|
BUT, i was totally fine with that response till i found out that sex.com was a member. Thus my stance in this thread.
from what i can see, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the asacp is concerned with the tgp marketplace in regards to the issue of 2257, which is understandable. But to turn around and fully accept and endorse a site like sex.com that cannot have 2257 on all it's advertising links is labeling 'TGP' as something bad. I can't see any difference in how my site deals with advertisers than how sex.com does? My advertisers are required to comply to my contract backed by financial contrubation which states they have to have 2257 and their submissions are all checked by human eye. I can't understand why the reasons given to me as to why I can't currently be a member shouldn't also apply to sex.com??????
** Thank you for your question. With respect to 2257 we do the following:
* Do not accept explicit advertising banners. The law is about images, not links.
* Unlike other search engines we do not cache images of sites in potential violation of 2257
* We spider our advertisers looking for illegal words every night
* We spider our advertisers looking for 2257 statements every night
* We actually examine each site before we take it as an advertiser and periodically recheck them for compliance
__________________
ICQ 153288107
Contact us at: http://www.grantmedia.com/contact/adteam.html to purchase country specific traffic on a per click, no fraud basis! No need to get Iran and China traffic when you can get it from Google or other of our partners
|