View Full Version : Fox News is now the porn police
Avatard
05-11-2010, 07:07 AM
They threatened Wikipedia, and Wiki is now deleting anything that might remotely be considered pornographic.
The world is now safe from dirty pictures, thanks for sanitizing our encyclopedia! THANKS FOX NEWS!
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/07/wikipedia-purges-porn/
Particle Man
05-11-2010, 07:43 AM
Censorship by any other name....
Censorship by any other name....
It's self censorship, so I don't really have a problem with it. They are afforded the same right I am to dictate the extent of content allowed on their property. I would have never thought to look for it on wiki at all though. Didn't even know they allowed it prior to this.
Particularily the children section, that should be gone immediately.
Avatard
05-11-2010, 08:22 AM
The new Meese commission.
How soon they forget.
Particle Man
05-11-2010, 08:57 AM
It's self censorship, so I don't really have a problem with it. They are afforded the same right I am to dictate the extent of content allowed on their property. I would have never thought to look for it on wiki at all though. Didn't even know they allowed it prior to this.
Particularily the children section, that should be gone immediately.
I don't have a problem with this one in particular because I agree that they're allowed to dictate what is allowed "on" their property... it's just the precedent that this sets. The smallest crack in the dam will turn into a flood real fast and pretty soon it could turn into a website witch hunt.
Avatard
05-11-2010, 09:08 AM
Everyone knows that there's only one rightful place for sexually salacious content.
Fox Prime Time.
I just searched breast, vagina, and tentacle rape and got pictures for all of them. Stop bitching
Rangerscott
05-11-2010, 09:48 AM
Didnt know there was porn on wiki.
tommymac
05-11-2010, 09:50 AM
I just searched breast, vagina, and tentacle rape and got pictures for all of them. Stop bitching
tentacle rape, do I even want to know what that is. :lol:
Particle Man
05-11-2010, 09:54 AM
tentacle rape, do I even want to know what that is. :lol:
:lol: what the hell :lmao:
Avatard
05-11-2010, 09:54 AM
Just more of Faux News "creating" news.
Anything to incite.
OneSickPsycho
05-11-2010, 10:06 AM
Considering the fact that there was a "nude children" section and pictures of "young girls" engaged in sexual activity, how is this not a good thing?
goof2
05-11-2010, 10:09 AM
I fail to see any threat. Foxnews found porn on Wikipedia and tattled to large donors to Wikipedia. If there was any threat it sounds like it came from the donors in the form of stopping donations. Considering the drive for donations Wikipedia held a couple months ago I doubt they could survive for very long without those donations. I think you may be blowing this more than a little out of proportion.
tentacle rape, do I even want to know what that is. :lol:
Its a japanese thing :lol: apparently they used to have laws against depicting penetration by a penis but didn't say anything about...um...similar structures :eek:
OneSickPsycho
05-11-2010, 10:10 AM
I fail to see any threat. Foxnews found porn on Wikipedia and tattled to large donors to Wikipedia. If there was any threat it sounds like it came from the donors in the form of stopping donations. Considering the drive for donations Wikipedia held a couple months ago I doubt they could survive for very long without those donations. I think you may be blowing this more than a little out of proportion.
but... but... but... FAUX NEWS IS THE DEBIL!!!!
tommymac
05-11-2010, 10:10 AM
Its a japanese thing :lol: apparently they used to have laws against depicting penetration by a penis but didn't say anything about...um...similar structures :eek:
Guess ya do learn something new every day :lol:
Particle Man
05-11-2010, 10:15 AM
Guess ya do learn something new every day even if you really didn't want to know :lol:
fixed :lol:
tommymac
05-11-2010, 10:18 AM
fixed :lol:
thanx :lol:
Avatard
05-11-2010, 10:25 AM
I fail to see any threat. Foxnews found porn on Wikipedia and tattled to large donors to Wikipedia. If there was any threat it sounds like it came from the donors in the form of stopping donations. Considering the drive for donations Wikipedia held a couple months ago I doubt they could survive for very long without those donations. I think you may be blowing this more than a little out of proportion.
I think you're intentionally minimizing the fact that no one elected Fox to police anything. They're supposed to report news, not threaten websites. If you can't see how this is a supposed news organization clearly overstepping their bounds, then you're an utter fool.
I think you're intentionally minimizing the fact that no one elected Fox to police anything. They're supposed to report news, not threaten websites. If you can't see how this is a supposed news organization clearly overstepping their bounds, then you're an utter fool.
Does MTV just show music?
This is the same shit as when Chris Hanson busts the kiddy rapists on that "news" show. I forget which one he is on, I think it's 60 mins.
You are going way overboard on this because it says fox news. You have a hard on for them.
tommymac
05-11-2010, 10:29 AM
Does MTV just show music?
