Why do mods delete threads ?

[JFK]

Fitty..............deletes

[BusterBunny]

i'll get you gadget if it's the last thing i do

[jayeff]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

When they are spending $20K or more per year here on advertising and threaten to pull their account unless a certain thread is deleted, well it ain't hard to figure out what's going to happen.

Which is likely the perspective, but it is a very limited one.

The direct cost of losing a specific advertiser is anywhere from zero to the whole of his spending: it depends entirely on the demand for space. But the real cost doesn't begin and end with direct revenue. If the presence of a particular advertiser in some way enhances your own business interests, losing them could cost much more. And vice versa.

If I recall correctly from an article I read a few weeks ago, Playboy's online revenue was around $5 million a month during the first quarter of this year. If they were being targeted by Zango customers, then by the most optimistic forecasts of 1/2% penetration, that alone might be costing them $25K per month. The lost revenue due to their content being spread around torrent sites has to be huge and many times greater than any benefit from the exposure (after all, who hasn't already heard of Playboy?). Etc.

It is remotely possible that an enterprise the size of Playboy Online isn't affected by the gray and black areas of online porn. But it is surely more likely that the cost is far in excess of anything they earn from any one advertiser.

[xclusive]

Originally Posted by jact

I heard Juicy has the truth behind 9/11 stuffed up his ass too, but there's no way I'm going in looking for it!

No wonder we have not caught binladen. Not sure if it's worth the $25million reward to go searching that ass.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by DamageX

$20K/year is a piss in the ocean compared to the amount of business sponsors lose thanks to these companies helping perpetuate a business model based on stealing.

You miss the point entirely - the "losses" don't come out of GFY's pocket, but the loss of 20k or even 50k of advertising (plus the contest threads, etc) would have a serious effect on the bottom line of this place. A few of the bigger consistent sponsors head for the exit doors, and suddenly this isn't anywhere near as profitable a business as it was.

So instead, a few companies apparently have the ability to "make a call" and have super negative threads sent into the shitpile.

Thanks to Smokey for not letting it die. The powers that be at GFY might want to consider how delicate the balance is when you are on the peak of the mountain.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by jayeff

Which is likely the perspective, but it is a very limited one.

The direct cost of losing a specific advertiser is anywhere from zero to the whole of his spending: it depends entirely on the demand for space. But the real cost doesn't begin and end with direct revenue. If the presence of a particular advertiser in some way enhances your own business interests, losing them could cost much more. And vice versa.

If I recall correctly from an article I read a few weeks ago, Playboy's online revenue was around $5 million a month during the first quarter of this year. If they were being targeted by Zango customers, then by the most optimistic forecasts of 1/2% penetration, that alone might be costing them $25K per month. The lost revenue due to their content being spread around torrent sites has to be huge and many times greater than any benefit from the exposure (after all, who hasn't already heard of Playboy?). Etc.

It is remotely possible that an enterprise the size of Playboy Online isn't affected by the gray and black areas of online porn. But it is surely more likely that the cost is far in excess of anything they earn from any one advertiser.

The last numbers I saw (a year old) suggested that upwards to 50% of all end users had some sort of spyware on their systems.

Zango has claimed upwards to 200,000 installs per day - 73,000,000 installs per year. I think that the 1/2% penetration is just to polite a number.

However, this is the key thing: The sponsors don't lose a cent as a global overall total. The money moves, but the surfers buy at the same rate. The difference is who gets paid and how much it costs to acquire the sales. If a program isn't buying Zango traffic, then yes they are likely losing sales - but in the big scheme of things, the industry is the same size, just different people make the money.

The ones getting the biggest fucking over is the affiliates, but for the most part that just isn't important to many of the programs.

[Choose]

they don't have to have a reason
it merely is about what you control
if it's discussed in any other terms
then it's missing that basic point,
so even though you feel you ought
to be able to express yourself here
it really is just their site to control

[mikeyddddd]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

The last numbers I saw (a year old) suggested that upwards to 50% of all end users had some sort of spyware on their systems.

Zango has claimed upwards to 200,000 installs per day - 73,000,000 installs per year. I think that the 1/2% penetration is just to polite a number.

However, this is the key thing: The sponsors don't lose a cent as a global overall total. The money moves, but the surfers buy at the same rate. The difference is who gets paid and how much it costs to acquire the sales. If a program isn't buying Zango traffic, then yes they are likely losing sales - but in the big scheme of things, the industry is the same size, just different people make the money.

The ones getting the biggest fucking over is the affiliates, but for the most part that just isn't important to many of the programs.

