Quote:
Originally Posted by Failed
After reading the article you have linked, I don't see anything that suggests IFFOR created a link between legitimate adult content and child abusers. Understand, I'm not pro .xxx or necessarily anti .xxx. But, what I gather from the article is that IFFOR will be active in the policing of .xxx for material that contains child abuse. As far as I know, no other extension has taken such a proactive role and it's been left to individuals and government organizations to do so. This doesn't seem like a negative to me. But, perhaps I'm not understanding correctly?
|
Well, the devil will be in the details, absolutely. I'm trying to understand what they're up to based on their very vague and general comments, and what I know about the people involved... how they have behaved in the past, etc.
I see things like THIS and it makes me wonder: "Council members have taken a real step forwards in child protection through these and other policies.?
First, the term "child protection" is a loaded one with a long history. It implies certain things. Keeping child porn off .XXX sites is NOT the same thing as "child protection."
Second, she says "...and other policies." What other policies are needed other than forbidding child porn?
When you see a casino posting ads about "gambling addiction," don't you kind of associate gambling with the problem of gambling addiction?
We ALREADY have a problem with the mainstream lumping legal adult entertainment and illegal child pornography into one group... they do this casually all the time without thinking about it. If the industry gets into "child protection," in the minds of many people that will seem like self-imposed penance, as if we're accepting that our industry bears some responsibility to engage in these activities. It just further solidifies that false link that many in the mainstream already make.