***** VERY IMPORTANT WARNING: Adult content on NSC

[DTES]

That has to be the biggest two faced demand by google in the history of the internet then. I am going hold back on saying what i really think of them but they are a disgrace as far as i am concerned and so are a huge amount of laws associated with the internet.

Seriously, why? We're entirely free to allow porn if we want, it's just up to us to find another income source - mentioning "laws of the internet" is just ridiculous.

They're not saying "you can't post this", they're not saying "we'll sue you or prosecute you if you do this", they're simply saying "you can't post this and expect us to give you money".

It's their money and it's entirely their call who they give it to and who they do business with!

Would you support laws saying you're not allowed to choose where you shop? That you're not allowed to stop shopping somewhere if you object to what they do? Would you object to your boss saying you can't e-mail porn around and expect to get your salary?

 

[TonyW]

Seriously, why? We're entirely free to allow porn if we want, it's just up to us to find another income source, mentioning "laws of the internet" is just ridiculous.

They're not saying "you can't post this", they're not saying "we'll sue you or prosecute you if you do this", they're simply saying "you can't post this and expect us to give you money".

It's their money and it's entirely their call who they give it to and who they do business with!

Would you support laws saying you're not allowed to choose where you shop? That you're not allowed to stop shopping somewhere if you object to what they do? Would you object to your boss saying you can't e-mail porn around and expect to get your salary?

It actually the advertisers money, most of whom wouldn't give a toss what site they ended up on as long as it generated revenue.

 

[Gritt23]

Google's terms state:

As stated in our program policies, AdSense publishers are not permitted to place Google ads on pages with adult or mature content. In addition to photos and videos which contain nudity or sexual activities, below are some other examples of unacceptable content:

* Crude or indecent language, including adult stories

Cleaning up the images on here is going to be tough enough, but ow on EARTH are we to clean up the language?

This is looking like it's going to be virtually impossible to police unless there is a software package that can filter out words and replace them with **** if the word appears on a list of unacceptable words.

 

[El Presidente]

Because Google say so!!!
If it was your decision, I would respect it - I have no respect for google and absolutely no respect for outside censorship.

It's not censorship, it's part of their terms and conditions for the advertising, there is a WORLD of difference.

 

[TonyW]

It's not censorship, it's part of their terms and conditions for the advertising, there is a WORLD of difference.

Hardly.
Telling me what I can and can't post (or removing it afterwards) is censorship.

 

[TonyW]

Anyway, I'm fighting a losing battle so I'm off to look at some porn.

 

[fork me]

Seriously, why? We're entirely free to allow porn if we want, it's just up to us to find another income source - mentioning "laws of the internet" is just ridiculous.

Why? They're hypocrites because they're banning us from ANY adult content (bear in mind the MOST explicit picture in the thread they complained about can be seen in tabloid newspapers in the UK) while streaming adult ads to us. If their ads were squeaky clean, I'd have less of a problem with this.

 

[DTES]

It actually the advertisers money, most of whom wouldn't give a toss what site they ended up on as long as it generated revenue.

And they have made a business decision to allow Google to place their ads, and the placement of their ads is...... Google's business! (In both senses of the words!)

Whoever's money it is, invoking "laws of the internet" is absolutely ridiculous and childish. As I say, there are no prosecutions or lawsuits being threatened, we (NSC) are entirely free to do what we want in terms of this material. The same as you or I though, we have to consider our income (salary anyone?) and if we want our main customer to be Google, then their terms of business play a part, as in any business transaction. It's not difficult.

 

[fork me]

It's not censorship, it's part of their terms and conditions for the advertising, there is a WORLD of difference.

Maybe so, but when they're streaming ads that breach those terms and conditions it's total hypocrisy.

 

[Art Vs Science]

Seriously, why? We're entirely free to allow porn if we want, it's just up to us to find another income source - mentioning "laws of the internet" is just ridiculous.

They're not saying "you can't post this", they're not saying "we'll sue you or prosecute you if you do this", they're simply saying "you can't post this and expect us to give you money".

It's their money and it's entirely their call who they give it to and who they do business with!

Would you support laws saying you're not allowed to choose where you shop? That you're not allowed to stop shopping somewhere if you object to what they do? Would you object to your boss saying you can't e-mail porn around and expect to get your salary?

No, No i am not saying any of that.

 

[Gary Leeds]

Maybe every member should start off taking a quick scan through their own posts and images to see if anything is questionable and if so report it yourself. Then lets say Bozza can find 20 people to review the gallery, each person is allocated a range of page numbers to review and goes through reporting anything they find. A clean up is not impossible but will take a while and if done properly nobody will even notice a difference in the site content.

The main question is how far do we have to take these Google rules? for example

* Lewd or provocative images
That counts out loads of avatars as well as certain non nude images, sucking a finger or eating a banana could be seen as provocative

* Crude or indecent language, including adult stories
so no more calling people wankers and c**ts then? Fireman Dans story about sleeping with his GF best friend would not be allowed.

