well it seems after the icqs i've gotten today i'm not the only one excluded..... i would think a professional organization like the asacp would at least grant me an attempt at an answer to this question - i thought it was a reasonable one - maybe i'm wrong????

I agree that ASACP should answer the question, and I am quite surprised that no one has seen fit to do so . . . however, comparing CJ to sex.com, or even comparing you to either of them seems like comparing apples, to oranges, to walnuts. :2 cents:

Yeah, that's an important question to resolve.

I mean, here WE all are standing together, in support of progressive change in the industry and sensible legislation. But some of us are being discrminated against for our BUSINESS MODELS.

Sleazy is simply the warmest, most giving person I have ever met. Second only to my mom. It hurts me that he should ever be made to feel ashamed of what he does.

j-

Isnt it better that the big boys take care of this. Atleast I think so... program owners and big wealth Gary is fine.

It's not hard to figure it out.

Elite only.

TGP?

:1orglaugh

this all could be a april's fools joke on you.

Sleazy is one of the biggest players in this industry and contributes a lot to the overall community... I can't understand

(a) why they wouldn't want his donation

(b) why is is taking ASCAP so long to give him a serious answer to his question....

This just seems bad to me.... hopefully we will get an answer soon...

Terry
www.projectvoyeur.com

since the asacp doesn't think it's neceassary to explain this, maybe you can.

revenue aside, what's the difference between a site like sex.com and sleazydream when it comes to dealing with advertisers and 2257 compliance in how our sites operate?

thanks terry - but i'm FULLY aware that i'm a small fish in a BIG pond.

Hey Aly :Graucho

I spoke to Gracie on Friday and I am going to help- out on Saturday afternoon!

Look foward to seeing ya there :thumbsup

First off, I think you totally misinterpreted what I was saying, and I am not about to try and make excuses for ASACP, primarily because it is not my place, and secondly because I do not know why they refuse your money.

However, the differences between a TGP and a SE should not be that difficult to see.

Comparing either to CJ was really stretching it IMHO

Bump for this very good question.
I would have thought an answer would have been given by now.

So it says,
"ASACP is the organization that helps the adult site industry make a difference in the battle against child pornography"

I can't say I understand fully on what their reason would be. But from their slogan above, I would think ANY adult site, given that they had proper compliance, is more then welcome to donate and support the cause. But why a site would be turned down if the site met the rules and proper compliance, make no sense.

Sounds like politics to me.

I'm very curious to hear the answer to this question.

Isnt that group also for the .xxx fiasco?

I ran into the same problem but it wasnt with the TGP issue
It was because I ran a pill program. No other reason other than that My affilate program is a pill program.

I guess the money has to come from PORN to be used with them

Still a good cause but i think something needs to be re thinked
turning down good money

i would like to know the difference from a 2257 standpoint between a SE an TGP

I agree. I don't have a single 2257 nor any links to them. I simply link to paysites much in the same way that a TGP would so why would a SE like sex.com be treated any differently than a TGP?

WG

I'm going to be VERY clear here.

I told the asacp (joan) that i'm not able to controll what other people have on their sites that I link to, but before i link to them I have a contract that states they are 2257 compliant backed by financial commitment on their part. I assumed all their members were paysites and controlled all their own content. Under that assumption i was ok with not being a member - but learning sex.com was a member I realized that they are in a VERY similar position as I am (a site that links to other sites that pay them for the links)- yet they are a member and I can't be. I don't understand that and would like an explaination on it - as I still havn't got one yet.

I went cow tossing tonight..... BUMP :winkwink:

Did the cow cooperate?
WG

I hear that the cows there are easier to toss, wanna get in a 6 page discussion about it? ;)

Steve Lightspeed

hater

100 TGP outlaws

okay, I wish I had not been partying tonight, because maybe I would have realized that you thought this was the issue I was talking about.

When I was talking to you earlier about comparing sex.com to a TGP it had nothing to do with 2257. When I was talking about the layers of protection re:2257.

Again, you know I support you, but I think you have missed my thought process, we are talking about different issues/

it is my understanding that as far as 2257 goes, sex.com may have some 2257 issues if they continue allowing hardcore tours, I know CS has to make some mods as a result

As Sleazy has discussed with Joan a few times in the past, ASACP has had to be extremely careful in recent years with who it accepts money from. It is fundamentally crucial to the future effectiveness of the organization that it not compromise it's relationship with the FBI and other federal and international law enforcement agencies, in order to achieve it's primary objective of protecting children. This has been an exceptionally difficult task for the reasons that many of you have outlined in former posts. TGPs as a group have been asked to wait until ASACP has stronger monitoring processes in place due to the fact that many of them accept submissions from unknown sources. Other businesses, such as dating sites, are similarily complicated.

But it doesn't end there. It has been a major focus of the organization to resolve this issue, not only to be able to accept more donations, but more importantly to establish a means to track down CP sites and traffic sources.

ASACP is about to launch traffic monitoring technology that will make it possible to address these issues in a big way, and allow for the inclusion of sites like SleazyDream as a sponsor.

Sex.com has been extremely helpful in addressing and solving fundamental questions around 'better practices' of ASACP members and the monitoring and use of certain metatags, as well as addressing issues relating to the new technology.

I can't say that every sponsor or member of ASACP has no traffic from or links to CP content, but the organization itself will now be able to figure that out. This will allow ASACP to bring in more members and sponsors, and also allow those members and sponsors to know just how clean their traffic actually is and take appropriate action. This has the potential to build some major roadblocks in the movement of CP traffic.

No, JMan, ASACP is not some exclusive club based on who you know, it's an organization that has effectively put pedophiles behind bars, and protected the future of many children. And it has managed to do this by maintaining a positive relationship with the FBI during a time when 'Adult' is the last word they want to cooperate with.

Visit ASACP at Internext for more details on the technology if you'll be there.

Thanks.

hmmm, I wonder if this is the technology I think it is . . . if so, it sure is multi-purpose.

Aly,

I understand the concerns that ASACP might have with the tracking of the sources of galleries submitted to TGP's, but shouldn't an exception be made to those that accept partner submits only?

Just wondering.

is this together with perfection pedo??
:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

this thread is getting good.

I support what the asacp is trying to do and I believe in their cause whole heartly.

I HAVE tried to donate money to them in the past.

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??????

it really LOOKS like a double standard from where I sit, and for an organizartion that's putting itself out there as representing the industry as a whole that just doesn't smell right.

Sleazy that that money and donate it to yourself. Gastric Bypass and you may live past 40.

i am a little gassy today.........

So how 'helpful' do you have to be to become a sponsor?:eek7

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.

>I can buy keywords from sex.com and redirect the traffic to an >illegal site for a long time before i am caught ... although on >most TGP's especially Sleazy it is not allowed and is kicked off >the site in a matter of min... if it even makes it .. i think that >guys like shemp and sleazy have made grave efforts to live >within the standards of the internet and should not be >disallowed to join a coalition that is made of of people that want >to stop illegal acitivities....

** We spider looking for illegal activity every night
** We do active account management. This includes looking at each site, not taking anonymous advertisers, etc.
** When someone pays we have all the contact information. Thus they can be tracked down if needed
** Unlike TGPs (which we love), our advertisers pay money. It is illogical to buy keywords "black lesbians" and redirect it to "asian lesbians" sites. You would get non-converting traffic

gary - this response shows complete ignorance and a lot of prejustice on the tgp maretplace.

i can't speak for others, but in my circumstance there has never been an unpaid link on sleazydream since day 1. I have no annomous advertisers and have an address and contract for every link or it is my own and i have the 2257 info on 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.
I agree 110%

Are you saying advertisers on TGP's don't pay money? I must have been doing something very wrong, I want my money back from those TGP's!!

WG

not sure what you define as explicit, but i just pulled this image off sex.com

http://www.hjorleifson.com/apple/sex1.jpg

personally I don't see anything wrong with it but some people might define that as explicit.......

better yet, just got this one from sex.com

http://www.hjorleifson.com/apple/sex2.jpg


just what exactly are these 'explicit' images that you won't put on sex.com?