Google to be shut down - GoFuckYourself.com

aimar78 · 06-06-2005, 12:34 AM

I guess the feds should be raiding Google's offices, confiscating their servers and shutting them down within the next couple of weeks for 2257 violations.

http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...porn&&start=20

LionDollars · 06-06-2005, 12:35 AM

Lolol

L$

sickbeatz · 06-06-2005, 12:35 AM

hahahahhahahaha
hmm

juve20 · 06-06-2005, 12:42 AM

dont think so some how!

tony

SmokeyTheBear · 06-06-2005, 12:43 AM

funny i clicked one of the pics and found this
http://www.virgins-party.com/index2.html

check out the title

Trax · 06-06-2005, 12:48 AM

you wish

kernelpanic · 06-06-2005, 12:50 AM

this is the first time we've ever had this thread. no, really, it is.

sicone · 06-06-2005, 12:50 AM

does that mean the prices of my google stock will be going down?

Nightwind · 06-06-2005, 12:51 AM

It is already known that Google is exempt from 2257, money talks and so on.

Lev · 06-06-2005, 01:20 AM

if google gets shut down, U.S. would loose billions and billions of dollars in tax revenue, will never happen

will76 · 06-06-2005, 01:26 AM

I am glad they are leaving them up.

It will make one hell of a defense argument when the attorney gets the pc hooked up to the overhead in the court room and types in kiddy porn in googles image locator and all the cp comes up. and points out to the jury if the govt is ok with this how can they be busting my balls for paperwork on a 23 year old! funny 2257 is suppose to be for cp but yet they exempt google from it which is one of the few sites in the us that has cp on it. 2257 defense attorneys will love this.

reynold · 06-06-2005, 01:26 AM

Google will be Shutting Down?
Not even in GFYer's wildest dream!LOL!

adonthenet · 06-06-2005, 01:42 AM

i dont htink so

stev0 · 06-06-2005, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

funny i clicked one of the pics and found this
http://www.virgins-party.com/index2.html

check out the title

haha, damn SE spammers

baddog · 06-06-2005, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lev

if google gets shut down, U.S. would loose billions and billions of dollars in tax revenue, will never happen

billions in tax revenue? I will have whatever it is you are smoking

Mr.Fiction · 06-06-2005, 02:08 AM

Search engines, hosting companies, and similar services are exempt.

How many times does this have to be posted?

Did anyone read the regulations?

kernelpanic · 06-06-2005, 02:09 AM

kernelpanic · 06-06-2005, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

Search engines, hosting companies, and similar services are exempt.

How many times does this have to be posted?

Did anyone read the regulations?

Don't expect reading out of GFY when it comes to 2257 regulations

pradaboy · 06-06-2005, 02:15 AM

yeah like that will ever happen

Lev · 06-06-2005, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

billions in tax revenue? I will have whatever it is you are smoking

I may be smoked up, but you are pure stupid. What about all the people that advertise on google and make money and, hence pay taxes. Also Google pays taxes from the revenue it gets. If this is all combined, it means billions in tax revenues for the U.S. government

Alky · 06-06-2005, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lev

I may be smoked up, but you are pure stupid. What about all the people that advertise on google and make money and, hence pay taxes. Also Google pays taxes from the revenue it gets. If this is all combined, it means billions in tax revenues for the U.S. government

billions? i think not

Lev · 06-06-2005, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alky

billions? i think not

U.S. online retailers expect sales to climb 22 percent to $172.4 billion in 2005, with cosmetics, perfume and other categories aimed at women likely to show the biggest gains, according to a survey released late on Monday.

The annual Forrester Research and Shop.org study of 136 retailers found that online sales rose 23.8 percent to $141.4 billion in 2004. Excluding sales of travel services, online sales were also up 23.8 percent, to $89 billion, representing 4.6 percent of total U.S. retail sales.

Profitability improved last year, with online retailers reporting operating margins of 28 percent, up from 21 percent in 2003, according to the survey.

