backtop


Print 42 comment(s) - last by atechfan.. on Jul 11 at 6:31 AM

Forbidden content includes "graphic depictions of... masturbation; genital, anal, and oral sexual activity"

This week Google Inc. (GOOG) sent out a notice to its advertising partners letting them know that any ads peddling adult entertainment would be promptly beaten off of Google's advertising networks.

I. Google to Porn Industry -- Prepare Your [Selves]

Google had already maintained safe search algorithms that helped parents to prevent children from seeing adult themed content. The new policy change is far different though, in that it is designed to censor these kinds of ads from appearing in the search results of adults who want to see this kind of content.  The policy bears more similarity to Google's decision to ban adult POV content from Google Glasses.

The internet giant wrote of the hard decision:

Beginning in the coming weeks, we'll no longer accept ads that promote graphic depictions of sexual acts including, but not limited to, hardcore pornography; graphic sexual acts including sex acts such as masturbation; genital, anal, and oral sexual activity.

When we make this change, Google will disapprove all ads and sites that are identified as being in violation of our revised policy. Our system identified your account as potentially affected by this policy change. We ask that you make any necessary changes to your ads and sites to comply so that your campaigns can continue to run.

And it just posted a set of guidelines of what kinds of content it finds unacceptably naughty:

Google AdWords doesn't allow the promotion of some types of sexual content on the Google Network. You may not do the following:

*  promote graphic depictions of sexual acts
*  promote content with underage or non-consensual sexual themes, including child
   sexual abuse content
*  promote services that may be interpreted as providing sexual acts in exchange for
   compensation

We don't allow this content regardless of whether it meets applicable legal restrictions around this kind of content.

The ads seemingly forbid not only ads with nudity and images of people engage in sex acts, but also more sedate, censored ads promoting sites that offer adult entertainment.  Here's a list of "examples" Google has compiled:

Google bans sex ads

Some industry members and their fans fear the decision could penetrate deeper into Google's other businesses.  One fear is that Google may start to manipulate search results to decrease the rank of pornographic content.  In total the keywords "sex", "porn", "free porn", and "porno" accounted for 351 million searches, according to Google Adwords Keyword Planner.  Such an approach could tie up a key source of the adult entertainment industry's web traffic, which estimates indicate accounts for a third of the world's web traffic.

II. Decision Titillates Some, Frustrates Others

Michael Fattorosi, the principle partner at Fattorosi & Associates (a law firm specializing in representing adult entertainers), states:

This is another example of a mainstream company turning its back on the industry that has supported it.  The question now becomes: Will they block adult content from their search results?

Some were shocked by the policy change.  The Chairman and CEO of the AVN (Adult Video News) Media Network, Theo Sapoutzis, told CNBC in an interview:

I was caught by surprise.  I was one of the very first advertisers for AdWords back in 2002. It's something that's been [untouched] for 12 years, so you don't expect change is going to start happening.

Morality in Media (MIM) -- "faith based" anti-pornography activists -- claims that the change is due to their criticism.  On their blog "porn harms" they write:

In May, we had a productive meeting with GOOGLE about how they can help protect individuals, families and children from exploitation.
 
Today, we are seeing the fruits of that meeting.
BACKGROUND: We listed Google on both our 2013 and 2014 Dirty Dozen List because of their involvement in and profit from pornography in Google Play, Google Ads, YouTube and more.
...
We are celebrating a HUGE VICTORY! Please take a minute to take it all in with us.

Did the group do what the Republican National Party wanted to, but could not do -- take America a step closer to banning porn on the internet?

Porn hurts
The "faith based" group Morality in Media claims Google's decision was triggered by its critical campaign.  The group's goal is to "cleanse" the internet of porn. [Image Source: Kelly Manning Photography]

MIM's innuendo implying that it forcibly thrust this policy in through the back door is somewhat questionable.  While it is true that the "porn harms" campaign was responsible for admonishing Google very few people seemed to be aware of it.  Further, as MIM itself points out, Google quietly decided to erect this new censorship policy back in March 2014 before it met with MIM (in May).

