searching texts old enough to encounter earlier meanings). So even if you want to shelter them from the real world, filtering "gay" gives far too many false positives. "Lesbian" is going to give fewer false positives, but it is the correct adjective to describe a native of the island o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should the removal of words such as "Gay" and/or "Lesbian" be deemed 'controversial'??
Because it will end up blocking The Flintstones - one of the greatest cartoons ever - just because it uses the word 'gay' in the theme song [lyricsondemand.com].
Re: (Score:2)
This is geared towards kids. Please tell me what neccesity is there for kids to be exposed to sexual preferences before they are even sexually aware?
Re:Removal of 'gay / lesbian' is controversial?? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about sexual preference, it's about relationship preference. Very simple: some men grow up and end up marrying men, and some women grow up and marry other women. No one's asking they be taught about scissoring or anal.
Re: (Score:2)
So if innocently some men marry men an so on, why does it need to be labeled for children? It would seem to me that if it is natural, presenting it as natural instead of labeling it would be the proper form of presentation.
Re:Removal of 'gay / lesbian' is controversial?? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can agree with this, remove the label and have it divided into 'sexually explicit' and not and I have no issues with it, so long as that's the line.
Sadly, I suspect it's really an attempt to filter gay/lesbian relationships from reality, which I do have an issue with.
My kid is being taught in school at gr 2 that some families have 2 mommys and some have 2 daddys, and I have no problem with it. I wouldn't want her to use a search engine that was less open then her school.
Min
Re: (Score:2)
How do you explain it to your kids when they see two women kiss at a public restaurant.
I had to explain to my 6 year old niece why she only has one aunt because her other 3 uncles are not married yet(my self included) Just this past weekend.
My god daughter asked about men wearing skirts, and her mother said men don't wear skirts. Except a couple of months earlier they were at a Renaissance fair with men wearing kilts.
Children are 100 times more observant than adults. They notice a lot but it sometimes tak
Re:Removal of 'gay / lesbian' is controversial?? (Score:5, Funny)
> How do you explain it to your kids when they see two women kiss at a public restaurant.
explain it to the kids? i run over and start stuffing dollar bills down their shirts
Re: (Score:2)
"How do you explain it to your kids when they see two women kiss at a public restaurant."
How do you explain it when they see a man and woman kissing? Do it the same way, no need for a double standard.
"Lastly just because something is natural doesn't mean it doesn't have a label."
Way to deliberate misrepresent the issue. Of course things have names, it's not a question of having a word for something, it's a question of labeling it as unsuitable for children.
Kids get exposed to sexual preferences and behavi
Re: (Score:2)
Is it? What I'm asking is if it is natural then why does it need to be labeled a special kind of marriage.
Re: (Score:3)
Because there exist a number of very vocal idiots who think their belief in contradictory morals dictated by invisible sky wizard gives them some kind of say in what consenting adults who are not them are allowed to do in private.
Said vocal idiots are really fucking bothered by the idea that other people who aren't like them might be considered equal in the eyes of the law, so they go out of their way to try and come up with special terms to describe the relationships that have not a single fucking thing to
Re: (Score:2)
So then blocking the terms is appropriate? I mean if they cannot use them, they cannot find the haters about it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, those words are very explicitly about sexual preference. They are words about what a person prefers in the bedroom and are inherently sexual in nature.
Re: (Score:2)
At some point, you just have to laugh at what we humans have become. We're a bunch of overly sensitive, protectionist, worrywarts. Kids aren't that fragile. My kids, as an indicator, grew up to be healthy and fairly normal. No, no I have no idea why - or how. But they're well-rounded, productive, and generally kind. If a kid sees or hears about BDSM, or homosexuality, they'll still make their own choices.
Re: (Score:2)
In reality, by making sure nobody is ever "mean" to our kids, all we do is make them weak and unable to handle the real meanies out in the real world; and by hiding reality from our kids, all we do is force them to explore their urges (be they sexual, criminal, or theological in n
Re: (Score:2)
> ... I'm not saying we should abuse kids ...
I'm no expert but I do have two healthy and productive kids that are now adults. They're even mostly sane - though they share my sense of adventure and sense of humor. We've got a bit in common, actually.
But, I like to share this story and then I'll get to my point.
We moved to a new location and my daughter crawled up on the couch. She was just a little thing and not at all coordinated. She fell off the couch and everyone wanted to comfort her and run over and
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
How much? More than was necessary but my point was proven successfully and with relative quickness so it subsided quickly. I did not, on the other hand, get an apology. I remember it quite well. You could say it was more enlightening than it seems or than it merits.
It should be noted that I later split up and divorced the mother of my kids. After a short while, they both opted to come live with me permanently. I'd like to lie and say it's because I'm such a great father but the truth is that I just had the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or have a very big bumper!