This is the same shit as when Chris Hanson busts the kiddy rapists on that "news" show. I forget which one he is on, I think it's 60 mins.
You are going way overboard on this because it says fox news. You have a hard on for them.
MTV doesnt show music anymore :lol:
Avatard
05-11-2010, 10:31 AM
Does MTV just show music?
This is the same shit as when Chris Hanson busts the kiddy rapists on that "news" show. I forget which one he is on, I think it's 60 mins.
You are going way overboard on this because it says fox news. You have a hard on for them.
They have a hard-on for freedom. Only their version is valid, apparently.
Glad they're screening our info for us.
:rolleyes:
If YOU can't spot the difference between targeting child molestors, and Fox going after a fucking encyclopedia [known for it's frank, open, and editable public exchange of information] with threats, then you too fail on the sharpness scale, Trip.
I expected better from you.
This is NOT journalism, in fact, it's corporate extortion, blackmail, and ultimately slander...libel. The "threat" was bogus. Clearly, Fox's intent was to go public, and harm Wiki.
Freedom fail.
OneSickPsycho
05-11-2010, 10:32 AM
Does MTV just show music?
This is the same shit as when Chris Hanson busts the kiddy rapists on that "news" show. I forget which one he is on, I think it's 60 mins.
You are going way overboard on this because it says fox news. You have a hard on for them.
For reals... and every local news organization has a "5 on your side" or "news 13 care" or some shit that hound local business owners when they make a mistake - half the time not even getting it right. No difference here... ALL of the media 'makes' news.
They have a hard-on for freedom. Only their version is valid, apparently.
Glad they're screening our info for us.
:rolleyes:
If YOU can't spot the difference between targeting child molestors, and Fox going after a fucking encyclopedia [known for it's frank, open, and editable public exchange of information] with threats, then you too fail on the sharpness scale, Trip.
I expected better from you.
Kiddy pr0n is just as bad as child molestation. They found evidence of that. This is typical investigative journalism. They found a lot of pr0n on wikipedia that it sounds like most of us and their sponsors had no idea existed. They went to their sponsors and asked if they knew what was on there and they didn't. Sounds pretty typical of investigative journalism. You just have a massive issue with fox news, an enormous one.
Anyone know the laws for online pr0n and what measures large entities are suppose to take to prevent access by children if there is any?
goof2
05-11-2010, 10:48 AM
I think you're intentionally minimizing the fact that no one elected Fox to police anything. They're supposed to report news, not threaten websites. If you can't see how this is a supposed news organization clearly overstepping their bounds, then you're an utter fool.
News organizations aren't elected to police the activities of Haliburton, Blackwater, Exxon/Mobile, banks, phone companies, cable companies, or auto manufacturers either. No one elects news organizations to police anything but that is a large part of what they do. If you disagree that is fine but I would like to hear what in your opinion the bounds are that Foxnews is so clearly overstepping. You are being a slave to your bias on this one.
Avatard
05-11-2010, 10:52 AM
A public encyclopedia is no different than a public park.
Blaming the owners of the park if a child molester strikes there is foolish.
Just as foolish as demonizing an encyclopedia when some nitwit posts shit on it.
This is pure crap [not journalism] and I don't get pissed just when Fox does it.
NBC did some shit on Craigslist the other day, and it was more of the same type of shitty journalism..."blaming the park owner for the pedophile".
What public entity owns wikimedia? It's a private park, not public. They reported that this was going on and informed people of what was going on, Wikimedia took steps to ensure it shouldn't happen anymore. What's the big deal? No one is going to jail, it doesn't sound like the donors care or attempting to take back their donations. The issue is getting fixed.
If Wikipedia wants to operate in such a manner, they should be able to do it without the support of donators and charge for the content aka pr0n.
goof2
05-11-2010, 11:02 AM
To continue your simile/metaphore, if the park owner knows there are pedophiles (which Wiki apparently did) and does little to nothing about it then yes, they probably will run in to some problems.
Avatard
05-11-2010, 11:02 AM
Fox News political hit job.
NBC did some shit on Craigslist the other day, and it was more of the same type of shitty journalism..."blaming the park owner for the pedophile".
Then why isn't there a thread about how worthless NBC is?
Avatard
05-11-2010, 11:12 AM
Because actually, no one wrote about it online. It's just something I saw on the screen, and didn't think to comment on, and frankly forgot until now...but it's not the first time someone's gone after Craigslist, and I think it's ridiculous.
NBC was no better attacking them the other day.
This is not journalism.
I think also one distinct difference is that Fox sent a threat. That makes it even slimier.
Because actually, no one wrote about it online. It's just something I saw on the screen, and didn't think to comment on, and frankly forgot until now...but it's not the first time someone's gone after Craigslist, and I think it's ridiculous.
NBC was no better attacking them the other day.
This is not journalism.
I think also one distinct difference is that Fox sent a threat. That makes it even slimier.