And MIM was far from the only group looking to push Google towards morality censorship.  The Parents Television Console (PTV) famously slapped Google's smartphone operating system -- Android -- with the title of being a "porn phone".  Late Apple, Inc. (AAPL) CEO said that his platform -- iOS -- was offering the public "freedom from [Google's] porn" in an angry rant.  (Ironically China recently accused Apple's iPhone of being a "porn phone".)

III. Will Google Go All the Way With Porn Censorship, or Will it Pull Out?

Questions remain about how far Google and its competitors (e.g. Apple) will go in policing their users' morality to placate these vocal minorities.  And there's also many remaining questions and ambiguities in their current policies, as well.

Google has been silent on whether it will start restrict advertising from adult novelty stores and adult entertainment industry news sites will also be pounded by the ad ban.  While they don't directly "promote... sex acts", such sites do sometimes show "graphic depictions" of them.

handcuffed typing
Will the internet rebel against Google's censorship effort? [Image Source: Mashable]

Google's decision to pound the porn industry with these new financial restrictions is not alone.  In April JP Morgan & Chase Comp. (JPM) began to close the bank accounts of adult entertainers.  The next month Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) began to delete adult film stars' Wish Lists without warning.

However, for Google might be wise to take note of the outcome of Chase's prudish, puritanical policy -- customers went elsewhere to competitors who welcomed them.  The drama climaxed in May with Chase's banking rival Wells Fargo & Comp. (WFC) offering a helping hand to the adult entertainers.  In a statement to to TMZ it wrote:

Of course we encourage these industry workers to come to us with their business and we will gladly help them.

If Google chooses to increase its censorship there's a legion of competitors like anonymous search engine DuckDuckGo waiting to take its place.  These more laissez faire competitors are all to happy to tag team the gaping holes in the advertising business left when Google decided to abruptly pull out.

Sources: Google [1], [2], CNBC, Morality in Media [blog]



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Do you even know what censorship is?
By atechfan on 7/4/2014 11:49:17 PM , Rating: 5
This is Google saying "We will no longer carry the ads". No were was Google trying to bans the sites, or even removing the sites from organic search results. As a corporation, they own the advertising service. No where does any country's constitution guarantee you a right to advertising on a specific companies ad network. Google is not squashing anybody's freedom of speech here.




RE: Do you even know what censorship is?
By Motoman on 7/5/14, Rating: 0
RE: Do you even know what censorship is?
By atechfan on 7/6/2014 4:15:39 PM , Rating: 4
Are cigarettes legal? Yes, but their is very little cigarette advertising left. Are guns legal? Perfectly, yet find me gun shop ads on network TV. For that matter, how many porn ads on network TV. Many media sources have a long history of deciding what types of advertising they are willing to carry and what they are not. Why is Google being held to a different standard than other advertising networks?


RE: Do you even know what censorship is?
By Motoman on 7/7/2014 10:26:21 AM , Rating: 3
All true.

However, I'm tired of it. Tired of the media deciding for me what is and isn't offensive.

I'm not holding Google to any different standard. My complaint is universal.


By atechfan on 7/7/2014 12:16:22 PM , Rating: 2
Fair enough.


By FITCamaro on 7/6/2014 5:28:53 PM , Rating: 1
Because no one should be allowed to say "I don't agree with that so I'm not going to allow it." in my business?

Because you know Google is just full of "holier-than-thou" Christian's running the shots.


RE: Do you even know what censorship is?
By FaaR on 7/6/2014 2:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
They're not required to carry the ads, sure, but ask yourself WHY they're not carrying the ads. They're a for-profit company; porn companies pay money to have their ads served. Porn is - believe it or not - a legit business. There's a dichotomy there, for sure.

