Well thats exactly it, ive said that before as well. At least in the UK it doesnt matter if they are of legal age, if any content feature something that appear illegal then that can be enough.
But I wonder if this is only the start… how do they judge what appears illegal, or what to block / ban.
[quote=DirtyRatStudios;13667]I think this bit is interesting:
What is CP?
As defined in 47 U.S.C. 2256:
(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
Note: “appears to be”. If this is true then it would seem that them looking much younger but actually aged over 18 isn’t a great defence?[/quote]
[QUOTE=gaydemon;13669]Well thats exactly it, ive said that before as well. At least in the UK it doesnt matter if they are of legal age, if any content feature something that appear illegal then that can be enough.
But I wonder if this is only the start… how do they judge what appears illegal, or what to block / ban.[/QUOTE]
As I asked in the past: what makes anything look younger or older? What are the features that a guy has to have in order to look 18yo+?
Unfortunatlely it will never be any of us deciding those rules about what makes someone look older or younger. Which is why one has to be very careful, even if something is legal.
Unfortunatlely it will never be any of us deciding those rules about what makes someone look older or younger. Which is why one has to be very careful, even if something is legal.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it was a rhetorical a question. Btw the fact that someone can judge something basing his judgment on subjective things scares me a lot. :grrr:
Doesn’t Google look at the relationship between your links and their content, as well as content (tags, image names, keywords, etc.) on your site?
Google has incorporated “guilty by association” regarding search results in the past.
I’m not sure what exactly they did with blboys but I hope they start doing it to all the piracy sites as well… oh wait… Google = Youtube = oh forget it, we’re screwed
I think your explenation or guess: “guilty by association” is the most likly cause to Blboys being banned. Google must have judged them to be CP because of the sites the link to. That does really show how important it is to be careful with where and to what you link.
I would really like to know the exact reason why they where banned, does anyone actually know?
[quote=Squirt;13675]Doesn’t Google look at the relationship between your links and their content, as well as content (tags, image names, keywords, etc.) on your site?
Google has incorporated “guilty by association” regarding search results in the past.
I’m not sure what exactly they did with blboys but I hope they start doing it to all the piracy sites as well… oh wait… Google = Youtube = oh forget it, we’re screwed[/quote]
[QUOTE=gaydemon;13695]I think your explenation or guess: “guilty by association” is the most likly cause to Blboys being banned. Google must have judged them to be CP because of the sites the link to. That does really show how important it is to be careful with where and to what you link.
I would really like to know the exact reason why they where banned, does anyone actually know?[/QUOTE]
No, and I won’t talk with the owner anymore. Sorry. He used to change the link of submitted galleries with good thumbs (= high average = lots of clicks) with his own galleries. I called it cheating, he called it “something normal”.
[QUOTE=gaydemon;13695]I think your explenation or guess: “guilty by association” is the most likly cause to Blboys being banned. Google must have judged them to be CP because of the sites the link to. That does really show how important it is to be careful with where and to what you link.
I would really like to know the exact reason why they where banned, does anyone actually know?[/QUOTE]
That would be my guess. Google has banned most of the ************************************************************************ sites, and I don’t/won’t visit bl boys, but they probably link to them. This should be seen as a warning sign to those that promote them. IMO it was just a matter of time, if you link to a site that is banned in google, then I can see how they would start banning the sites linking to them.
I don’t know this for certain, but that would be my guess. It makes sense logically from google’s standpoint.
WOW! What a traffic hit! That’s pretty much an SOL situation because I don’t believe google will ever let him back in. That’ gotta really hurt the bottom line!
[QUOTE=Squirt;13791]Have you seen the NBC “To Catch a Predator” show?
Talk dirty to an adult female undercover agent online that told you she is underage, show up at the door, get arrested and convicted for the intent.[/QUOTE]
No the only American shows that bad that I’ve seen here are ‘Cheaters’ and ‘When Pets Go Wild’
Anyway I think that’s slightly different. As that is an adult deliberately meeting a person he believes to be underage – which is unacceptable under any circumstances. The image thing is a webmaster publishing an image he knows to be of a person aged over 18 but who maybe looks younger and whether they do or not is open to interpretation.