Where are you seeing this threat? The article reads to me that Fox was in the middle of asking the donators if they knew what was on wikipedia when wikipedia to it upon itself to clean house.
pauldun170
05-11-2010, 11:27 AM
If foxnews really wants to "protect the children" they could just edit the pages themselves.
As for the children, stick their little punk asses in the library. Slap em with some good old fashioned index cards.
"Wanna research for your little paper...your gonna have to read every fucking book on the subject untill you get the info you need!!"
Just like we used to do.
dumbass kids. No wonder you are getting dumber by the minute. You don't know how to work for anything.
fuckers
I'm going to go post a penis up a random wiki page now.
Avatard
05-11-2010, 11:28 AM
Where are you seeing this threat? The article reads to me that Fox was in the middle of asking the donators if they knew what was on wikipedia when wikipedia to it upon itself to clean house.
How twisted of you to characterize it as "asking donators", when it's effectively extortion by threat of sensationalism.
How twisted of you to characterize it as "asking donators", when it's effectively extortion by threat of sensationalism.
Why even have news organizations if you are going to neuter them, so they can't ask probing questions? Where's the freedom in that?
If wikipedia is ok with the content of their site, then they shouldn't care if someone probes their content.
As for the children, stick their little punk asses in the library. Slap em with some good old fashioned index cards.
"Wanna research for your little paper...your gonna have to read every fucking book on the subject untill you get the info you need!!"
I agree, wikipedia should never be allowed as a valid source for research.
Avatard
05-11-2010, 11:43 AM
Why even have news organizations if you are going to neuter them, so they can't ask probing questions? Where's the freedom in that?
If wikipedia is ok with the content of their site, then they shouldn't care if someone probes their content.
Running to contributors with leading questions masquerading as "asking probing questions"?
Fox News. I can't believe you're defending this shit.
Running to contributors with leading questions masquerading as "asking probing questions"?
Fox News. I can't believe you're defending this shit.
Because I am not eccentrically biased about the station as you are about the station. Your opinion is basically worthless because if they were doing a piece on watching paint dry you would still have a problem with it. We get it, you hate fox news. Time to move on.
pauldun170
05-11-2010, 12:08 PM
as much as I dislike the utter crap they have up on foxnews, this wiki thing is more pay the bills sensationalism than Foxnewsisms.
However, I haven't read anything else on the issue besides the link provided.
shmike
05-11-2010, 12:14 PM
as much as I dislike the utter crap they have up on foxnews, this wiki thing is more pay the bills sensationalism than Foxnewsisms.
However, I haven't read anything else on the issue besides the link provided.
pauldun: Fair and Balanced.
Avatard
05-11-2010, 12:19 PM
as much as I dislike the utter crap they have up on foxnews, this wiki thing is more pay the bills sensationalism than Foxnewsisms.
...but for the whole "running to contributors" thing.
Particle Man
05-11-2010, 02:24 PM
as much as I dislike the utter crap they have up on foxnews, this wiki thing is more pay the bills sensationalism than Foxnewsisms.
If it's advertising they're afraid of losing, they're going about it the wrong way. What better way to generate hits than porn? :lmao:
goof2
05-11-2010, 03:29 PM
...but for the whole "running to contributors" thing.
I guess if they had gone Michael Moore style and ambushed Jimmy Wales with questions like "Why do you allow child pornography on your website?" it would have been fine because they are just asking questions?:skep:
I guess if they had gone Michael Moore style and ambushed Jimmy Wales with questions like "Why do you allow child pornography on your website?" it would have been fine because they are just asking questions?:skep:
That's fine, because he is a man of vast substance.
dReWpY
05-11-2010, 03:42 PM
in the end: who cares?
there is way more important things going on in this world and its current state then pulling pix of a web site, wonder whats going on in the real world?
Smittie61984
05-11-2010, 04:45 PM
Fox News hates black people - Kanye West
NONE_too_SOFT
05-11-2010, 05:01 PM
I just wiki'd tits and found a picture of a tit.
Exactly my earlier point. Pregnant tits if you believe the caption
Smittie61984
05-11-2010, 05:16 PM
I just wiki'd tits and found a picture of a tit.
They said basic nudity would be okay, it's just the sex acts that will be gone and god forbid they get rid of child porn. How dare Fox News get rid of child porn.
"This includes immediate deletion of all pornographic images. We should keep educational images about sexuality -- mere nudity is not pornography "
yeh that breast wikipost was bad, they showed this
(Possibly NSFW) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/Gynecomastia_001.jpg/800px-Gynecomastia_001.jpg)
Its a man?!?!
yeh that breast wikipost was bad, they showed this
(Possibly NSFW) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/Gynecomastia_001.jpg/800px-Gynecomastia_001.jpg)
Its a man?!?!
dont search genital warts
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.