Add to the fact that goog is the dominant ad network and things start getting seriously disconcerting. Google and a few other (extremely!) major players stand in the position to virtually strangle certain forms of free speech if they so desire.


By atechfan on 7/6/2014 5:35:13 PM , Rating: 4
Yes, because without Google ads, porn will be strangled. Before Google, porn didn't exist.


By tamalero on 7/7/2014 10:38:14 AM , Rating: 2
I honestly think its more than just "porn ad".
How many porn ads end being malware websites?
I've seen porn malware ads in normal legit forums quite a few times.
Deviantart.com is a fine example.


RE: Do you even know what censorship is?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2014 9:39:23 AM , Rating: 1
Agree. How is this "censorship" of anything?


RE: Do you even know what censorship is?
By atechfan on 7/7/2014 10:08:23 AM , Rating: 2
We need to stop agreeing on things so often lately. :P


RE: Do you even know what censorship is?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2014 10:25:09 AM , Rating: 1
Yes it might cause a causality-loop paradox :)


RE: Do you even know what censorship is?
By atechfan on 7/7/2014 8:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
I think you have someone who rates you down just for the hell of it. Even joking banter with me got rated down. Sad.

Heck, I defended Google (shocking I know), and got a 5, you agreed with me an got a 1. Seriously?


RE: Do you even know what censorship is?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/8/2014 1:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
Oh I'm used to it. There's always some little monkey out there who I kicked his ass in some argument, then sulks off making alt accounts or just voting me down from the shadows.

Meh it's the price I pay for being such an awesome person and tech celebrity :)


By atechfan on 7/8/2014 4:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
I think the only reason I got the 5 is I so shocked people coming out with a pro-Google argument that in their dazed state they clicked the wrong button.


Not as subtle as you hoped, perhaps?
By sweetca on 7/4/2014 6:12:25 PM , Rating: 4
"promptly beaten off"

"fear the decision could penetrate deeper"

"forcibly thrust this policy in through the back door"

"decided to erect this new censorship"

"or Will it Pull Out"

"industry news sites will also be pounded by the ad ban"

"Google's decision to pound the porn industry"

"drama climaxed"

"laissez faire competitors are all to happy to tag team the gaping holes"

"Google decied to abruptly pull out"

I think I found most of them?




By tayb on 7/4/2014 7:47:25 PM , Rating: 3
You forgot the title.

Excellent read. 10/10 would read again.


RE: Not as subtle as you hoped, perhaps?
By Freakie on 7/5/2014 7:59:26 AM , Rating: 1
Nope, you forgot the best one!

"are all to happy to tag team the gaping holes"


RE: Not as subtle as you hoped, perhaps?
By sweetca on 7/5/2014 4:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
No, I caught that one too :)


RE: Not as subtle as you hoped, perhaps?
By tonyswash on 7/5/2014 8:18:51 PM , Rating: 1
Actually I found the article to be a bit of an anticlimax


By Mitch101 on 7/6/2014 10:00:52 AM , Rating: 3
Surprised no one asked what Jason was wearing when he wrote this?


FUNNT ARTICLE
By koonie on 7/5/2014 11:36:59 AM , Rating: 2
So many freudian slips my question is who gets to beat of the porn industry? Or why google would "aburptly pull out"
I love this writer way to go...
Definatly an article that will get a belly jiggle laugh on a rough morning




RE: FUNNT ARTICLE
By Monkey's Uncle on 7/5/2014 2:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
Ya agreed. Was a fun one for sure.


LOL
By retrospooty on 7/4/2014 3:40:15 PM , Rating: 2
"Google sent out a notice to its advertising partners letting them know that any ads peddling adult entertainment would be promptly beaten off"

OK, it was a gimme, but still funny.

So how are we to find the best anal beads if no ads? I guess we will just have to Google it. :p




Also banning gun ads
By atechfan on 7/11/2014 6:31:46 AM , Rating: 2
I just read this elsewhere:

quote:
Beginning in September, Google plans to block firearm, ammunition, and gun accessory ads.