The survey found that more women are shopping on the Internet, so categories with products they purchase will probably see the biggest sales growth this year.

"Though initially adopted by men as a shopping tool, women are flocking to the Internet in droves to comparison shop, research and buy," said Scott Silverman, executive director of Shop.org, the online retailing arm of the National Retail Federation trade group.

Looking ahead at online sales performance for various categories this year, the survey respondents on average said they expect increases of 33 percent for cosmetics and perfume, 32 percent for over-the-counter medications and personal care, and 31 percent for jewelry and luxury goods.

Source: Reuters

Google being the number one search engine, the numbers are in billions

SpikeTheJock · 06-11-2005, 01:39 PM

U.S. government makes a lot of tax dollars, so do many vested interests from google, it would be unlikely.

Violetta · 06-11-2005, 01:43 PM

warlock5 · 06-11-2005, 02:51 PM

Quick guys, short Googles stock!

FilthyRob · 06-11-2005, 02:54 PM

Some companies will never see an inspection

sniperwolf · 06-11-2005, 02:59 PM

hehe.. nice try!

loverboy · 06-11-2005, 03:06 PM

not even Bill Gates can pull the plug at Google.com

Mr.Fiction · 06-11-2005, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FilthyRob

Some companies will never see an inspection

Because they are not required to follow the new regulations:

(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:

(i) Photo or film processing, including digitization of previously existing visual depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no other commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, printing, and video duplicators;

(ii) Mere distribution;

(iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in
paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the depicted performers;

(iv) A provider of web-hosting services who does not, and
reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service; or

(v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.

Read "v".

PMdave · 06-11-2005, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

(v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.[/b]

Read "v".

They can control the content as much as any other site out there.

Mr.Fiction · 06-11-2005, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

They can control the content as much as any other site out there.

No they can't. Like hosting companies, their content is not posted by Google employees and they deal with millions of images from many sources.

They do not manually moderate their content.

Large forum sites like GFY have an exclusion under "v" because they do not moderate the content before it is posted. The content, like with hosts, is created by third parties.

As with hosting companies, as long as large services like that respond to complaints, they should be exempt under the new regulations.

PMdave · 06-11-2005, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

No they can't. Like hosting companies, their content is not posted by Google employees and they deal with millions of images from many sources.

They do not manually moderate their content.

Large forum sites like GFY have an exclusion under "v" because they do not moderate the content before it is posted. The content, like with hosts, is created by third parties.

As with hosting companies, as long as large services like that respond to complaints, they should be exempt under the new regulations.

So you set up a script that spiders some thumbs from the well known thumb tgps, threw some banners up that are compliant and bam you have yourself a site thats compliant?

dopeman · 06-11-2005, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

No they can't. Like hosting companies, their content is not posted by Google employees and they deal with millions of images from many sources.

They do not manually moderate their content.

Large forum sites like GFY have an exclusion under "v" because they do not moderate the content before it is posted. The content, like with hosts, is created by third parties.

As with hosting companies, as long as large services like that respond to complaints, they should be exempt under the new regulations.

just because they DON'T moderate the content doesn't mean they CAN'T moderate the content. under your argument, TGPs cannot be held liable, because they don't moderate the thumbnails being posted which is absolutely possible, since some scripts have a function that auto approves any post.

PMdave · 06-11-2005, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dopeman

just because they DON'T moderate the content doesn't mean they CAN'T moderate the content. under your argument, TGPs cannot be held liable, because they don't moderate the thumbnails being posted which is absolutely possible, since some scripts have a function that auto approves any post.

My thoughts exactly

Mr.Fiction · 06-11-2005, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dopeman

just because they DON'T moderate the content doesn't mean they CAN'T moderate the content. under your argument, TGPs cannot be held liable, because they don't moderate the thumbnails being posted which is absolutely possible, since some scripts have a function that auto approves any post.

It would be almost impossible to believe that Google could "reasonably" magage all of the archived content on their site - just like it is impossible for a hosting company or ISP to manage everything on their servers.

