Ccbill Banning the word Twinks?

[maxpower]

With all this talk I was wondering what you think the chances Ccbill will be next be banning the word twink in the next 5 years. Also what you think we could do to turn this situation around before its too late. As we all know its much easier to take freedoms away than it is to get them back, personally I think the only thing they will lesson to is a pubic boycott from at least all webmasters in the twink industry, but every concerned party is more than welcome to help us out before this becomes a problem for you too.

[Domain Distribution]

I voted 0.00%

[Damian_Maxcash]

I'm lost - what is this refering to - I must have missed something.

[Libertine]

The origin of the term is an allusion to the Twinkie pastry, which is golden (blond) on the outside with cream on the inside, and is pleasantly sweet but with little nutritional substance.

[Romeo GaySearch4Sex]

if they ban the word 'twink' they would have to ban 'teen' first

unlike teen in porn terms which can refer to someone 18-19, twink also has a lot to do with the build and body of a young man... i know tons of guys over 21 who can easily be considered twinks and they are by no means teens

ive heard people discuss twink being banned before, but I would like to know where it comes from.... did a CCBill exec make a public comment about it? somehow I doubt it

[Damian_Maxcash]

Originally Posted by punkworld

The origin of the term is an allusion to the Twinkie pastry, which is golden (blond) on the outside with cream on the inside, and is pleasantly sweet but with little nutritional substance.

Sorry I meant why would ccbill be banning the word? It sounded like this thread was in responce to another story.

[maxpower]

Originally Posted by damian2001

Sorry I meant why would ccbill be banning the word? It sounded like this thread was in responce to another story.

Will the treat gay sites much harsher, you can not use the words teen, young, or even the word boy in most cases now. I was just wondering how far this was going to go, you know that goggle has now banned the word twink from their ad words program, can Ccbill be so far behind?

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by damian2001

Sorry I meant why would ccbill be banning the word? It sounded like this thread was in responce to another story.

Oh, actually I wasn't responding to you specifically, I was just adding a fun little fact to the thread.

[CCBillJames]

Hello all,

Just to clear things up in this thread, the OP is only basing their opinion from speculation on what they have seen from other search engines. As this is an constantly evolving industry, no one can say for certain what could possibly happen five years down the road from now, however, we have no current notification of that word being an issue.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by CCBillJames

Hello all,

Just to clear things up in this thread, the OP is only basing their opinion from speculation on what they have seen from other search engines. As this is an constantly evolving industry, no one can say for certain what could possibly happen five years down the road from now, however, we have no current notification of that word being an issue.

You can use words that insult women, process sites that abuse women, process sites with content that has HIV+ models, process for sites that have illegal stolen content and even process for sites that have NO records for their models... Yet I do predict TWINKS will become a banned word and all the rest of the abusive shit will go on as always. If Google gets away with it, so will you.

[Hentaikid]

I'm having deja vu, I'm sure I saw this very same thread a year or 2 ago...

[StudMall]

Originally Posted by damian2001

Sorry I meant why would ccbill be banning the word? It sounded like this thread was in responce to another story.

Might have something to do with this.....From XBIZ:

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. ? Google took it on the chin this week after being sued by a Nassau County legislator for allegedly profiting off child pornography through its search engine.

In his complaint, filed in New York Supreme Court, Jeffrey Toback, (D-Oceanside), alleges that Google has profited handsomely off the dissemination of child porn and that it is an ?integral part? of its business structure.

The complaint fingers Google as "the largest and most efficient facilitator and distributor of child pornography in the world.?

Toback is aiming to block Google from providing links or advertising to websites that display child pornography and to come clean with the fact that it has made billions of dollars off child porn and other ?obscene? content through sponsored links.

The complaint, however, did not make a clear distinction between content that specifically features underage performers or victims and adult content.

Toback added further that Google has taken no action to curb its involvement in the so-called spread of child porn even though it is fully capable of blocking certain search terms, as evidenced by its involvement with the Chinese Government.

"Defendant is willing to accede to the demands of the Chinese autocrats to block the search term 'democracy,'" the complaint states, "but when it comes to the protection and well-being of our nation's innocent children, Defendant refuses to spend a dime's worth of resources to block child pornography from reaching children."

Google executives were quick to counter Toback?s claims by saying that when the search engine is made aware of any affiliation to sites that market child pornography, they are quick to report it to law enforcement, and that the company does everything it can to combat child porn.

No other search engines were named in the complaint, and Toback has not expressed interest in pursuing other companies over similar allegations.

Toback is best known for his efforts to raise the legal age to 19 for buying tobacco and for proposing a domestic partner registry for the state of New York.

[DaddyHalbucks]

5%.

Twink seems connote more of a body type, than an age.

[Screaming]

dont think it will happen.

[Slap Dot]

NO way. It'd be idiotic