According to Google Support's "Dangerous Products or Services" page, the company "[wants] to keep people safe both online and offline, so [they] won't allow the promotion of some products or services that cause damage, harm, or injury."

Included in the dangerous products for which ads will be blocked are "Guns & Parts." This covers "functional devices that appear to discharge a projectile at high velocity, whether for sport, self-defense, or combat."

Also included is a ban on ads for "any part or component that's necessary to the function of a gun or intended for attachment to a gun." This covers "gun scopes, ammunition, ammunition clips or belts."

The ban will also halt ads for "dangerous knives... throwing stars, brass knuckles, [and] crossbows," among other things.

Google Support says the ads that will be banned "are subject to change."


While I think it is a bad move on Google's part, I still support their right to do so. Gun ownership is being progressively more and more vilified in the media, and sad to see Google part of it. But, as a strong proponent of the government staying the hell out of the way and letting business make there decisions, I have to support Google's right to do this.




By Cr0nJ0b on 7/5/2014 12:41:32 AM , Rating: 2
My only comment here is that Google is a privately held company and as such does not have an obligation to "maintain policies in line with the first amendment". That's the job and domain of the government. While I agree that the principles of the constitution are great and most components are worthy of respect in all aspects of our community...it's not a requirement.

Google is a corporation and lest we forget, corporations are designed to maximize profit above all things...at least "for profit" corporations. Google will do what's best for google, not what's best for society. Their interests and ours might coincide...hopefully they will often coincide, but it's not necessary for them to do what is "right" by their corporation or ownership.


By EricMartello on 7/6/2014 1:00:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My only comment here is that Google is a privately held company


No, actually, it is a publicly held company as I stated.

quote:
and as such does not have an obligation to "maintain policies in line with the first amendment".


Interestingly enough, I used the word "should" in my comment, a qualifier does not in any way imply obligation to comply with the suggestion I put forth.

quote:
While I agree that the principles of the constitution are great and most components are worthy of respect in all aspects of our community...it's not a requirement.


So we're going with the two wrongs make a right theory?

quote:
Google is a corporation and lest we forget, corporations are designed to maximize profit above all things...at least "for profit" corporations. Google will do what's best for google, not what's best for society.


And here's the kicker...you cite that google operates for profit and not for what's best for society - A SENTIMENT I MADE IN MY ORIGINAL POST.

If you read the article (and my comment), you would see that Google is giving up profits by not accepting ads for porn sites or sexually-related services. This is a large chunk of money to be putting off the table.

My suggestion was simply to allow the ads to display when the user actively disables the content filtering that google enables by default. It's a very simple "fix".

quote:
Their interests and ours might coincide...hopefully they will often coincide, but it's not necessary for them to do what is "right" by their corporation or ownership.


It's really not about conflicting interests at all. They apparently have a problem with sexual content and no longer allow ads of that sort when they could have made such ads display conditionally based upon the individual users' preference settings.


By FITCamaro on 7/7/2014 7:30:03 AM , Rating: 2
There's also this thing called property rights. Google is run by certain people. If they don't want to allow a certain kind of business, that's well within their rights. The first amendment only applies to the government and what you do in public. In private, you have no guarantee of freedom of speech. You can't come into my home and start saying whatever you want and refuse to leave if I ask you to. Same as one company can't tell another company to accept its business.

As Google is still majority controlled by the founders of Google, they can largely do whatever they want. Granted this decision didn't necessarily come from them.

And if you think that pornography doesn't change one's thinking about the opposite sex and sex in general in a negative way you are kidding yourself. I'm just as guilty as others in that sin at other parts of my life, but having walked away from it now, I see how much my viewpoint was changed. You start to see certain things as normal or expected and when you don't get them you wonder why. That leads to potential dissatisfaction with your spouse when you get married if they aren't doing the things you think of as normal and come to expect. Where are all the feminists on porn considering how much it degrades women into just being objects for the gratification of others? To where men expect women to be like the porn stars on their computer. It certainly goes the other way as well for men.

