|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » "Porn stars demand Google's help to combat piracy" |
| 1-20 of 20 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 11-07-14 08:47am - 3698 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
Marcus (0)
Active User Posts: 52 Registered: Dec 31, '11 Location: London |
"Porn stars demand Google's help to combat piracy" Article on BBC News today with Angel White, Tasha Reign and Girlfriends Films all calling for Google to help crack down on piracy as they have done with music and film by serving results for legitimate sites before illegal content. Their complaint is that Google don't view the adult industry as a 'legitimate industry' "The adult industry is run like any other professional industry; we pay taxes, create jobs and contribute to the economy. "How many times a day is the word 'porn' typed into the Google search interface? Mainstream corporations like Google continue to discriminate against the adult industry despite the world being genuinely interested in seeking out pornography." I completely agree with them, and tube sites have completely devastated the industry from what I can tell. I can't even begin to imagine the cost of porn when you factor in paying tallent, web hosting, the photography/videography equipment, travel, sets/rent, plus the time and expense of editing everything, yet the industry is looked down upon and people seem to expect content for free. The industry can be pretty bad in how it looks after members though (you only need to read some of the reviews here) to see how it probably leaves people jaded to the point they no longer want to pay for content, but it's a chicken and egg situation in that I'm not sure whether webmaster's desperation (in a minority of circumstances) to bleed members dry with pre-checked cross-sells and steathily hidden upsells is because of the popularity of tube sites, or whether the popularity of the tube sites is down to people feeling ripped off. I suspect it's a bit of both. | |
|
||
| 11-09-14 09:50am - 3696 days | #2 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
In a report in the Washington Posts earlier this year there was an article on illegal downloads. It said that 2 out of ten illegal downloads by torrents were tagged by the copyright owners. The article was about the legality of movie makers deliberately putting movies on torrent sites to catch thieves. I do not see how google would play a part as this is not the main stream of illegal downloads. The torrent sites like Pirate bay and Kickass more so the later close and open over and over and have been raided a few times but open in just weeks if not days. According to a report from a reporting security company number one on the list is major motion pictures box office hits movies copied in theater and dvd and dvr rips and is tied close with music. Even though Napster is long gone music still ties the top in illegal download. Adult material why highly abused in this way too is minimal in comparison, and is close to the newest craze of illegal books since Amazon and others now use many formats for books a huge new wave of stealing material has occurred in other media areas. Not sure how Google would end this seems like it would maybe in a small part help curb newbies looking but not the serious torrent users who use Tor-browsers, fake IPs etc. Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 11-09-14 05:17pm - 3696 days | #3 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
^One way they could help is by making sure that no tube or torrent sites appear in the first 10 pages of results when a user does a search by keywords in Google. To give you an idea I did an experiment with the name Nina hartley and the words anal, vaginal and boy girl. I only looked at the first four pages of results. 1-Nina Hartley and anal: Only 6 of the 40 results were not for tube and torrent sites. 2- Nina Hartley Vaginal: Only about 5 were for tube and torrents sites but the rest were mostly all for stores that sell sex toys like the fleshlight. 3-Nina Hartley and boy girl: Only 9 were not for Tube and Torren sites. I could attempt the exercise with different performers but I suspect the results would be about the same. How can honest paying sites get hits when the biggest search engine on the planet keeps sending people to tube and torrent sites? Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 11-10-14 09:20am - 3695 days | #4 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
I agree Pat those tube sites show up the same for me, Google is a pretty simplistic setup the more hits your site has the higher you get on the list including paying ads. On torrents not sure anyone would use a torrent from a Google search. The searches take sometimes 24 hours to update by bots, seems torrents and searching that way would be asking to get caught. I would tend to really be subject of torrents on a google search if I downloaded illegally which I do not. The tube sites get billions of hits because its free porn low quality often loaded with spy and malwares but free to the pimple faces 18 year old that has no money. On the flipside of all this, I get nervous when we start censoring how the internet is used. I know its inevitable but seems every year a nail in the coffin both liberal and conservative items are getting squished. Even FB is looking at censorship's in many areas. Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 11-10-14 01:44pm - 3695 days | #5 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