* Sexual tips or advice
Again the replied to Dans story are not allowed as they are advice

* Sexual fetish sites (e.g. foot fetish content)
No mention of the welsh having carnal relations with sheep then

* Adult toys or products
Im sure there have been pictures of butt plugs etc posted by other clubs fans but these would need to be found and removed

* Ads or links to external sites containing adult content
Thats the links to pics removed but how far do they want you to take it? Does this mean you cannot link to google anymore? Also there have been ads for dating sites appearing on the banners at the top, I assume they would have to be removed as well as they are adult content (not adult as in porn but adult as in minors are not allowed in). The same goes for any links or ads to gambling sites, it is still age restricted content

* Adult links and/or adult keywords within the meta data in the source code of your site
I assume Bozza has this one covered

Thats just a few examples of how the "guidelines" could be taken depending on who is reviewing the site.

Oh and as Bozza wants to use this thread as an example to google of how we are cleaning up the site, is it really wise to say things on this thread that would go against us when the review is done?

 

[TonyW]

And they have made a business decision to allow Google to place their ads, and the placement of their ads is...... Google's business! (In both senses of the words!)

Whoever's money it is, invoking "laws of the internet" is absolutely ridiculous and childish. As I say, there are no prosecutions or lawsuits being threatened, we (NSC) are entirely free to do what we want in terms of this material. The same as you or I though, we have to consider our income (salary anyone?) and if we want our main customer to be Google, then their terms of business play a part, as in any business transaction. It's not difficult.

Not gone yet.

I don't want our main sponsor to be Google though.
I'd rather be sponsored by Palace to be honest.

And, if we are sponsored by Google, I am going to be told what I can and can't post - bollocks to that.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

Maybe every member should start off taking a quick scan through their own posts and images to see if anything is questionable and if so report it yourself. Then lets say Bozza can find 20 people to review the gallery, each person is allocated a range of page numbers to review and goes through reporting anything they find. A clean up is not impossible but will take a while and if done properly nobody will even notice a difference in the site content.

The main question is how far do we have to take these Google rules? for example

* Lewd or provocative images
That counts out loads of avatars as well as certain non nude images, sucking a finger or eating a banana could be seen as provocative

* Crude or indecent language, including adult stories
so no more calling people wankers and c**ts then? Fireman Dans story about sleeping with his GF best friend would not be allowed.

* Sexual tips or advice
Again the replied to Dans story are not allowed as they are advice

* Sexual fetish sites (e.g. foot fetish content)
No mention of the welsh having carnal relations with sheep then

* Adult toys or products
Im sure there have been pictures of butt plugs etc posted by other clubs fans but these would need to be found and removed

* Ads or links to external sites containing adult content
Thats the links to pics removed but how far do they want you to take it? Does this mean you cannot link to google anymore? Also there have been ads for dating sites appearing on the banners at the top, I assume they would have to be removed as well as they are adult content (not adult as in porn but adult as in minors are not allowed in). The same goes for any links or ads to gambling sites, it is still age restricted content

* Adult links and/or adult keywords within the meta data in the source code of your site
I assume Bozza has this one covered

Thats just a few examples of how the "guidelines" could be taken depending on who is reviewing the site.

Oh and as Bozza wants to use this thread as an example to google of how we are cleaning up the site, is it really wise to say things on this thread that would go against us when the review is done?

In all reality though its the images that are the cause of the problem as they are the most easily checkable. Google will have a programme of checking their referall sites and when they checked us for adult images we must have flashed up red. Get rid of the images and we'll be fine IMHO

 

[El Presidente]

Hardly.
Telling me what I can and can't post (or removing it afterwards) is censorship.

That has always been the case on NSC.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

Not gone yet.

I don't want our main sponsor to be Google though.
I'd rather be sponsored by Palace to be honest.

And, if we are sponsored by Google, I am going to be told what I can and can't post - bollocks to that.

But you are already told what you can and can't post. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that a football fan site should not want adult images being posted.

 

[Gary Leeds]

and this could be why we had the huge spike in users the other day, google were checking the images via the gallery.

Bozza, can you turn off the 60 second delay between reporting posts or drop it down to 10? I am willing to sit and report a few posts but not if I can only do 60 an hour

 

[El Presidente]

I[/B] don't want our main sponsor to be Google though.

But YOU aren't shelling out £500 a month to run NSC.

 

[fork me]

But you are already told what you can and can't post. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that a football fan site should not want adult images being posted.

Lol, nor that the users of that site don't want ads pushing Russian brides to them. See the Google hypocrisy yet?

 

[DTES]

And, if we are sponsored by Google, I am going to be told what I can and can't post - bollocks to that.

And you open by commenting on whether I've gone yet? Off you trot now, we won't miss you...

 

[glasfryn]

hope my avatar is OK