Readers: 'Net Porn No Problem
Here's What Readers Said When We Suggested Curbing Depraved Web Sites -- And Here's How You Can Join The Conversation
Our columnist argued that porn sites were becoming the weed of the World Wide Web. "In the days before cyberspace, one could avoid porn by staying out of the X-rated wings of video rental stores and detouring around the red-light districts en route to work," Tresl said. "Today, smutty Web pages leap out in all the search engines, making it virtually impossible for people with sensibilities like mine to casually and comfortably surf." (Click here to read the original column.)
Many of you disagreed. Following is a sampling of reactions sent to us by e-mail. You can join the conversation by sending an e-mail to digitalculture@ibsys.com, but include your full name, city and state or province if you want your comments posted. --Dan Bernard, features editor for Internet Broadcasting Systems
Don't Believe The Hype
Don Thompson of Pittsburgh, Pa. doesn't believe it's that common to encounter unsolicited porn. His comments:"Anyone with common sense is against porn. Jacqueline's column states her inability to avoid it. Methinks Jacqueline protests too much.
"Witness: I have been roaming the 'Net averaging five hours a day since 1992. At best, I have been abused by the presence of porn on possibly three occasions. One doesn't run into it if one doesn't invite the possibility.
"We continue to live in an age of THE HYPE. The media uses it, medicine magnifies it and, of course, politicians discovered it. Keys to getting a column read today seems to be the old standbys of: sex, violence and mayhem. Could it be Jacqueline simply wanted to get read?"
What's Next -- Ban Sex?
Mike Orcher from Pittsburgh, Pa. disagreed strongly with the article's viewpoint:"If you are on actual (search) sites and not going to these sites that you really shouldn't be on anyway, you don't even run across any porn. And if you do, it is in the form of a banner, which most people ignore anyway.
"As far as Internet providers stopping access to porn sites, I for one will cancel my service with any provider that bans porn. We have the right to look at what we want in the comfort of our homes.
"As far as making it illegal to look at porn, then what are the going to do -- ban having sex? For heaven forbid you should see another human naked.
"I feel that it is in our right to free speech to be able to have this sort of thing. And if they ban it, that would be going against the Constitution just the way they are with guns."
How Search Engines Work
We heard from lots of readers who try to find sites through search engines. And we heard from people on the other end of the equation -- Web site operators who want search engines to share their URL with users. Tresa Rivers of Canton, Ohio says she does that as Webmaster for Stark County's Web Directory. So she knows that search engines are too dumb to screen out filth, she wrote:"I've done search-engine submission professionally for three years. Knowing how the engines work is my business ...
"Sites submitted to search engines are 'reviewed' by software programs called 'spiders.' Spiders simply summarize and record the page -- they do not generally add contextual information. Search for the word 'tongue' and you simply get every page the spider has visited that has the (search term) on it...
"Searching for medical information about tongue injuries using just the keyword 'tongue' [the example our columnist used] is ridiculous. Poor example: Any person who claims to do research on the Web should know better. You might as well use the word 'breast' to search for chicken recipes. Come on!
"Want better results? Do better searches! Use topic-specific directories (like rather than general directories. (Hint: www.directoryguide.com). Some engines, like Infoseek, have filtering software that helps but doesn't completely remove objectionable content. And always use more than one keyword -- it will help sort out relevant (and hopefully cleaner) search results.
"I'd be perfectly happy never to trip over another porn banner or adult Web site come-on. I have a young daugheter, and I've had to quickly shut off my monitor more than once. But as someone who loves the Web, I understand that freedom of speech makes it the powerful tool that it is."
A Domain Of Their Own
A novel solution for weeding out the smut was offered by Jason Hansen of Medford, Ore.:"There's an easy solution that hasn't been mentioned ... a suffix. Instead of www.sex.com, every porn site should end with a xxx or sex, or something like it, e.g. www.sex.xxx This way filtering out the sites would be easy, the software required would be trivial (certainly a freeware author would oblige), and yet none of those "wonderful" free-speech oriented sites would be inconvenienced. Everyone would have what they wanted--those who didn't want smut simply woudn't visit www.???.xxx sites, and those who do would know exactly where to go :)."
Porn On The Side
Jenny Miles of Aitkin, Minn. offered what she thought was a possible compromise:"I think search engines should have a tab just for porno that can have a password or child lock of some sort on it. Anything to do with porno goes into this file: When you put the word 'tongue' or another body part into your search, on the bottom it would say, '____ amount of sites (listed) under porno tab.'
"I think this will not go against anyone's rights but will give peace of mind to parents and people who are offended by this at the same time."
Just Say 'Delete'
This pithy comment came in from Alfred Eggert of Burbank, Calif.:"All one has to do if you don't want to read such garbage is to delete it when you first sign onto the Internet. If you notice a site that is unfamiliar to you, just delete it or ignore it."
He Couldn't Find The Porn
Larry Reese of Los Angeles wondered what the fuss was about:"If one takes the time to learn about the Internet, one finds out that these X-rated sites do not -- I repeat, do not -- 'come up.' I have been using the Internet for over five years and I do not have this problem at all. Matter of fact, after reading columns like this, sometimes I have gone looking for these sites and can't find them.