Re: (Score:2)
It just says it's for "kids" with no definition about appropriate age ranges or its censorship standards that I could find. Depending on how you define "kids," some of them could easily be sexually aware. If they only intend it for use by the very young then removing all references to sexuality would seem uncontroversial but it would be better for Kiddle to give clearer guidelines about this.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's just such a backwards way of thinking about things. They don't filter out the word mortgage just because kids aren't taking out mortgages and aren't really financially aware. It's especially odd since songs children typically know, like many christmas songs, include the word "gay" in its non-sexuality context, so you're way more likely to false positive on gay.
The onus is on the one doing the filtering to describe why their filter makes sense in achieving their goals. If they were generating a whitel
Re:Removal of 'gay / lesbian' is controversial?? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, it does explain it if you search for it:
"You have entered an LGBT related search query. Please realize that while Kiddle has nothing against the LGBT community, it's hard to guarantee the safety of all the search results for such queries. We recommend that you talk to your parent or guardian about such topics."
Ie, the search term leads to too much porn to be able to filter out.
Re:Removal of 'gay / lesbian' is controversial?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately that's the exact excuse often used to block the discussion of LGBT issue. The exact claim varies, sometimes it's "it will be too confusing for children" and sometimes it's "we can't separate out the sexual aspects", but it all basically boils down to claiming that because there is effort involved it must be censored. Straight relationships require no effort to describe because they are "normal".
Re: (Score:1)
It's not about avoiding the topic because it takes effort to discuss, it's about avoiding the literally impossible task of removing all of the porn from the results.
Or are you saying we should allow porn on a child-friendly search engine?
Mind you, I think the entire premise of a child-friendly search engine is a bit off-putting to begin with; a chil
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps limiting the search terms is a way to make it realistically possible to filter the porn.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably the manpower needed to segregate the sites and the objections of the employees who would need to do it. I'm sure some is automated but I doubt the AI is capable of catching everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they are exposed to sexual preferences every single day (their parents, family members, etc.), and that can lead a child to think that is the entirety of the spectrum of human sexual preferences. As it is, people can get screwed over by other people's perceptions of their sexuality, especially by those who are under the impression it is deviant or abnormal, which one would be more likely to be should they not be exposed to the big picture during their formative years.
Would you ask this question if
Re: (Score:2)
Would you ask this question if they arbitrarily blocked pictures of people with blond hair, or would you see the nonsense then?
False equivalence; blond-haired people aren't 3%-4% of the population. When something is a statistical outlier, then guess what - it *isn't* normal, it's an outlier, same as people with less than 70 IQ points, or more than 150 IQ points, or people in the 96th percentile for shoe-size, etc.
After all, we don't teach kids that sociopaths are normal, and *those* people are greater than 10% of the population. How about criminals? You want to propagate the idea that being a criminal is normal because they make u
Re: (Score:2)
You think kids aren't exposed to sexual preferences all the time?
"Oh, so cute - you're 3 years old and playing with Molly; is she your girlfriend?"
"Timmy only pulled your hair because he likes you! You're gonna marry him someday!"
Parents or partners kissing or showing physical affection in front of their kids. Literally everything in mainstream media. Kids are bombarded with this stuff from the get-go; it's only when it's not heteronormative that people seem to have a problem with it.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure but I think I understand their perspective. You said it right in your post - "normative." They probably want normal kids.
No, no I'm not trolling. I just suspect that's their view. It doesn't even need to be religion that prompts it, just stupidity.
Why stupidity? Well, you can't beat (or pray) the gay away. If they're gay then, well... There's fuck all you can do to stop it. Even if you kill 'em, you'll just have a dead and gay offspring. You might as well do the smart thing and accept it and l
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that this is probably their reasoning, and yes, it's extremely fucking stupid, with potentially tragic consequences. All too often people equate "typical" with "normal" and "normal" with "good" and it's pretty dumb.
Maybe I'm weird, but what I want is for my kids to be healthy, happy, kind and capable. Who they love, as long as it's consensual and doesn't interfere with their health, happiness, kindness and capabilities, is fine by me.
Re: (Score:2)
How about just treating them like humans and skip the labels so eventually there is no more difference than us or your parents or your neighbors or whatever else is normal? Why do we have to label when it comes to children? I think that just teaches them something is different - not normal.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that the Matthew Shepard story is about a drug deal gone bad and not gay bashing like it was presented right?
Re: (Score:2)
pervasive hetero-normative themes
Isn't hetero-normality pretty pervasive in itself? To be honest, Hollywood as a whole is overdoing it with the inclusiveness to the point that it subverts reality.
Re: (Score:2)
What? Are you seriously upset because you are limited in pushing gay propaganda onto children with these restrictions?
Over 90% of the world is not gay. If you think the real world is hetero propaganda I think you might have issues that need professional help. How about we not label it at all and if either show up in search results we just call it normal family relationships?
BTW, most hetero family propaganda i can think of (movies about family and such ) tend to be dysfunctional. I'm not sure you have to f
Re: (Score:2)
Chaos theory. Have to be sure the female dinosaurs at the park don't get any egg-generating ideas on their own.