|
I know it was a film & that the word ****** used to be 'acceptable' (so did 'nigger')! And of course there are anti-cp sites like asacp who necessarily use the terms on their pages... there are acceptable uses of all the words - but see where I said: "they can tell enough about a web page to niche it / rank it / understand it & calculate its incoming & outgoing link relativity - but they can't tell whether its providing cp or information about the subject & related matters??? ... even with a site is entitled 'free l0lita porn' ???" ... that's the point.
Films called L0lita are one thing, sites advertising "protection against c... p..." are ok but sites called 'free l0lita porn' and 'free underage porn' are another... and Alex - I'm sorry but if Google used that for an argument it would be a cop out & when you say "Go search for "underage porn"... 'nuff said. " don't you think that's reinforcing my point rather than answering it?
I know about freedom of speech & extremes of prejudice & civil rights & all the rest of it but anyone else who fails to filter out sites with those 'blatant terms' would be prosecuted -
So why are Google able to provide links to it?
Sorry to be dogmatic but I'm really unconvinced that it's beyond their capabilities to tell that 'free underage porn' isn't info & 'free l0lita porn' isn't about a film (& you're right - it was a crap film) - they could at least 'de-rank' those pages to pr0 - they recognise the word 'porn' slots you into adult - how can they not spot - and deal with - these others?
|