The programs lose when they have to make a payout to a spyware advertiser for type-in or other trafic that would not otherwise require a commission to be paid.

[tony286]

I thought once you start editing a forum then you can be held responsible for whats posted there.

[xclusive]

Originally Posted by tony404

I thought once you start editing a forum then you can be held responsible for whats posted there.

A judge could easily see it that way.

[mattz]

because they can

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by tony404

I thought once you start editing a forum then you can be held responsible for whats posted there.

I think you should sue

[Matt 26z]

If you want to debate the legitimacy of advertising on torrent sites, fine. The industry isn't in agreement with how to handle torrent sites and their traffic. Webmasters on all levels are both for and against torrent site advertising. So there are going to be those who take offense to claims that torrent site advertisers are supporting CP. I'm not surprised that particular thread was pulled given the implied allegations.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by mikeyddddd

The programs lose when they have to make a payout to a spyware advertiser for type-in or other trafic that would not otherwise require a commission to be paid.

yeah, they do - but most of them apparently weren't bright enough when they started to realize the implications.

If I named names, this thread would likely get removed. I really doubt that a Will against AFF attack would be tolerated anymore.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

If you want to debate the legitimacy of advertising on torrent sites, fine. The industry isn't in agreement with how to handle torrent sites and their traffic. Webmasters on all levels are both for and against torrent site advertising. So there are going to be those who take offense to claims that torrent site advertisers are supporting CP. I'm not surprised that particular thread was pulled given the implied allegations.

Because everyone knows the nature of torrent sites (stolen content, pirated software, and of course, other "illegal" material) then sponsors that allow them into their programs and have the gall to say "it's all good" need to understand that they are, directly or indirectly, supporting the distribution of CP.

It would be a 1 minute programming job for AFF to search for the word "torrent" in the domain requesting an advertisement and deny it. They coudl easily scan their referals for torrent sites and disable accounts. They have the ability, they have the programming skill (even Lars could do it, he was an $11 a hour coder) but...

THEY LIKE MAKING MONEY TOO MUCH TO GIVE A RATS ASS.

That is what makes it so frustrating - the solution is RIGHT THERE... but they have no desire.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

I think you should sue

Do you even think before you type lol Editing posts could raise questions of 2257, No warning to kids not to go on here,someone posts something thats considered obscene somewhere is gfy now held responsible because they edit their board.I read somewhere if whatever goes up on board goes up and they dont touch anything they cant be held responsible once they start editing they can be held responsible for content.

[woj]

Isn't it kinda obvious? It's because they can...

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by tony404

Do you even think before you type lol Editing posts could raise questions of 2257, No warning to kids not to go on here,someone posts something thats considered obscene somewhere is gfy now held responsible because they edit their board.I read somewhere if whatever goes up on board goes up and they dont touch anything they cant be held responsible once they start editing they can be held responsible for content.

of course I think before I type. infact, here's what I thought before I typed that post:

"look at this fool. could he really think that 99% of the people on this board don't know the implications to editing a forum? does this clown think he has a better clue than the lawyers for ICS? Its amazing how these clueless people prattle on. I think I'll fuck with this one a while"

[tony286]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

of course I think before I type. infact, here's what I thought before I typed that post:

"look at this fool. could he really think that 99% of the people on this board don't know the implications to editing a forum? does this clown think he has a better clue than the lawyers for ICS? Its amazing how these clueless people prattle on. I think I'll fuck with this one a while"

I agree with everything except the lawyers, highly doubt they are on top of the newest changes on forum law. I have two different lawyers under retention and Ive got more oh really I have check that,so the assumption they automatically know has worn off for me and one firm wrote a large part of the new condo law in atl. lol

[DamageX]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

You miss the point entirely - the "losses" don't come out of GFY's pocket, but the loss of 20k or even 50k of advertising (plus the contest threads, etc) would have a serious effect on the bottom line of this place. A few of the bigger consistent sponsors head for the exit doors, and suddenly this isn't anywhere near as profitable a business as it was.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the one missing the point. Given that GFY is owned by Playboy, I think the loss of revenue due to torrents and spyware does come out of GFY's pocket, indirectly.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by DamageX

I'm pretty sure I'm not the one missing the point. Given that GFY is owned by Playboy, I think the loss of revenue due to torrents and spyware does come out of GFY's pocket, indirectly.