Let's take you argument further - why shouldn't AOL be responsible for everything posted by every one of their users?

Because it is not reasonable.

It may be reasonable to think that a TGP, who manually reviews every submission before it is approved, can be held somewhat responsible for the content that is posted.

It is not reasonable to think that GFY, where every post is submitted without moderation, by different users, at a high rate, should be held to the same standard as a fully moderated service.

The government has made an exclusion in allowing for sites and services that cannot "reasonably" manage all of the content being posted.

If you want to test the regulations by saying that you can't reasonably manage your moderated TGP submissions, you can do that. But you will have to be able to defend that position in court.

pocketkangaroo · 06-11-2005, 03:46 PM

Using this logic with Google, someone could put up a CP forum and let users post pics. They can't reasonably be expected to stop it, they aren't putting it up.

keyboard warrior · 06-11-2005, 03:46 PM

When you see google images go down it is time to get out of the biz.

dopeman · 06-11-2005, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

It would be almost impossible to believe that Google could "reasonably" magage all of the archived content on their site - just like it is impossible for a hosting company or ISP to manage everything on their servers.

why? in fact, it should be expected that Google moderate their image index even more, since they ACTIVELY ACQUIRE content from other servers. I'd say 99.999% of the images displayed on Google images are not from people who have submitted their site to Google. It's from images that Googlebot has actively spidered. It's the same thing if i personally go around to a bunch of sites and hotlink their images. They do it through software. I do it through copy and paste.

Quote:

Let's take you argument further - why shouldn't AOL be responsible for everything posted by every one of their users?

Because it is not reasonable.

why not? is it a matter of scale? volume? if i set up a TGP (i haven't) that automatically approves any thumbnail submitted, how is that different than a message board? i don't actively seek out content and post it myself like Google is doing.

Quote:

It may be reasonable to think that a TGP, who manually reviews every submission before it is approved, can be held somewhat responsible for the content that is posted.

what if it's auto approved? this message board is auto approved. only after a photo has been 'published' will a moderator delete an image. but at that point, a prosecutor can say 'too bad, the photo was published'.

Quote:

The government has made an exclusion in allowing for sites and services that cannot "reasonably" manage all of the content being posted.

If you want to test the regulations by saying that you can't reasonably manage your moderated TGP submissions, you can do that. But you will have to be able to defend that position in court.

yes, to make this argument would require a significant amount of money - probably more than 99% of TGP operators have. but it's a valid argument.

Mr.Fiction · 06-11-2005, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Using this logic with Google, someone could put up a CP forum and let users post pics. They can't reasonably be expected to stop it, they aren't putting it up.

The "logic" you are talking about is exactly the same logic that the government has been using all along.

AOL cannot be held responsible for hosting a CP forum if they respond to complaints and remove the illegal content when they become aware of it.

If you set up a forum with the main intent of allowing people to break the law, then of course you could be held responsible for it. Look what happened to Napster. Google does not do what they do with the intent of linking to or hosting illegal images. It happens sometimes, but it is not the intent.

If Lensman setup this forum for adult webmasters to do legal business, and some webmaster, without his knowledge, posted a photo without 2257, that would be seen differently than if someone set up a forum to post illegal CP content.

This exemption from liability is not new in any way, they are just applying it to 2257 in the same way it's been applied to other content in the past.

Some of you are acting like this is a new idea.

Mr.Fiction · 06-11-2005, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dopeman

what if it's auto approved? this message board is auto approved. only after a photo has been 'published' will a moderator delete an image. but at that point, a prosecutor can say 'too bad, the photo was published'.

But could the webmaster "reasonably" have been expected to moderate every single post on a very large message board? I don't think so. AOL is not expected to moderate all of their message boards for illegal content. They are expected to respond when they find out about a problem.

These are all questions that a jury will have to decide. One important key word will be "reasonable".