^Frighteningly worse than 18 years old watching porn on tube sites is all the underage boys looking at it. If nothing else limiting possible hits would go a long way in making it harder for underage boys to access porn. I don't think anyone thinks that it's a good idea for young men to get sexually stimulated by the porn found on tube sites. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 11-11-14 11:48am - 3694 days | #6 | |
|
Marcus (0)
Active User Posts: 52 Registered: Dec 31, '11 Location: London |
Pat's comments echo those of the porn industry in that this was exactly their complaint in that legit results were not even on the first few pages, so what hope do they have? This was the same with the music and film industry and Google have addressed this problem. I didn't link to the BBC article as I'm not sure what the rules are about that here, but it's worth a read. Google's algorithms are extremely complex now, and it uses far more than just click-through rates and site popularity in terms of visits to rank results. That might have been the case 10 years ago, but it certainly isn't nowadays. | |
|
||
| 11-11-14 02:19pm - 3694 days | #7 | |
|
Khan (0)
Suspended  Posts: 1,737 Registered: Jan 05, '07 Location: USA |
Yes, you can post a link to the BBC article if you think it's warranted. Former PornUsers Senior Administrator Now at: MyPorn.com "To get your ideas across use small words, big ideas, and short sentences."-John Henry Patterson | |
|
||
| 11-11-14 04:40pm - 3694 days | #8 | |
|
thirstyfish (0)
Active User  Posts: 30 Registered: May 20, '13 |
An interesting thread and a couple of thoughts. As Marcus points out: Google's method for ranking search results is actually rather complex. Back in 2007 Google used over 200 signals for site ranking. In practically every year since 2007 Google has announced new, additional search algorithms. The porn industry (to the extent there is one) is taking a page from the MPAA/RIAA playbook. The MPAA and RIAA put pressure on Google to censor certain search results. I.E., throw out results that point to illegal content. A couple of months ago Google announced it would downrank sites that get a lot of DMCA take-down notices. The downranking resulted in the major torrent sites dropping much lower in search results. The unintended consequences of downranking were that the well known sites got more direct traffic and lesser known sites moved up in the search rankings and got more referral traffic. In some cases it was found that the lesser known sites were delivering more than just illegal content: they also delivered malware. I don't know if this is also true for tube sites. Content creators and owners should be paid for their content. That said, it seems that tube sites, torrent sites, file "lockers", etc., are a market reality and will be so for some time to come. Given that in some cases the content owner is allegedly the tube site owner, things get even more unusual. Google and other search engines are designed to provide people with the results they are searching for. Search engines are not designed to help industries whose payment models are suffering. Porn happens because a large number of things amazingly fail to go wrong. | |
|
||
| 11-12-14 02:54am - 3693 days | #9 | |
|
AWpress (0)
Active Webmaster  Posts: 118 Registered: Nov 20, '12 Location: The Netherlands |
Yeah, I'd agree with this. The day Google becomes a tool to subsidise and promote an ailing industry model is the day Google stops being a search engine. I think the responsibility falls upon the industry to adapt to the internet, not for the internet to adapt to the industry. That's understandably a hard pill to swallow for many, because the way forward isn't clear, nor is it clear if they'll ever again have billionaire producers and superstars like they did when they held the bottleneck of media. | |
|
||
| 11-12-14 06:35pm - 3693 days | #10 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
^I don't want to burst your bubble but the days when Google was a search engine are now in the past. Google is now a marketing tool disguised as a search engine. The results you get aren't based on an arbitrary system where Google is unaware of the hits you get back but on a calculated system where computer techs have created an algorithm that is designed to earn as much money to Google as possible. If they happen to help the person than great but otherwise I honestly don't think they give a shit because it's not like there are 2 or 3 other similar engines offering a similar or better product. Monopolies are rarely good for consumers. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 11-13-14 03:33am - 3692 days | #11 | |
|
AWpress (0)
Active Webmaster Posts: 118 Registered: Nov 20, '12 Location: The Netherlands |