Yes God created us with a natural desire for sex. And sex is a beautiful thing inside the scope that God created it for. One to be enjoyed. But he also created us with this thing called self control. Which we are certainly capable of exercising.


By EricMartello on 7/7/2014 10:20:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's also this thing called property rights. Google is run by certain people. If they don't want to allow a certain kind of business, that's well within their rights.


Can't see where that was ever challenged in my comments...

quote:
Same as one company can't tell another company to accept its business.


Actually you can with a public company like Google - if their actions conflict with the majority of their shareholders' sentiments their stock will plummet. Money speaks quite loudly in the world of business. If this decision starts hurting Google's primary revenue stream - AdWords - it could prove to be problematic.

quote:
As Google is still majority controlled by the founders of Google, they can largely do whatever they want. Granted this decision didn't necessarily come from them.


They have to act within SEC guidelines and so they cannot do whatever they want. You trade flexibility for capital when you go public.

quote:
And if you think that pornography doesn't change one's thinking about the opposite sex and sex in general in a negative way you are kidding yourself. I'm just as guilty as others in that sin at other parts of my life, but having walked away from it now, I see how much my viewpoint was changed.


This is the problem with zealots - whether they're liberals whining about climate change or bible humpers making the assumption that everyone is as weak-willed as they are.

If you are married and find that you cannot say no to porn and yes to your wife, then it is a problem with YOU not porn.

If watching porn makes you feel like you're not satisfied in your relationship then perhaps you should re-evaluate the decision to be in whatever relationship you are. Again, this is your personal issue and not an issue with porn.

quote:
You start to see certain things as normal or expected and when you don't get them you wonder why. That leads to potential dissatisfaction with your spouse when you get married if they aren't doing the things you think of as normal and come to expect.


Oh really? I think you have this backwards - you've been guilted (by religion) into believing that "normal" means a monogamous relationship, and that desiring other women is abnormal. It's not. It's quite normal for a healthy guy to want to bone any good-looking young woman that crosses his path.

Some people look at porn and see what they're missing, because their fat/ugly/boring slob of a wife isn't going to deliver quite as much satisfaction as the women they see in the pics and videos.

So what's the solution? Buy into the idea that you have to resist temptation and be miserable your entire life...or do you buy a plane ticket to the Philippines and/or Indonesia to experience what you're missing in terms of sex?

quote:
Where are all the feminists on porn considering how much it degrades women into just being objects for the gratification of others?


Why do you consider one person's ability to please another so extensively a "bad" thing? It's not degrading, in fact, pleasing others often provides mutual satisfaction. I would not waste my time with a woman that does not want to please me and vice versa.

There is a lot wrong with the idea that anyone you fcuk must be a candidate for a life-long relationship. Not saying to bang any woman that wants to because some of them are just nasty, but do adopt more of an "enjoy it while it lasts" type of deal.

When you do find a woman that you want to settle down with you will be in a much better position (mentally) to accept a protracted union if you've sampled the many varieties that are available.

quote:
Yes God created us with a natural desire for sex. And sex is a beautiful thing inside the scope that God created it for. One to be enjoyed. But he also created us with this thing called self control. Which we are certainly capable of exercising.


You can go ahead and believe that we were created by some supernatural deity - I do not. In fact, I suggest you and all other "believers" give nihilism a try. It really helps with the signal-to-noise ratio.

Sex is a biological mechanism for reproduction, and from a biological standpoint it is beneficial for a man to impregnate as many women as possible - hence the strong drive to do so.

I do agree that modern humans should exercise some degree of responsibility with sex but it's not a sacred act. We eat, we fcuk, we die...and that last part comes a lot quicker than you think.


By FITCamaro on 7/8/2014 9:23:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually you can with a public company like Google - if their actions conflict with the majority of their shareholders' sentiments their stock will plummet. Money speaks quite loudly in the world of business.