"If you are too lazy to learn how seach engines work, then don't complain when you get the wrong responses.
"I find more offensive things on prime-time TV when I am watching with my teenage daughter then I find on my computer.
"Ms. Tresl if you want to find out about what to do if you burn your tongue ... Try a medical site. If you are so lazy as to only want to type in 'tongue,' then do us all a favor, do not write about the Web, because you are not well-educated enough about it to write about it.
"For everyone that gets X-rated information in their e-mail or on their computer screen: stop looking for it!!! Over five years online, porn sites have never just jumped onto my screen."
Message Received
Brian Schulz of Brooklyn Park, Minn. didn't beat around the bush:"I found your article to be offensive and objectionable. Is there software I can buy to block out you? Long live free speech in the USA."
Take Stand Against 'Net Porn
It's safe to say that Tia Schumacher of St. Michael, Minn., agreed with the drift of the column. She sent in these comments:"The Web is a wonderful tool -- or it should be. There is way too much porn -- you name it, it is there.
"Unfortunately, you do find it by accident -- free of charge. Then, an annoying window pops up and you can't get out of it. Next thing you know, your e-mail box is full of invites from various sites.
"It's rude and degrading! Keep it off public property. Keep it out of my inbox! Why should I have to pay money (for software) to block something that shouldn't be there in the first place? It's a vicious circle, isn't it? It's an addiction that has ruined many families.
"It's wrong to begin with, but please, people, those who agree, take a stand. Don't be afraid to get involved. I don't believe for one moment that the survey leans to most people saying porn is OK."
A Simple Solution
Ray Hayes of Cuba City, Wis., wrote:"I read your article, I read the other readers' responses, and I believe I may have a simple solution to everyone's problems in regards to porn. It's quite simple: Make every porn site -- or anything the parents deem offensive -- begin with a code. Like the 900 numbers, you'll have the capability of blocking all the sites that begin with this particular code.
"If a Web site isn't coded, the parents or schools,libraries,churches or whomever can add this code to that site on their PC so it can no longer be accessed from that PC. You should have a way to notify your Internet service provider and ask them to review the site in question. Pass a law requiring all these sites to add the code at the beginning of their Web addresses and then make it simple for us to block them. Like the 900 numbers, we'll have the ability to turn them on or off.
"Thanks."
Can't Complain
This comment came in from Matt Johnson of Eden Prairie, Minn.:"I agree ... there is too much porn on the Internet. But I cannot complain because a great right in this country allows it to happen -- one which I do not wish to give up.
"There is one subject you overlooked before you started to complain: There is an amendment in this country that allows for free speech. That makes it OK for people who like porn to have these sites and places. ... That's my two cents' worth."
Hallelujah!
From Michael Knibbs, pastor of the Open Bible Christian Center in Massillon, Ohio:"I'm with you, I'm a minister and use the Web for research, just as you do. I do not have any children at home, but I still don't like to see some of those words on my computer screen!!
"It now becomes a challenge to find a way to search, proper wording, etc., so as to be less apt to bring up those sights.
"I don't know, but I don't like it!!!!"
Separate But Equal?
Rod Hake of Bloomington, Minn., wrote:"I can certainly do without this smut. Maybe we can't outlaw it completely, but let those that want it have their own Web sites."
They're Not All 'Bad Guys'
Subject: Good guys vs. bad guys?From: "Darklady"
Ms. Tresl,
"I just read your opinion piece online and must take offense at your categorizing everyone who has adult-related material online as a 'bad guy' and all those who do not as 'good guys.'
"If you have a problem with an unsorted library reference service, like search engines, then think of ways for them to improve their services. Don't complain because you've got too many dead ends for your research. I run into the same thing when I'm trying to do research on historic topics: I get tons of religious links when I want history, not mythology.
"I agree that there are adolescent, irresponsible people running some of the adult Web sites out there. The technology is new and relatively inexpensive, so some cheap work is available and unprofessional people are handling it. Time will change that, and technology will make it increasingly easy to avoid. Name-calling and division will not make things better.
"The answer is not to banish subjects that offend you personally to some corner of the Web, but to refine conventional search engines. Think for a moment. What's 'porn,' and who's going to decide? Is it porn if it's put out by a man but not if it's put out by a woman? Is it porn if it's put out by a lesbian and contains women's health and sexuality resources and information? Is a site with the personal story of a transsexual 'porn?' Is a health site with information about birth control and/or abortion 'porn?'
"I review adult videos, books, magazines, Web sites, etc., and I've seen a lot of porn in my life. My specialty is interviews/profiles, and it exposes me to a lot of people in the adult entertainment industry. There's a real move toward increasing responsibility for those serious about what they do and the more I see, the more I learn that there are many definitions of 'porn.'
--Theresa Reed, Portland, Ore.
darklady@darklady.com
www.darklady.com
Name-calling, Darklady?