If you manually approve your TGP submissions, how are you going to convince a jury that you couldn't comply with 2257 laws because you didn't have control over the content that you manually approved?

Lensman can show a jury that his forum has millions of posts and tens of thousands of users, who are posting all of the time. That makes it a lot harder, if not impossible to "reasonably" manage all of the content.

This is the same type of rule that the government has been applying to hosts and ISPs for a long time. It makes sense to exclude certain types of sites from the regulations.

dopeman · 06-11-2005, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

But could the webmaster "reasonably" have been expected to moderate every single post on a very large message board? I don't think so. AOL is not expected to moderate all of their message boards for illegal content. They are expected to respond when they find out about a problem.

These are all questions that a jury will have to decide. One important key word will be "reasonable".

If you manually approve your TGP submissions, how are you going to convince a jury that you couldn't comply with 2257 laws because you didn't have control over the content that you manually approved?

Lensman can show a jury that his forum has millions of posts and tens of thousands of users, who are posting all of the time. That makes it a lot harder, if not impossible to "reasonably" manage all of the content.

This is the same type of rule that the government has been applying to hosts and ISPs for a long time. It makes sense to exclude certain types of sites from the regulations.

that wasn't my scenario. i said 'what if your TGP script was set to auto approve any thumbnail submitted. how is that different than any of those countless 'image dump' sites on the net?

and as far as 'reasonable' goes, is it reasonable if a TGP is a one person show who also works full time and cannot find the time to moderate the site every day? if you say "well that person then should not run a tgp" I say "well AOL or forum owners should hire more moderators or not run their service".

again, this is moot point, since any small time operator that gets pinched isn't going to be able to afford the big time lawyers to fight this in a jury trial. they will plea.

PMdave · 06-11-2005, 04:19 PM

So a small webmaster that hardly makes anything out of his messageboards should monitor his board 24/7 and huge wemaster that makes hundreds of thousands of his board should do nothing at all (while he could just hire 5 paid moderators that can control this board perfectly)? Yeah could be very well be....same way as hundreds of other regulations.

SmokeyTheBear · 06-11-2005, 04:23 PM

Conclusion.. get so much content you can't possibly verify it all just like google images..

tony286 · 06-11-2005, 04:25 PM

I wonder where they fall in the 2257 regs

CDSmith · 06-11-2005, 04:29 PM

Stop defending Google. They and every other site that shows content fitting the 2257 criteria should be held to the same standards as the rest of us, PERIOD.

And some of you sound like you are advocating 2257 the way you bash and berate and cock off at others for their lack of knowledge about it. Who gives a fuck if you know everything there is to know about 2257? I sure as hell don't.

Fact is this is a major headache for webmasters, and the thing I support (and applaud) is anyone who is actively looking for ways to shoot holes in this new regulation. If someone says Google shouldn't be exempt then maybe instead of telling the guy how WRONG he is and what an idiot he is, maybe you should be looking for ways of how he is RIGHT.

It almost seems like a few of you fuckheads work for the government. :D

Mr.Fiction · 06-11-2005, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

It almost seems like a few of you fuckheads work for the government. :D

I didn't write the regulations and I don't support them. However, there are certain exclusions in the regulations and they are the same type of exclusions the government has been allowing all along. Why is it wrong to point it out?

Services like Google and AOL have generally not been held liable if they host CP or copyrighted material, why should they be liable if they host non-2257 content?

As I said before, this is nothing new.

taibo · 06-11-2005, 05:24 PM

i highly doubt it

Webby · 06-11-2005, 05:35 PM

All that is disgusting!

Google management need to be included in conspirancy charges and their operations closed down tomorrow.

They are simply aiding and abetting porn sites by granting them PR ratings, tho we know there is no money in this.

Seriously.. wait for the day some hypocritical freak - in an act of righteousness and cloaked in religeon, - actually tries that concept :-)

ContentHire · 06-11-2005, 06:33 PM

Bump for WOJ

SmokeyTheBear · 06-11-2005, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

Services like Google and AOL have generally not been held liable if they host CP or copyrighted material, why should they be liable if they host non-2257 content?.