There is a difference between not able to do something and it being bad for your company. Some people put money over integrity. Others don't.

quote:
They have to act within SEC guidelines and so they cannot do whatever they want. You trade flexibility for capital when you go public.


Yet that doesn't undo anything I said. There's nothing in SEC guidelines that says anything about choosing not to be involved in certain kinds of business.

quote:
bible humpers making the assumption that everyone is as weak-willed as they are.


Everyone is sinful. Whether they want to admit it or not. It doesn't matter how strong willed they are.

quote:
you've been guilted (by religion) into believing that "normal" means a monogamous relationship, and that desiring other women is abnormal. It's not. It's quite normal for a healthy guy to want to bone any good-looking young woman that crosses his path.


And you have gone beyond the discussion. Every man out there inherently wants to sleep with any attractive looking woman he sees. You and I are no exception. That doesn't mean we should though. Or that its right to view women as just objects of sex. It's not a matter of "normal" its a matter of moral.

And if you actually understood anything about Christianity, you'd know that a married couple is supposed to enjoy sex. That both are supposed to try and stay desirable to the other. That both are supposed to want to meet the others needs, within certain limits.

If one or both fail to do so though, that doesn't give you the right to go outside the marriage because you're unhappy. You're supposed to talk with your spouse and work to rectify the problem. I'm not unhappy in marriage or sex life at all, quite the opposite. Just because I'm talking about the realities of life doesn't make it my reality. Me and my wife spoke at length about this before we were married. About what we each expected. I'd say the biggest problem with people today is that they don't. I've lost count of the number of times people have been in shock when one or both of us have told them that we actually talked about an issue before we ever got engaged. Too many see marriage as just something you do because you're "in love" and "it's time". They don't talk about expectations for sex, how to manage money, how you'll raise the kids, etc. It's just "get married and see how it goes".

Whether you want to admit it or not, pornography, and nearly any other thing you watch and listen to, does effect how you think. I'm not one who thinks violent movies, music, or video games drive people to kill others, but it certainly does affect your attitude. And without good parenting and/or a sense of accountability, then yes its possible that it can.


By EricMartello on 7/8/2014 9:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yet that doesn't undo anything I said. There's nothing in SEC guidelines that says anything about choosing not to be involved in certain kinds of business.


That wasn't the point - the point was that you seem to think that a public company has no boundaries as to how it can operate. This particular issue does not tread on any boundary, but there are in fact limits.

quote:
Everyone is sinful. Whether they want to admit it or not. It doesn't matter how strong willed they are.


Ok, buddy. That's what you believe and belief (even with consensus) does not make it true. Who is deciding what constitutes a "sin"? Other people? Yes...religions are a fixture of man and in the old times it was the equivalent of today's liberalism. Yesterday's sinner it today's "politically incorrect white privileged male".

quote:
And you have gone beyond the discussion. Every man out there inherently wants to sleep with any attractive looking woman he sees. You and I are no exception. That doesn't mean we should though. Or that its right to view women as just objects of sex. It's not a matter of "normal" its a matter of moral.


Well, when I look at a woman the first thing I do is assess her "bangability factor". I'm definitely not concerned with her IQ, her job or where she went to school.

So why shouldn't we have sex if the woman is willing? What, exactly, is wrong with that?

quote:
And if you actually understood anything about Christianity, you'd know that a married couple is supposed to enjoy sex. That both are supposed to try and stay desirable to the other. That both are supposed to want to meet the others needs, within certain limits.


If you cannot be bothered to fire off a few neurons to decide FOR YOURSELF what's right and wrong, good or bad in the context of your own life then why even bother getting married? You're obviously not putting much thought into your own decisions, content to chalk up the consequences to the will of some fictitious deity.

You probably haven't and never will get to enjoy sex with two or more women at the same time because "that's bad"...except that it's not.

quote:
If one or both fail to do so though, that doesn't give you the right to go outside the marriage because you're unhappy. You're supposed to talk with your spouse and work to rectify the problem.


