Are these sites 2257 compliant? - GoFuckYourself.com

sixzeros · 06-23-2005, 05:25 PM

A ton of questions...

(make sure to turn off your adult filtering)
http://images.google.com/images?biw=...ck&btnG=Search

http://images.search.yahoo.com/searc...&p=Hilary+Duff

http://search.lycos.com/default.asp?...lti&cat=images

http://www.altavista.com/image/resul...iwxh=all&dis=1

http://search.msn.com/images/results...ORM=MSNH&q=sex

None of these sites seem to give a damn that they have explicit preview images on their servers, if they are non 2257 compliant then I wonder what their plan is to deal with it?

And why would a thumb TGP be any different than any other image based search engine? Is there a loophole that we're not seeing?

Where are these companies in the fight?

And if we patch Comus with the following 2257 update to allow webmasters to remove explicit thumbs and replace them with placemarkers... As on the following Beta sites, would this be enough?
http://xxxonfire.com/index.shtml
http://xxxonice.com/

Is there anything else I should add?

And what the hell is explicit anyway?
Are Tits to be considered explicit? Do nipples make a difference?
Are Toys when not displayed next to genitals considered explicit?
Are panties and thongs considered explicit?

Thanks for your input - Sixzeros.
-----------------------
Comus Thumbs
Beta testers needed for the new Comus 2257 Upgrade.
Features bulk review, built in censorship, alternate thumbnails, explicit ratings.
2257 URL database, sponsor hosted gallery manager, 404 scanner.

juve20 · 06-23-2005, 05:26 PM

sorry i'm confused. what happens if you break the 2257 rules??

tony

pornguy · 06-23-2005, 05:27 PM

man this is going to get interesting.

Sosa · 06-23-2005, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juve20

sorry i'm confused. what happens if you break the 2257 rules??

tony

your're going to jail!

Spunky · 06-23-2005, 05:30 PM

Celebrity pics have always been risky ,although those are softcore,why take the risk?

rickdu · 06-23-2005, 05:36 PM

Just because they're multinational mega corps doesn't mean they shouldn't have to be 2257 compliant.They are in direct violation of the law, and should all go to jail now!

James Greuel · 06-23-2005, 05:40 PM

Accoding to a Seminar I attended that had as guest speakers, a couple of former Federal District attorneys. Tit's are not explicit, even full nudity is not explicit, as long as the genitals are not openly displayed, IE: the legs stay together, or there is no straight on shot.

Having said that, under 18, will still get you in trouble.

That's what they told us at a very expensive Seminar.

sixzeros · 06-23-2005, 06:00 PM

Thanks guys,

So these sites with the explicit thumbs replaced by 'category' placemarkers are probably a step in the right direction.

http://xxxonice.com/
http://xxxonfire.com/index.shtml

and google, yahoo, msn, altavista, lycos, etc could all find themselves fighting a big battle on the industries behalf.

wjxxx · 06-23-2005, 06:05 PM

google, yahoo, etc are exempt

sixzeros · 06-23-2005, 08:21 PM

It would seem that yahoo are not exempt...they;re pulling chat rooms down, and have disabled user uploaded photos... I guess it's just a matter of time b4 they update their image databases.

http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?cat=2&id=9233

crockett · 06-23-2005, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixzeros

It would seem that yahoo are not exempt...they;re pulling chat rooms down, and have disabled user uploaded photos... I guess it's just a matter of time b4 they update their image databases.

http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?cat=2&id=9233

that was because of advertisers and pedos looking for little kids. The Yahoo deal had nothing to do with 2257. Also google doesn't host the images, they just resize them.

06-23-2005, 05:25 PM	#1
sixzeros Registered User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 53	Are these sites 2257 compliant? A ton of questions... (make sure to turn off your adult filtering) http://images.google.com/images?biw=...ck&btnG=Search http://images.search.yahoo.com/searc...&p=Hilary+Duff http://search.lycos.com/default.asp?...lti&cat=images http://www.altavista.com/image/resul...iwxh=all&dis=1 http://search.msn.com/images/results...ORM=MSNH&q=sex None of these sites seem to give a damn that they have explicit preview images on their servers, if they are non 2257 compliant then I wonder what their plan is to deal with it? And why would a thumb TGP be any different than any other image based search engine? Is there a loophole that we're not seeing? Where are these companies in the fight? And if we patch Comus with the following 2257 update to allow webmasters to remove explicit thumbs and replace them with placemarkers... As on the following Beta sites, would this be enough? http://xxxonfire.com/index.shtml http://xxxonice.com/ Is there anything else I should add? And what the hell is explicit anyway? Are Tits to be considered explicit? Do nipples make a difference? Are Toys when not displayed next to genitals considered explicit? Are panties and thongs considered explicit? Thanks for your input - Sixzeros. ----------------------- Comus Thumbs Beta testers needed for the new Comus 2257 Upgrade. Features bulk review, built in censorship, alternate thumbnails, explicit ratings. 2257 URL database, sponsor hosted gallery manager, 404 scanner.

06-23-2005, 05:26 PM	#2
juve20 Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: uk Posts: 2,542	sorry i'm confused. what happens if you break the 2257 rules?? tony __________________ Monetize your site with AdBrite! Monetize your site with AdBrite!

06-23-2005, 05:27 PM	#3
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	man this is going to get interesting. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

06-23-2005, 05:30 PM	#5
Spunky I need a beer Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: ♠ Toiletville ♠ Posts: 133,949	Celebrity pics have always been risky ,although those are softcore,why take the risk? __________________ *YOUR INFORMATION HERE*

06-23-2005, 06:00 PM	#8
sixzeros Registered User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 53	Thanks guys, So these sites with the explicit thumbs replaced by 'category' placemarkers are probably a step in the right direction. http://xxxonice.com/ http://xxxonfire.com/index.shtml and google, yahoo, msn, altavista, lycos, etc could all find themselves fighting a big battle on the industries behalf. __________________ http://comusthumbs - TGP Thumbnailer - The Power and Support you need to grow your TGP site.

06-23-2005, 05:36 PM	#6
rickdu Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 239	Just because they're multinational mega corps doesn't mean they shouldn't have to be 2257 compliant.They are in direct violation of the law, and should all go to jail now!

06-23-2005, 05:40 PM	#7
James Greuel Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 243	Accoding to a Seminar I attended that had as guest speakers, a couple of former Federal District attorneys. Tit's are not explicit, even full nudity is not explicit, as long as the genitals are not openly displayed, IE: the legs stay together, or there is no straight on shot. Having said that, under 18, will still get you in trouble. That's what they told us at a very expensive Seminar.

06-23-2005, 06:05 PM	#9
wjxxx So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,448	google, yahoo, etc are exempt

06-23-2005, 08:21 PM	#10
sixzeros Registered User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 53	It would seem that yahoo are not exempt...they;re pulling chat rooms down, and have disabled user uploaded photos... I guess it's just a matter of time b4 they update their image databases. http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?cat=2&id=9233 __________________ http://comusthumbs - TGP Thumbnailer - The Power and Support you need to grow your TGP site.