Quote:
Originally posted by gkremen
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
|
what you do is NO different than what many (not all) tgps do and have done for YEARS with their businesses.
I'm not saying it's wrong - it's good that you do that and i commend you for it, but many TGPs do the same or more and sex.com doesn't exactly have an exclusive on due dillengance in the adult advertising industry.
__________________
This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 20 dog, seconds dog!
Now read without the word dog.
|