|
@Alex, it was both. I posted two seperate posts 2 days ago. One with RealityCheck's info and one with Webair's. Webair is standup people and Mike saw it like I did and fixed the problem. RealityCheck's reply was that it was not childporn since it was a nudist website that just happens to have over 300,000 members (pedos).
@Cavello, I have absolutely no affiliation to MVC in anyway. I used them as an example. GFY rose up BIGTIME in a multi-page thread denouncing MVC for processing for underage modeling sites, I was drawing a comparison between that thread and this one.
In that thread, everyone got on the bandwagon and demanded that MVC stop processing for child model sites. The extreme amount of pressure, which including adult sites threatening to process else where and GFY cancelling their advertising caused them to stop processing for the sites... But in a "let's scale it down and slowely close it off," fashion. Then more pressure was applied and they abruptly stopped the processing altogher is a "You all have to go else where at months end," fashion.
In this thread I have been accused of searching out child porn by Alex. Two days ago I was told by Oracle Porn that I should be sued for defaming the character of the two hosting companies (something that would never hold up since the proof is all over their networks).
And in a few of the posts people just say, "Well, its not illegal so they can do it, so leave them alone."
So here we go AGAIN. If MVC was fried for processing underage modeling sites with girls wearing clothing, why is RealityCheckNetwork allowed to host nudist sites with underage girls and boys wearing nothing?
|