I'd say Google's done a fine job of integrating an inoffensive ad revenue without clutter and spam, and whilst preserving the relevance and integrity of results. Sites do spend an inordinate amount of money and time trying to 'beat' the Google ranking algorithms, something that id decreasingly effective (it's a constant race between shady SEO techniques, and google algorithm updates). Google does give free and open advice on how to best optimise your site, however- nothing shady, just tips like 'don't keyword stuff', 'use keywords in URLs', 'give more important words prominence with heading tags', etc. The search engine market is the opposite of a monopoly. When googled entered it, it was saturated. They had a vastly superior product, and rose to the top of this saturated market (which remains saturated to this day). There are countless competitors to google in every field they engage in- their dominance of the market isn't monopolistic, though, it's competitive. | |
|
||
| 11-13-14 05:55pm - 3692 days | #12 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
^I guess we will have to agree to disagree because I do not agree with you. I don't think Google's ad revenue is in any way or shape inoffensive. It's a well designed cash machine that pretty much has the balls of every company with a presence on the net. Please name me the top 5 search engines other than Google? Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 11-13-14 07:19pm - 3692 days | #13 | |
|
thirstyfish (0)
Active User Posts: 30 Registered: May 20, '13 |
There are a number of alternatives to the Google search engine, Pat. You can even use Google itself to find them for yourself. If Google was the monopoly you imply it is, one wouldn't be able to use it to find other search engines because, by definition, it would have no competitors. Google (and others) have come up with a way to monetize what appears to the end user to be a free service. They've figured out how to run a profitable business by using technology and satisfying people's desire to find stuff on the 'net. Attributing porn's decline to the economy, pirates, politicians, and search engines is accurate - to a degree. After a while though, it starts sounding like the porn version of the buggy whips metaphor. Porn happens because a large number of things amazingly fail to go wrong. | |
|
||
| 11-14-14 02:49am - 3691 days | #14 | |
|
AWpress (0)
Active Webmaster Posts: 118 Registered: Nov 20, '12 Location: The Netherlands |
Bing and Yahoo are the biggest competitors in the mainstream market. Baidu and Yandex are bigger than Google in China and Russia respectively. Duckduckgo is a privacy-oriented search engine that has a cult following amongst google-skeptics and Bing's video search is widely regard as superior than Google's particularly for porn. By specialising on the specific cultural/linguistic demographics, Baidu and Yandex become better than Google for certain people. By focussing on something some people care a lot about (privacy) Duckduckgo has carved itself a niche that Google can't really move in on. As an advertiser, Google 'has the balls' of online companies only as much as Facebook does. Also, their pricing model for adwords is very forward-thinking and reasonable, I think. It is definitely a well designed cash machine, but only because it offers a great service at a compelling price for advertisers, and unobtrusive, often-relevant ads for users. | |
|
||
| 11-14-14 06:54am - 3691 days | #15 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
As I mentioned, I do not see Google doing anything they do not see in their own best interest. One think Google and the alike M$ etc. have never ever done was develop products based on actual needs. Google as an example is brilliant as nearly every single service you use Youtube, Chrome, Picassa, Gmail, all are free and attach you at the hip to do so with the place they can change the rules anytime and begin charging you if they so felt the desire. The issues are very clear if you begin one censor, it wont work they way people want and it wont. Then the government will step in and regulate it,and pass laws that can be accessed. Liberal supporters of Obama right now are working on creating throttles for the internet in the limiting of access for so called radical groups,firearms,anti-government, and even religious. I know some of you get a big chubby thinking they would end firearms and limit access on the net. Well as I have said before any idiot that thinks taking away and limiting a legal right wont lead to other rights being removed is a fool. Because human history shows thats exactly how rights are removed. Google should do the right think and end illegal searched at the least do not allow certain proven torrent sites to show up. Unless like the Liberal plan to limit internet rights. Piracy is illegal and should be dealt with. I think anyone would love a life supply of free porn but Google is hurting businesses that run legal all in the name of $$$ it appears. Maybe they can prove everyone wrong by stepping up and doing whats right.  Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 11-14-14 05:58pm - 3691 days | #16 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
^^&^^^Let me clarify my point somewhat. I am well aware that there are other search engines because I from time to time use them and I'm even willing to concede that some of them offer better services than Google but let's be honest here. Everyone of those Google competitors is desperately trying to nibble away some of the Google customers and unless I am way off than they are doing rather poorly at it. I don't like the fact that Google is as powerful as it is because I already said that monopolies are never good for the consumer. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 11-15-14 06:57am - 3690 days | #17 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
