they have the hearing live on Pipe4
Printable View
they have the hearing live on Pipe4
talking about what the hardcore daily video/free videos samples that entice people to sign up and watch the complete movide, without age verification
AOL rep:
- no law can substitute parent involvment. The follows how they offer all the tools a parent needs to control kid's access online. Filters etc
- pornographers annoy with spam, use tricky tactics to circumvent filters. AOL blocks 1.5 billion spam emails daily.
- educating consumers. Families should periodcly check parental controls. Common sense advice - parents should check their children's online profiles.
- Repeat, no substitute for parental involvment
Its looking like this is going to be the major issue for these hearings.Quote:
Originally Posted by jIgG
Its about time too.
Watching it all now :)
Regards,
Lee
Internet Education group guy said the same thing, no substitute for parental involvment.
Doesn't use V-Chip, instead decides what his kids can and will see and controls access to the TV
FYI, if anyone wants to see the stream, head on over to http://www.cnnpipeline.com
It costs $0.99 for 24 hours access to the stream and it is full of some really valid points.
Regards,
Lee
Paul Cambria:
- father of 5 children, 2-16 yrs old, all girls.
- lawful adult expression is excepted in America. AVN estimates revenue 12 billion. 2.5 billion Internet.
- 40% hotels offer adult channels. Nielsen Net/Rating 34 million Americans visited porn sites.
- Adult sites have 60 million unique users daily more than news sites.
- Industry willing to demonstrate is interested in fashioning effective solutions for concerns
- Cambria pro-Self ratings for parents to filter sites, so no censoring of flow of information.
- Adult industry anti-child porn. Supports anti-child porn groups. Offering paying rewards for getting rid of child-porn
- Adult verifying performers age long before it was law
- No need to burden internet speech with laws, who were struck
- .kids domain far more beneficial more than .xxx domain
- Adult biz wants solutions, help filtering.
Interesting comment by the chairman..
"Employ 'adult ratings' on your sites or we'll mandate it for you"
Looks like we may be heading towards ratings for porn sites much like with movies, cd's and video games.
Regards,
Lee
he shot that warning quite angrily.
that guy has issues :)
70% of parents are concerned about porn, but 15% use v-chip and filters.
70% say no to gov't involvment.
ok that wasn't so bad. Or am I the only one who thinks that?
I think when that guy said 75% of porn is outside the US, pretty much shot anyone's hope of putting draconian laws in place to ban porn
So the hearing has finished now and i have to say, it really does look like Congress is wanting us [the industry] to come up with better ways of filtering / labelling adult content overall.
The problem we have, as Cambria mentioned, is that by stifling legal production in the US, it then opens the floodgates for foreign producers to bypass those US laws.
Its going to be interesting to see what happens over the next few months and, perhaps we should start looking at ways that we, as webmasters, can work together in order to start working on a set of content ratings like the motion picture and video gaming industries currently have for example, a hardcore photoset could be rated 21+ whilst a softcore photoset could be rated 18+ its going to be a huge point of contention in the industry for sure but, it really is looking like it is going to be something we all need to start thinking about before the government comes in and tells us what these ratings are going to have to be.
Parental filtering was also a big issue and, whilst there are several filters out there at the moment for parents to use, it would seem that a lot of them simply dont know how to use them or, where to find them.
This was definately and interesting hearing all around, it didnt seem like much of a witch hunt (which is what we all expected im sure) but more of a method of open discussion to figure out how we a an industry, can actually start helping ourselves.
Regards,
Lee
it also sounded like the goverment were just looking at all the negatives and soem threats in there " if you dont we will" rather than looking at ways to work with us. after all do we REALLY want to waste bandwith and time advertising to kids? I know I dont. after all they arnt going to sign up, the adults are.
A couple of them were just looking at the negatives however, imho, we need to look at all of the negatives in order to find solutions to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by collegeboyslive
Im the first person to tell things how they are but, i have to say, i found the hearings to be not only 'adult friendly' for the most part but, also very informative, they certainly gave me a lot of insight in to how Congress is going to be approaching the issue of online pornography specifically i think, they are going to be looking at ways we can 'rate' the content that appears on our websites ultimately leading to (hopefully) better filtering technologies to block access to our sites by parents in order to stop their children from seeing pornography.
The problem we have now is that there isnt a viable global method in place to facilitate this filtering which is why i think we, as an indusry, need to start working on some kind of industry standard that involves rating our websites so that when any potential government mandated filtering technology comes in to effect, we'll have a much easier time of things.
It definately sounds like this is going to happen, its just a case of when and who implements it.
That being said, how can we, as adult webmasters, start rating our websites? Should we be looking at ways to define what type of sites have specific types of ratings?
Thinking about it, that could be a really community discussion, so, i think im going to start another thread about that in a few once i have figured out how to phrase it :)
Regards,
Lee
What you saw today was nothing more than politicians going through the motions to show conservatives that they are doing something about porn.
The most important issue of the day was the international obstacles to controlling what America sees online, but that didn't come up until about the final 3 minutes. They had been making comments on and pressing for more answers to every topic from those testifying, except that one. When the fact that the internet is a worldwide medium was brought up, everyone bolted and went home.
Fact is, American politicians are powerless in this issue and they know it. You could eliminate every single American site, and the majority still exist from elsewhere in the world... But admitting that doesn't get you votes.
I think they wouldnt be emliminated, if they are profitable , companies would just move them to other countries, after all to a surfer , they dont care if the site is coming from the USA, england or the netherlands, its still the same site at the end of the day, and with visa and mastercard being world wide....Quote:
Fact is, American politicians are powerless in this issue and they know it. You could eliminate every single American site, and the majority still exist from elsewhere in the world... But admitting that doesn't get you votes.
and I though we had a type of rating systems anyway, i know I put code in my fron and top pages way back which the net nannies and other kid protectors would pick up and act on .
I watched it on CNN and I thought it went great.
Here are my impressions
- I thought the senators were kindly to Paul Cambria. I know the chairman got stern when insisting on a ratings system, but it wasn't directed at Paul it was directed at the industry.
They easily could have come down on him to make some soundbites for the evening news if they wanted to but in the beginning the chairman was kind and said that Cambria had been waiting patiently, and at the end they said they especially wanted to thank Cambria for being there. To me that means they dont have hostility towards the group he represents.
- They pretty much acknowledged that porn is here to stay and that adults want to buy it. There was no talk on stopping porn. And there some talk about how you can try to curb American webmasters, but theres nothing you can do against the foreign webmasters.
- Absolutely no mention on gay porn or anything about men. They talked about how porn makes women look like sex objects and gives an unrealistic portrayal of women.
No mention of men or gay-anything.
But I think gay porn webmasters are very responsible when it comes to our sites. We dont spam or do spyware, we just have our sites and people have to look to US in order to find us. We dont go out of bounds to pull surfers in.
I also think that because these senators are straight they just cant relate to gay porn, and probably dont want to stir the pot in the gay community because they know we'll scream louder than anyone if you try and take our rights away, so they dont want to touch it. lol : )
- Cambria talked about how adult content is free speech and it is legal and protected speech. Senator Allen said theyre not interested in curbing free speech, only stopping young people from accessing it.
To me this is a big deal. It says that the government is fully aware there is adult content on the internet and doesnt want to stop adults from accessing legal adult content. The govt only wants to prevent minors from being involved in any form, which anyone who works in adult wants to prevent also.
I thought it was pretty positive.
To me it means if you have an adult site with adult models thats pretty vanilla and not obscene, and you have the records of your models and reasonable barriers to prevent minors from accessing, and doesn't spam then you can just do your thing.