Yahoo And Porn: A commentary

gizmo_mathboy writes "Roger Ebert has an interesting commentary on Yahoo!'s recent decisions concerning porn on their site. Who says that a few people can't change a company?"

What?

[Brownstar]

...people connected to the internet still pay for their porn? Wow!

Re:a reply from a coward.. : )

[3141]

Can we trust people to auto censor themselves ? no. Can we trust Yahoo to make the right choices ? yes we can

I disagree. Self-censorship is the best method of censorship possible. I do not see why others should have the right to decide what I can read, or what I can watch. Certainly, I would not trust any corporation to do so.

Censorship by others has to be a bad idea anyway. Not only do moral standards fluctuate, but how can anyone know what is right for me to see? There's a quote which I believe was made popular through a computer game, but it's none the worse for that: "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."

Now, I don't know about you, but I sure don't want Yahoo to be MY master!

Roger Ebert - Tit Freak

[BrooksMarlin]

Now I like porn as much as the next guy and I agree with what he's saying, but I find it hilarious that Roger Ebert is writing this article. Ebert, for all his arty movie reviews and Pulitzer prizes, has a renowned boob fetish. He wrote tit-flicks for Russ Meyer in the 1970s. See also his completly inexplicable review of "Boob Raider" eariler this summer. So come on Roger, you had subscribed to Yahoo groups simply out of curiosity? Riiiiight.

Their site, their rules.

[PerlStalker]

I find it interesting that a complany "gives-in" to the protests from "the fringe" and switches to a OSS solution over a closed solution is cheered by the /. community yet when it happens in another field (porn for example) it is attacked.

Now to my point. Most of us seem to agree that a person or organizaion should be allowed publish (or not) whatever they want on their web site. We may disagree with what is published (sometimes quite loudly) but we should not attack their choice to not make their system (or parts thereof) available to publish something they don't want on the site. That is their choice. We should not be attacking Yahoo! because they exercised their freedom a bit.

At the same time, "fringe" groups need to realize that while thier views may be "better" then someone else's, that other person has the right to voice their opinion. (Except where prohibited by law see official rules for details. :) ) This includes posting porn, bashing Linux or sharing their code.

On a more personal note (let the flames begin) I think Yahoo! made the correct choice here. I believe that a great many of the problems in the USA are the result of a decline in the moral principles of our society as a whole. I believe that if we, as a society, return to those priciples, then many of the problems we face will nearly solve themselves in two or three generations. I don't mean that we should become "Bible-thumping whacos" but that we should try to embrace qualitys like honesty and loyalty.

Re:Their site, their rules.

[IlGreven]

What honesty and loyalty have to do with sex and pornography I have no frickin' idea...(undercover cops don't have to be honest with hookers, despite the legends to the contrary...)

Besides, whether Yahoo! endorses porn or not is irrelevant to me...I can find my share of porn on the web without even querying Yahoo!'s database...

Though it is unfortunate that they've decided to remove the otherwise easily accessible adult grouping of groups, so now you have to find "Dry Elbow Fetish" by URL...<sarcasm>but hey, it's for the children, ain't it?</sarcasm>

Re:Their site, their rules.

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

We should not be attacking Yahoo! because they exercised their freedom a bit.
They're exercising their "freedom" because of the protests they had - not from any moral decision. If Yahoo!'s moving towards a more family-oriented service, good on 'em. Try to strip as much porn as they can from search results, close down the "morally deficient" clubs, and add a bunch of things for the kids. I'm only against the decision if it's a result of protestors objecting to something that they have no obligation to view - on a free service.

And, since you seem to be inviting it, and since it's been a while since I had a good debate (god forbid it turn into a flame-fest), I ask you to elaborate on the "moral principles" to which we should return, and more specifically, what you perceive the dangers of porn to be.

Return to moral principles

[PerlStalker]

They're exercising their "freedom" because of the protests they had - not from any moral decision

Perhaps. We can guess at Yahoo!'s true reasons utill we're blue in the face but I suspect that they may have been using these protests as an excuse. People have been complaining about porn on Yahoo! for a long time and Yahoo! didn't seem to care one way or another. Oh well.

I ask you to elaborate on the "moral principles" to which we should return...

I would like to see us return to priciples such as these:

• That the family is the central unit of society and that we should avoid things that tear it apart.
• Honesty seems to be a disapearing trait in some circles. People are taught that "Dishonesty is the best policy" by those that should be the most honest. (Government officials for example.)
• Respect for others as human beings regardless of their background. I admit that this wasn't perfect before.

There are others but this should give you an idea.

what you perceive the dangers of porn to be.