The fact Google is integrated into everything I think was always a goal and a lofty one they seem to have accomplished to a point. I miss what Yahoo had an lost, talk about blind sided I think they never saw it coming and at one time they were king. Not sure Google will be taken down, I would agree to a point some lack luster in their glitter is tarnished after DHS was caught using everyone permission to listen in on our web usage. I think this is going to be one of those time will tell things. I miss the wild west 1990's internet wow not that was fun better then BBS and no one was dictating how you used it. Ya there was some very bad stuff, but lots of great stuff. Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 11-15-14 07:24am - 3690 days | #18 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
^^^^ Today in the news, The Federal Communications Commission considers to tax the Internet? It’s very possible, said FCC commissioner Mike O’Reilly at a conference sponsored by the Free State Foundation in Washington on Friday. The tax, which could total over $7 per month on the typical American’s broadband bill, would be imposed as a consequence of regulating the internet via “net neutrality” rules that President Obama has urged the FCC to adopt. Under Obama’s plan, Internet access providers–such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast–would be declared to be common carriers providing “telecommunications services.” This would place those companies under comprehensive regulation by the FCC. The negative consequences of such burdensome regulations to innovation and to investment are well-known. But the move would also mean that the companies would also have to pay a portion of their Internet revenue to the FCC’s “Universal Service Fund (USF),” which provides subsidies for Internet service. This fee currently is set at 16.1 percent of revenue, or $7.25 per subscriber per month according to one estimate. And don’t look for the FCC to waive this new found windfall. O’Reilly (who opposes the plan) reports the FCC already is planning a “spending spree” on USF subsidies. If they control the tax system they can control content. It how it is with " EVERY" utility there is. If this passes the internet will be regulated in the future based on politics and moral guidelines. This is already done with Water,Power, Gas and Coal which to date have over 250,000 existing regulations of use. Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 11-18-14 07:40am - 3687 days | #19 | |
|
AWpress (0)
Active Webmaster Posts: 118 Registered: Nov 20, '12 Location: The Netherlands |
I don't know that there is a serious threat posed to the internet by liberals. Currently the biggest and most real threat to the internet is posed by right wing media corporations and ISPs, who want to eliminate net neutrality such as to turn the internet into a tiered, curated service controlled in the service of their bottom line. They basically want to turn the internet into cable tv. The difference between these guys, and extreme religious and political whackjobs from across the spectrum (who want to censor stuff they don't agree with), is that these industrial giants have the lobbyists, political connections, and megabucks to make their vision a reality. Having the FCC reclassify the internet as a common carrier, a utility (like telephones), would reflect the actual reality of the situation (the internet is in practice a utility, these days), and protect US consumers from predatory oligopolies double-dipping (by charging content creators and end users for the same thing) and from shaping the internet into a giant subscription service to their business. If the FCC wanted to impose an internet tax, then it ought to be guaranteed to every citizen, like water. | |
|
||
| 11-18-14 08:44am - 3687 days | #20 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
What you just stated is 100% false, the major players of ISP are all supporters of the president in office they all donated heavy for his re-elections. Charter, Comcast and many others are left wing owned not right. Not trying to argue and I know people respect you because you are a site owner but this is not even factual. I am non-partition so I do not support any one on either side but to hint or as you did state that right wings control cable is a not true, if you look up Obama campaign information you will find their CEO donated to him not Romney. I know you do not like my pro-gun stance thats cool and I respect that but please do not debate my posts and make me look ignorant by posting false information about my input. I like what you do here so keeping it light but that was unfair as it not true. The liberal hold is not bashing Liberals I posted that to show the Democrats are working to change FCC rules, but they are not being opposed by the major ISP's as they are Democrat supporters that own them and their CEO's. This is why sometimes I seem aggressive about our 2nd Rights. It not that I am forcing my ideas, but if someone calls me out on my facts they should at least do so with true information. Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 1-20 of 20 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
