Re: blboys.com banned from google.com
Senza
Orefizio
Lubrificato
Re: blboys.com banned from google.com
[QUOTE=DirtyRatStudios;13786]What the hell is an ‘SOL’ situation?
Another one for the list of cryptic Terms and Acronyms that even webmasters who have been at it for a decade don’t understand. ;D[/QUOTE]
SOL= Shit Out of Luck
Re: blboys.com banned from google.com
[QUOTE=DirtyRatStudios;13774]I agree that it’s worrying that a law should depend on someone deciding whether a person looks under 18.
Bjorn I’ve decided you look under 18 in that photo![/QUOTE]
If Google decides to ban a site, it’s not always a law that decides. They can ban any site for whatever reason they want. It is there property at the end of the day and they can pretty much decide who they list in their Search Engine.
Re: blboys.com banned from google.com
It is slightly different. In one case you have an individual you know is of age, posing as underage to lure an individual interested in underage sex.
In the other case you have a model, who is of age, posing as underage, being promoted as “possibly underage” to people interested in underage porn.
buying and distributing CP is illegal, talking sex with underage and luring them online is illegal. In both cases it’s the intent, not the actual action, that gets you in trouble.
I think the double standard between “girls” in straight porn and “boys” in Gay porn is unfair. If we can’t use “boys” to describe hot, of age, young guys then the straight industry shouldn’t be able to use “girls”. seems fair
Re: blboys.com banned from google.com
I’m with Walter on this. In fact, I’m almost to the point where I won’t click on a “twink” site unless the link is from a known source.
I totally get that some young guys look old and some old guys look young, but I’d just feel stupid if I got in trouble with the law because I clicked a link and ended up on an illegal site.
In fact, I think there might have been a thread about a news story on a guy who got in trouble with US Federal law because the feds were on a board that discussed child porn, they setup a link to trap people, this guy somehow got the link (can’t recall) and clicked on it not knowing what it was.
Even though there was no evidence that he had gone to any illegal sites, he was found guilty because he clicked the link. (I wish I could find that article!)
I don’t want my 15 minutes of fame to be on Cops. =)
Re: blboys.com banned from google.com
[QUOTE=DirtyRatStudios;13786]What the hell is an ‘SOL’ situation?
Another one for the list of cryptic Terms and Acronyms that even webmasters who have been at it for a decade don’t understand. ;D[/QUOTE]
It’s probalby an Americanism, doesn’t relate to webmastering. It means “shit outta luck”
Re: blboys.com banned from google.com
I think it’s always a bit of a touchy area. I don’t like laws being based on somebody’s opinion (i.e., this model “looks young”) but on the other hand, we unfortunately have people like Bryan Kocis and Justin Berry who are in some cases knowingly filming boys who are 15, 16 years old, putting them up on a site that clearly has a disclaimer that everyone is over 18, and innocent people who have no interest in CP are viewing content that they (arguably) believe to be legal.
We’ve occasionally run into a situation where some compliance person at a credit card processor rejected us simply because a few of our guys (maybe 2 or 3 out of 100) made them “nervous” because they looked young, and that was upsetting (and cost us money in lost credit card sales). But at the same time, you look at some of these Eastern European sites where 3/4 of the models look REALLY young and I think most anyone would have to start to question that.
It’s an unfortunate situation. Google are not experts in pornography. If one person made the decision, that’s pretty bad, but one would hope there would be some sort of review process where a couple of people looked at it and then made the call, or at least there’s some sort of appeal process.