To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I find violence a far bigger issue.
Then presumably you should be giving a cautious welcome to the updated image search. It's trivially easy to find content that qualifies as both pornographic *and* graphically violent.
If the worst you find on the Internet with SafeSearch off are merely unclothed people, you're running really boring searches. :-)
In any event, Google's decision strikes me as more of a business decision that censorship. People vote with their feet more than their ballots; I presume Google is responding to their market. If not, they'll be irrelevant soon anyway. Or should be.
Just curious (and I don't intend to be passive/aggressive here): As I don't expect the Dutch to adjust to American norms, why do you seem to expect Americans to adjust to yours? Perhaps Europeans should rally behind a Eurocentric search engine that better fits your culture(s) instead of trying to tailor an American company toward that end?
My attitude is with my children I don't use any net censor, they need to deal with the world as it is. We've discussed the internet and pornography, if it’s a problem we will discuss it again. However, as an educator I have had to deal with both parents and students where pornography has been a problem. Arguably pornography is addictive, maybe and often is degrading, misogynistic, depicts sexual violence, dangerous and / or inappropriate sexual activity.
To equate pornography to pictures of naked men or women is disingenuous
Edited 2012-12-13 06:44 UTC
Are you saying that just because you are incapable of "protecting" your own children from viewing whatever you personally deem as "inappropriate" for your kids, that everyone else should be penalized as well? How about people keep their own religious and personal philosophies to themselves and quit making the world a worse place for everyone else?
If someone is not willing or even capable of accomplishing the basic tasks associated with being a parent themselves, then maybe--just maybe--they shouldn't have any kids to begin with? Set a good example by keeping your damn pants zipped unless you're alone in the bathroom taking a piss or something (or at least wearing a rubber), unless you choose to be responsible for watching over your own kids.
Edited 2012-12-12 23:54 UTC
Are you saying that just because you are incapable of "protecting" your own children from viewing whatever you personally deem as "inappropriate" for your kids, that everyone else should be penalized as well? How about people keep their own religious and personal philosophies to themselves and quit making the world a worse place for everyone else?
If someone is not willing or even capable of accomplishing the basic tasks associated with being a parent themselves, then maybe--just maybe--they shouldn't have any kids to begin with? Set a good example by keeping your damn pants zipped unless you're alone in the bathroom taking a piss or something (or at least wearing a rubber), unless you choose to be responsible for watching over your own kids. "
Congratulations, you've taken a single line throwaway generalised point and painted an entire lifestory for me. Well done. And I'm feeding the troll replying. Well done me too.
Probably for the same reason you don't keep your personal philosophies to yourself. As for protecting children, it is NOT POSSIBLE to be with them all the time. Besides, this policy does not PREVENT anyone for finding whatever they want. It just makes it less likely that people who are not interested in the stuff YOU deem acceptable will stumble across it accidentally.
Obviously you are a pre-pubescent teen, since most adults can carry on a conversation or even a debate without using profanity as if that magically makes your point for you. I certainly hope you take your own advice and choose not to reproduce when you grow up. We have enough self-aggrandizing fools running around the world.
I'm 51 years old and have chosen to not have children. So why should your decision to let your children 'poke around on the computer' affect me? The Internet was not created as an automated babysitter. You would not let your kids 'poke around' an unsorted warehouse of magazines, some of which contain sexual images, so why would you let your child 'poke around' on the Internet?
I'm 51 years old and have chosen to not have children
Lets, see, you have no children, for whatever reason, yet you try to tell those who have children how to edutate them.
The Internet was not created as an automated babysitter
It wasn't created exclusively for porn eather, so? what's your point.
You would not let your kids 'poke around' an unsorted warehouse of magazines
I don't
so why would you let your child 'poke around' on the Internet?
Because the internet is not excusive for porn, is for information and education, but, nobody can't avoid the improper use of it, common sense, have you hear of it?
Edited 2012-12-14 18:35 UTC





Member since:
2007-11-23
I am sympathetic with the views expressed but wait till you have your own young kids poking about on the computer and your perspective changes a bit.