For many people porn is addictive. For one of these people the addiction drives them to more frequent "use" of harder and harder porn. Eventually, (yes this is an extreme case) it can drive that person to having an affair. Now, most people will not get that far. What's more likely is you have one partner sneaking around to get porn while trying to keep it secret from his/her spouse. This can (an probably will) hurt a marriage and lead to other problems.

I believe that long time users of pronography and younger (<21 years) begin to lose respect for people (or maybe just a gender) as people and start treating them as sex objects. This dehumanization can lead to ideas that restrict the "Unalienable rights" of citizens.

Another problem I see has to do more with the porn industry rather than the users of porn. There are people in the industry that are very exploitive of the people (mostly young women) that they use in their publications. (Yes, there are some "good" porn producers who have women flocking to them but they are few compared to the number of producers world wide.)

Re:Return to moral principles

[PD]

For many people porn is addictive. For one of these people the addiction drives them to more frequent "use" of harder and harder porn.


Yes yes! First you're looking at nudie pictures, then you need more nudie pictures, from a slightly different angle, and then you find yourself not having much time for anything else. Neighborhood blight sets in and before you know it --- dogs and cats are living together! We must stop this terrible thing. You are so right titties are the gateway drug of the 90's. This obsession with titties is even affecting our youths! Our toddlers even! I have seen actual babies smacking their lips with anticipation of dinner. This is how we link food and porn in our society, and my brothers it has GOT TO STOP NOW. Titties are pure CRACK. Or maybe it's ass that's pure crack... No, I'm positive that it's titties. Yes, titties and a crack pipe.

I believe that long time users of pronography and younger ((lt) 21 years) begin to lose respect for people (or maybe just a gender) as people and start treating them as sex objects. This dehumanization can lead to ideas that restrict the "Unalienable rights" of citizens.


I'm right with you, brother. We've got to DESTROY our freedoms in order to PRESERVE them. We must protect our "UNALIEN" rights. By UNALIEN I think we all mean RED BLOODED AMERICAN. Alien rights on the other hand would be NON American rights, and we don't want any of those. Yes, to preserve our unalien rights, we must censor stuff, like those titties we was just talking about.

OK, enough sarchasm for now. I would hope that everyone can see my point clearly.

Re:Their site, their rules.

[Danse]

It's fine to value qualities like honesty and loyalty, but I don't see how it makes porn bad. Explain?

well ....

[ReidMaynard]

I don't think Yahoo did it to raise "...the moral principles of our society as a whole."

In essance they put the Naughty Bits in the back room.

Besides, since when do fedishes make people dishonest and/or un-loyal ?

Back to body piercing ...

Not So Much About Porn

[Starquake]

This article seems to be more about "fetish clubs" on Yahoo! and less about the sale/removal of porn tapes from their online store. Personally, as far as the tapes go, I think it's a matter of supply-and-demand. If the users want porn, they're going to get it *somewhere* and Yahoo! was doing the logical thing by catering to what the users want. Those who complained probably never so much as once "accidentally" found the porn section of the Yahoo! store. Yahoo! is very structured, and all sections are clearly marked. Those who complained were just excercising their "moral authority" over the rest of the Internet, as is all the rage these days.

Re:Not So Much About Porn

[daoine]

Actually, I think the point of it has very little to do with porn, and far more to do with control over content. The problem with moral authority cases is that once a group successfully removes content based on moral decisions, it sets a precedent for others to do so.

It becomes even more interesting when the "moral decisions" of one company conflict with state (but not necessarily national) legislation. What happens when this goes further -- to the "gay/lesbian/pro-life/pro-choice/insert controversial topic here" clubs, some of which have state law protection?

Ironic that Yahoo will post its own bashing...

So whose rules do we follow?

[bee]

There's a fundamental (no pun intended) problem with Yahoo's action: everyone is offended by something. Porn offends Christians. Christianity offends atheists. Pop music offends anyone with a brain. And so forth. Where does it stop? Who gets to decide whose opinions get to make law/company policy/the rules of this particular little fiefdom? The only 'fair' way to do it is to pay attention to no one's offendedness, or to everyone's, and in that latter case eventually you end up with Fahrenheit 451 or the first Christmas episode of South Park.

I'd recommend anyone that believes in free speech to abandon Yahoo clubs and groups. Let it devolve into mindless banter about the pop culture event of the moment and not much else. The problem I have is that I can't find anywhere else to replace it with. The most open equivalent is (shudder) communities.msn.com and even apart from the issue of who's bringing it to you, their interface is painful and clunky at best. Anyone have any suggestions?