Probably alot more then ad dollars,they should put you on the board

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by tony404

I agree with everything except the lawyers, highly doubt they are on top of the newest changes on forum law. I have two different lawyers under retention and Ive got more oh really I have check that,so the assumption they automatically know has worn off for me and one firm wrote a large part of the new condo law in atl. lol

its not a new change and its an obvious one.
please, stop. you're really not smarter than the people paid to be smart.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

its not a new change and its an obvious one.
please, stop. you're really not smarter than the people paid to be smart.

I doubt that, when its yours and your not getting a check.You have to think more than the people being paid to be smart. You should know that you run a empire for christ sake,you blindly assume everyone you pay automatically has your best interests at heart. Come on.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by tony404

I doubt that, when its yours and your not getting a check.You have to think more than the people being paid to be smart. You should know that you run a empire for christ sake,you blindly assume everyone you pay automatically has your best interests at heart. Come on.

we're not talking about me. we're talking about you, the guy who thinks this snippet of common knowledge about editing chat boards is some special knowledge not known by everyone.
EVERYONE who's anyone knows all about that law. but hey, if you're so smart sue!

[Fred Quimby]

whatta ya gonna do for the 20thousanth post?

[tony286]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

we're not talking about me. we're talking about you, the guy who thinks this snippet of common knowledge about editing chat boards is some special knowledge not known by everyone.
EVERYONE who's anyone knows all about that law. but hey, if you're so smart sue!

You NJ guys were always alittle slow I have found. I really dont give a shit so why would I sue and I think you very wrong to assume that everyone knows that because if they did they wouldnt do it.

[SPACE GLIDER]

Originally Posted by xclusive

Well,
1. Because they can.

there you go

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by DamageX

I'm pretty sure I'm not the one missing the point. Given that GFY is owned by Playboy, I think the loss of revenue due to torrents and spyware does come out of GFY's pocket, indirectly.

it is the problem of theoretical losses versus real losses. Would shutting down one torrent site up playboy's bottom line by 20k a month? I don't think they would know. That is soft dollars.

If they lost a 20k sponsor, trust me, they would know. That is hard money no longer going to the bank.

[DamageX]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

it is the problem of theoretical losses versus real losses. Would shutting down one torrent site up playboy's bottom line by 20k a month? I don't think they would know. That is soft dollars.

You mean soft like the billions of dollars companies like Coca Cola plow down into branding every year?

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by tony404

think you very wrong to assume that everyone knows that because if they did they wouldnt do it.

simple logic for simple people.
I'll dumb it down for you.
They don't do it simply because they CAN, they do it because they KNOW they can.(despite your guesses to the contrary)

[Juicy D. Links]

A/S/L pics anyone?

[Juicy D. Links]

Originally Posted by Aussie Rebel

I wonder if this thread makes it onto http://bromasters.blogspot.com/

[tony286]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

simple logic for simple people.
I'll dumb it down for you.
They don't do it simply because they CAN, they do it because they KNOW they can.(despite your guesses to the contrary)

I hope your this sharp in person I look forward to your panel.

[jayeff]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

it is the problem of theoretical losses versus real losses. Would shutting down one torrent site up playboy's bottom line by 20k a month? I don't think they would know. That is soft dollars.

If they lost a 20k sponsor, trust me, they would know. That is hard money no longer going to the bank.

What you call theoretical losses would more accurately be called unmeasurable losses and the difference is not merely semantics.

We have no idea whether torrent sites cost online porn 10 cents a year or 10 million dollars a year. We do not know what share of that loss is borne by specific sponsors. But there is plenty of evidence from related industries to suggest that the losses are far more likely to be large than insignificant and one aspect of professional business management is about control.

It is therefore absolutely not good business sense to assist in any shape or form, entities you believe are likely to be costing you significant revenue, simply because you cannot measure that loss.

A relevant example would be the American Express decision to pull out of processing for adult sites. They would have had firm figures as to the direct cost of that decision, but only estimates of its positive impact. The possibility exists that their estimates might have been wrong, but if you understand your business, you make such estimates based on whatever information is available and on your own experience. You do not ignore the problem, just because all the numbers are not accurately quantifiable.

[OzMan]

The old Smokey would have undeleted the original thread and made it a permanent sticky. You're no fun since you left the dark side.

[xclusive]

Originally Posted by Juicy D. Links

A/S/L pics anyone?

15/f/NY Here is my pic
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[Aussie Rebel]

Originally Posted by OzMan

The old Smokey would have undeleted the original thread and made it a permanent sticky. You're no fun since you left the dark side.

Oh how I miss the good old days

[Evil E]

I heard from an anonymous industry vet that no serious webmaster post here anymore...