The comments above from "Darklady" prompted a rebuttal from Mark Werner of North St. Paul, Minn."I wanted to point out one area of what seemed to be an inconsistency in Darklady's response to Ms. Tresl. Darklady made the following comment to Ms Tresl: 'Name-calling and division will not make things better.' Darklady also made the following comment about the lack of 'accuracy' of search engines: '...(W)hen I'm trying to do research on historic topics ... I get tons of religious links when I want history, not mythology.'
"This is where I am a bit perplexed. As an ordained Methodist minister, I can clearly state that in no way would I categorize religion as 'mythology,' and that to do so is an intentional and derogatory act. Which, it would seem, would be evidence of 'name-calling' and thus could lead to division in our pluralistic society.
"Now, I should add that I don't mind if someone doesn't personally have or value a religious faith. I don't even mind if they have a faith totally different than mine. What I do care about is consistency. Darklady was offended when someone did not validate values which she has chosen, yet in nearly the same breath denigrated a system of values which is important to others.
"(T)he issue ... is one of logic (i.e., consistency in thought and practice). (E)ven though I don't value porn sites and personally believe that the 'adult entertainment' industry is harmful to its participants and its customers, I would never propose its demise. We are fortunate to live in a country which affords us a great many freedoms. And we should be very cautious not only in how we personally exercise those freedoms, but we should also be thoughtful and careful in how we monitor and restrict those freedoms.
"'Name-calling and division will (certainly) not make things better' as we seek to navigate a way between 'freedom of porn and freedom from porn.'"
Wait, It Ain't Over!
Naturally, Mr. Werner's rebuttal to Darklady's response prompted a rejoinder from Darklady, who CC'd it to us:"Christianity is not the only religion known to man. Thus my comments were regarding all forms of religious thought, most of which I suspect even Mr. Werner would consider to by mythological. Whether religion is a myth or The Truth tends to depend, of course, upon whether or not the religion in question includes the writer/speaker in its membership rolls.
"The Websters' online dictionary's definition of mythology includes allegorical tales, which nearly all religions, including Christianity, include. I think the word merely has been used incorrectly so many times that it touches a hot button in those who feel they need to defend their religion from attack, whether such an attack really exists or not."
The Smutless Search Engine
"Try this search engine: www.google.com ... It does not give me porn like some of the others do!!!
--Barb Larson, Minnesota
Editor's note: We have inquired with google.com as to whether they screen out porn sites; we will post their response here.
Blocking Software = Censorship
"So you are advocating the use of blocking software? You've got to be kidding me."I encourage you to visit www.peacefire.org, home of (Australia's) Youth Alliance Against Internet Censorship. At this site, we call these blocking software packages that you descirbed in your article by what they really are: 'censorware.' Peacefire also offers information on all the legitmate sites that this software blocks and information on how to disable the censorware.
"No law will ever be effective in ridding the Internet of porn, because the Internet is a multinational entity. Believe it or not, we cannot impose our will on other countries. And fortunately, no other country shares the same puritanical, 17th century views on sexuality as do we. Thank goodness for that."
--Nicholas DeCenzo
Jacqueline Tresl responds:Nicholas,
Thank you for your e-mail. No, I was not advocating any blocking software or censorship. I was only describing the available solutions I had come across.
If you read what I say at the end of my piece, I would simply like to be able to use a search engine that does not take me to naked women. I don't think I am being unreasonable and am certainly not imposing anything on anyone else.
My column was written partially tongue in cheek, more as in "this niggling problem," as I hoped Internet savvy readers would understand.
'Net Filters Don't Work
Jacqueline's response (above) prompted this follow-up by Alan Olsen of Portland, Ore., who says he's a network systems administrator with 10 years' experience on the Internet and 17 years working with computers:"I am glad you are backing off on your stance on 'Net filtering programs. 'Net filters do not perform as advertised. If they were judged like any other advertised product, the makers of those programs would be dealing with fines and/or jail time for commercial fraud.
"Some are overbroad in their filtering; some are lenient or downright random. For example, CBS radio reported that many people could not connect to the Super Bowl Web site because the filter saw the 'XXX' in 'Super Bowl XXXIV' and refused to allow the page to load. At one time the White House site was blocked by a filter program (Cybersitter, I believe) because it mentioned the word 'Couples.' Breast cancer sites have been blocked due to the same reliance on keywords.
"What is blocked by a filter program is hard to say because almost every Web filter keeps their block lists secret. (There is one exception, and it is an uncommon one.) You just have to trust the filter maker to filter out what you think is harmful. (And since you have no idea what that is, good luck ... )
"You have to remember that filter programs do not just filter for porn. They filter for whatever ideas the filter-maker wants to block. This has included non-standard religions, information on guns and/or gun rights (pro or con), political issues, medical information dealing with sexual or reproductive issues, pages that mention gambling, and a lot more ...
"Search engines need to improve greatly ... I have yet to find one that is current and does not have 15 copies of the same link in their database.
---------------------
Send your feedback to dan@ibsys.com with full name, city and state or province.