"they generally have not been held liable" isnt a valid excuse or a valid legal argument..

In most old cases the focus is on search engine listing that by themselves dont constitute cp. But this is a whole new area.. google images , actually copies the images..

If google knowingly let cp images on google images they would be held liable i'm sure of it , just as a forum owner or website owner would, so i dont see how they suddenly would be exempt from providiing 2257.

If i make a replica of google images for adults , then it should be 2257 exempt if google is..

A spider that searches through fhg's with my code on them , just as google does.

06-06-2005, 12:34 AM	#1
aimar78 Registered User Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: .au Posts: 69	Google to be shut down I guess the feds should be raiding Google's offices, confiscating their servers and shutting them down within the next couple of weeks for 2257 violations. http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...porn&&start=20

06-06-2005, 12:35 AM	#2
LionDollars Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: www.LionDollars.com Posts: 407	Lolol L$ __________________ We Now Have 4 Sex Dating sites. Not promoting Sex Dating? You are not earning! http://www.LionDollars.com 16,000 Free Hosted Galleries JUST LAUNCHED.

06-06-2005, 12:35 AM	#3
sickbeatz The Hustler Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,993	hahahahhahahaha hmm __________________ GalleryFeeder.com

06-06-2005, 12:42 AM	#4
juve20 Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: uk Posts: 2,542	dont think so some how! tony __________________ Monetize your site with AdBrite! Monetize your site with AdBrite!

06-06-2005, 12:43 AM	#5
SmokeyTheBear ►SouthOfHeaven Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: PlanetEarth MyBoardRank: GerbilMaster My-Penis-Size: extralarge MyWeapon: Computer Posts: 28,609	funny i clicked one of the pics and found this http://www.virgins-party.com/index2.html check out the title __________________ hatisblack at yahoo.com

06-06-2005, 12:48 AM	#6
Trax [----------------------] Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 14,486	you wish

06-06-2005, 12:50 AM	#7
kernelpanic Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,961	this is the first time we've ever had this thread. no, really, it is. __________________ ZangoCash - Turn Your Traffic Into Ca$h. $.40 Per Install - No Tier

06-06-2005, 12:50 AM	#8
sicone Retired Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Sac Posts: 18,453	does that mean the prices of my google stock will be going down? __________________

06-06-2005, 12:51 AM	#9
Nightwind Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Location: ICQ: 303-282-636 Posts: 4,786	It is already known that Google is exempt from 2257, money talks and so on. __________________

06-06-2005, 01:20 AM	#10
Lev Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 3,545	if google gets shut down, U.S. would loose billions and billions of dollars in tax revenue, will never happen

06-06-2005, 01:26 AM	#11
will76 Making $$$$ w/ ClickCash Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Location: USA Posts: 18,037	I am glad they are leaving them up. It will make one hell of a defense argument when the attorney gets the pc hooked up to the overhead in the court room and types in kiddy porn in googles image locator and all the cp comes up. and points out to the jury if the govt is ok with this how can they be busting my balls for paperwork on a 23 year old! funny 2257 is suppose to be for cp but yet they exempt google from it which is one of the few sites in the us that has cp on it. 2257 defense attorneys will love this. __________________ ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com PROGRAM SHIT LIST - DO NOT PROMOTE (click link for gfy thread) FNCash \| Media Revenue

06-06-2005, 01:26 AM	#12
reynold Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Global Traveler Posts: 51,271	Google will be Shutting Down? Not even in GFYer's wildest dream!LOL!

06-06-2005, 01:42 AM	#13
adonthenet Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,753	i dont htink so

06-06-2005, 02:08 AM	#16
Mr.Fiction Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Free Speech Land Posts: 9,484	Search engines, hosting companies, and similar services are exempt. How many times does this have to be posted? Did anyone read the regulations? __________________ Don't be lazy, protect free speech: ACLU \| Free Speech Coalition \| EFF \| IMPA

06-06-2005, 02:09 AM	#17
kernelpanic Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,961	__________________ ZangoCash - Turn Your Traffic Into Ca$h. $.40 Per Install - No Tier

06-06-2005, 02:15 AM	#19
pradaboy sell me your banners Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: on the tubes Posts: 12,931	yeah like that will ever happen __________________ Media Buyer - Sell me your traffic! FREE to register domains... Better than 99% of the crap sold here!

06-11-2005, 01:39 PM	#23
SpikeTheJock Registered User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 26	U.S. government makes a lot of tax dollars, so do many vested interests from google, it would be unlikely.

06-11-2005, 01:43 PM	#24
Violetta Affiliate Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 28,735	__________________ M&A Queen

06-11-2005, 02:51 PM	#25
warlock5 Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Uranus Posts: 2,808	Quick guys, short Googles stock!

06-11-2005, 02:54 PM	#26
FilthyRob Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Anaheim - CA Posts: 6,741	Some companies will never see an inspection __________________ AKA - Clubsexy

06-11-2005, 02:59 PM	#27
sniperwolf Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 17,743	hehe.. nice try! __________________ ~Accepting design works~

06-11-2005, 03:06 PM	#28
loverboy When it rains, it pours Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 20,609	not even Bill Gates can pull the plug at Google.com

06-11-2005, 03:46 PM	#36
pocketkangaroo Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 8,452	Using this logic with Google, someone could put up a CP forum and let users post pics. They can't reasonably be expected to stop it, they aren't putting it up.

06-11-2005, 03:46 PM	#37
keyboard warrior Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 1,435	When you see google images go down it is time to get out of the biz. __________________ - nothing here -

06-11-2005, 04:19 PM	#42
PMdave Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,517	So a small webmaster that hardly makes anything out of his messageboards should monitor his board 24/7 and huge wemaster that makes hundreds of thousands of his board should do nothing at all (while he could just hire 5 paid moderators that can control this board perfectly)? Yeah could be very well be....same way as hundreds of other regulations.

06-11-2005, 04:23 PM	#43
SmokeyTheBear ►SouthOfHeaven Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: PlanetEarth MyBoardRank: GerbilMaster My-Penis-Size: extralarge MyWeapon: Computer Posts: 28,609	Conclusion.. get so much content you can't possibly verify it all just like google images.. __________________ hatisblack at yahoo.com

06-11-2005, 04:25 PM	#44
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	I wonder where they fall in the 2257 regs

06-11-2005, 04:29 PM	#45
CDSmith Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: My network is hosted at TECHIEMEDIA.net ...Wait, you meant where am I located at? Oh... okay, I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Oops. :) Posts: 51,460	Stop defending Google. They and every other site that shows content fitting the 2257 criteria should be held to the same standards as the rest of us, PERIOD. And some of you sound like you are advocating 2257 the way you bash and berate and cock off at others for their lack of knowledge about it. Who gives a fuck if you know everything there is to know about 2257? I sure as hell don't. Fact is this is a major headache for webmasters, and the thing I support (and applaud) is anyone who is actively looking for ways to shoot holes in this new regulation. If someone says Google shouldn't be exempt then maybe instead of telling the guy how WRONG he is and what an idiot he is, maybe you should be looking for ways of how he is RIGHT. It almost seems like a few of you fuckheads work for the government. :D __________________ *Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!* ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!! Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634

06-11-2005, 05:24 PM	#47
taibo Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,720	i highly doubt it

06-11-2005, 05:35 PM	#48
Webby Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Far far away - as possible Posts: 14,956	All that is disgusting! Google management need to be included in conspirancy charges and their operations closed down tomorrow. They are simply aiding and abetting porn sites by granting them PR ratings, tho we know there is no money in this. Seriously.. wait for the day some hypocritical freak - in an act of righteousness and cloaked in religeon, - actually tries that concept :-) __________________ XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.

06-11-2005, 06:33 PM	#49
ContentHire Registered User Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 98	Bump for WOJ