Might have to do with that kind of moderation and the perpetual whoring.

I like this place but I have to agree that it's not perfect.

[Matt 26z]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Because everyone knows the nature of torrent sites (stolen content, pirated software, and of course, other "illegal" material) then sponsors that allow them into their programs and have the gall to say "it's all good" need to understand that they are, directly or indirectly, supporting the distribution of CP.

Do the torrent sites ignore CP reports or do they remove the offending torrents?

The stolen adult content.... don't assume it's all stolen. A number of webmasters upload their own stuff with ads for sites.

Pirated software.... How many webmasters paid $650 for their copy of Photoshop?

[CWeb]

Originally Posted by knewon

I heard from an anonymous industry vet that no serious webmaster post here anymore...

Just one anonymous industry vet?

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

If posters don't like it, they can simply open their own board.

it gets alot more likely that another board will succeed everytime they censor the posts without explaining themselves.

part of what made gfy popular and what makes it usefull is the fact if you found something unethical/illegal you could call the sponsor out and they would can the affiliate or do some explaining.. this method has worked very well.

the only sponsors who didnt back themselves up were renegades who didnt buy sponsorship etc

now it seems times are changing , the old methods don't work for people paying advertising on gfy.. this seriously devalues the ads..

I used to be able to signup for top sponsors knowing that if there was any problems i could always call them on it in along with the rest of the industry. This makes the likelyhood of me signing up alot higher right ?

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally Posted by OzMan

The old Smokey would have undeleted the original thread and made it a permanent sticky. You're no fun since you left the dark side.

heh well i suppose the difference is the importance of the topic.. i dont mind fucking around when the topic is semi-serious and nobody is getting hurt. But this is a very serious issue and i'm trying to start off as nice as i possibly know how without ignoring the issue.

[billybathgate]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

heh well i suppose the difference is the importance of the topic.. i dont mind fucking around when the topic is semi-serious and nobody is getting hurt. But this is a very serious issue and i'm trying to start off as nice as i possibly know how without ignoring the issue.

dont worry pretty soon torrent sites are going to out number tgp/mgp sites ....

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

If you want to debate the legitimacy of advertising on torrent sites, fine. The industry isn't in agreement with how to handle torrent sites and their traffic. Webmasters on all levels are both for and against torrent site advertising.

agreed .. but this isn't about the legitimacy of torrent sites , its simply about adultfriendfinder ads being displayed DIRECTLY next to child porn torrent downloads

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

So there are going to be those who take offense to claims that torrent site advertisers are supporting CP.

the thread was about HARD FAST PROOF that adult friendfinder ads were being displayed directly next to CHILD PORN TORRENTS.

theres no "claiming about it" i didnt post direct links to child porn because its againt the rules , and silly to do when any f the mods know my icq could say "prove it " , bam screenshots links etc

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

I'm not surprised that particular thread was pulled given the implied allegations.

theres was no allegation just me stating a fact anyone can verify with a keyboard and a click

the fact they deleted the thread implies, we shouldnt as an industry be concerned about child porn being exploited , and thats a very serious dip in ethics..


In the times of old this would have been solved very simply. torrent sites removes child porn torrents or advertiser drops torrent site.

I have nothing against torrent sites but they should play by the same rules everyone else does and has been up until now

[wyldworx]

I find smokey to be helpful and informative......

[Aussie Rebel]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Do the torrent sites ignore CP reports or do they remove the offending torrents?

The stolen adult content.... don't assume it's all stolen. A number of webmasters upload their own stuff with ads for sites.

Pirated software.... How many webmasters paid $650 for their copy of Photoshop?

I'd be tippin this guy runs torrent sites

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

In the times of old this would have been solved very simply.

times of old?

like 2005?

or did you go by a different name in "times of old"

[Bake]

Times of old were not diferent
I still remeber back in 98 having a drunken chat with one of the biggest programer owners of all and it wasnt even 12 clicks telling me that one affilate had to 2 servers installed just to handel his traffic so did they give a fuck were it came from ? No he was still converting at 400 to 1

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by DamageX

You mean soft like the billions of dollars companies like Coca Cola plow down into branding every year?

No, more like the silly numbers of "hundreds of billions of dollars lost to software piracy". The actual losses occur only when someone who would have gone to the store and paid for the product goes to a torrent site and downloads it instead. Everyone else is just a freeloader, and the minute they would have to pay, they would stop using your product.

Branding it a totally different game.

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

times of old?

like 2005?

or did you go by a different name in "times of old"

yes , no and yes