Marriage is more about money than it is about love and commitment. Marriage was designed to unite two families, so that the lesser family could gain the status of the more fortunate family. This is why the woman would take on her husband's family name - indicating that she is leveled up.

The storybook notion that we get married to "prove" that we love someone or to "make it official" is a steaming load of crap, and if two who are in a relationship cease to gain satisfaction from each other it's most often better to end it and move on than it is to do a weekend @ bernie's thing pretend that something dead is still alive.

quote:
I'm not unhappy in marriage or sex life at all, quite the opposite. Just because I'm talking about the realities of life doesn't make it my reality. Me and my wife spoke at length about this before we were married. About what we each expected.


If you're talking about it, you're thinking about it. How many lashes do you owe yourself for having such sinful thoughts about that hot brazilian girl with double-D tits and a nice round butt, both of which jiggle so nicely when shaken...

Good thing you have a storybook to tell you that even though she wants you and you want her, it's "wrong" because it would feel "too good". LOL

Seriously...go to brazil before you die and live a little. The women there know how to dance the way most women should.

quote:
Whether you want to admit it or not, pornography, and nearly any other thing you watch and listen to, does effect how you think. I'm not one who thinks violent movies, music, or video games drive people to kill others, but it certainly does affect your attitude. And without good parenting and/or a sense of accountability, then yes its possible that it can.


When people post vacation pics or videos of places they went, and you look at these pics or videos and decide that you want to see that place for yourself - what's wrong with that?

And when people take pics and videos of women they have sex with in various countries, what's wrong with basing your vacation plans with visiting said countries?

Most guys are still ashamed to admit they fap - and if that's all they do then they probably should be...but your c0ck, like any other muscle, works on the "use it or lose it" policy and porn is like the "workout music" for your c0ck in addition to being a handy travel planner.

I'm telling you man, 'sinning' is a lot of fun - that's why priests do it and that's why they don't want you to do it. Hypocrisy seems to be a fairly common trait among those who espouse strong beliefs about something that has no basis in reality.


By atechfan on 7/11/2014 6:14:26 AM , Rating: 2
You are a sad, shallow little man. No wonder you have to travel and pay for sex.


Real clever, Jason
By bupkus on 7/5/14, Rating: -1
RE: Real clever, Jason
By peterrushkin on 7/5/14, Rating: 0
RE: Real clever, Jason
By chrnochime on 7/5/2014 12:15:30 PM , Rating: 3
He can post his dismay and you can post your whine about that dismay. "Just shut up already"? Do you tell your customers to STFU when you don't want to hear them anymore? No? I thought as much.


RE: Real clever, Jason
By peterrushkin on 7/5/2014 1:07:50 PM , Rating: 1
Ha, I am lucky enough not to have any contact with my customers. If someone don't like what I am peddling, thats fine. There is always going to be someone else behind them that will.

So that said. My point is still valid. If he doesn't like it, get out. It's a free market remember?

/double facepalm


RE: Real clever, Jason
By bupkus on 7/5/2014 2:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
It seems it's only free if they agree with you.
quote:
Ha, I am lucky enough not to have any contact with my customers.
I can only guess that "your customers" benefit more than you, shielded from your sad immaturity.


RE: Real clever, Jason
By peterrushkin on 7/5/2014 2:43:12 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, I benefit more because their $$$ goes into my bank account. Of which when the initial setup is done. It's free money. But hey, you are the only one chastising Jason here.

All the other threads mention they like it.

So looks like you are in the sad/no humour minority!

/triple facefalm (I had to borrow my gf's hand - she liked the article too)


RE: Real clever, Jason
By Monkey's Uncle on 7/5/2014 2:27:23 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously he is a little more mature than you.
Does your mommy know you are using here compie?


RE: Real clever, Jason
By bupkus on 7/6/2014 11:49:33 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously.


"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki