IFFOR and "Child Advocacy"
 

So, wondering what everyone else makes of IFFOR delving into the "child protection" field...

http://www.ynot.com/content/117416-i...ild-abuse.html

It's one thing to say that steps will be made to keep child pornography off of .XXX sites, but seems to me something different to take it further than that. Creating some kind of link between legitimate adult content and child abusers seems odd, because one has NOTHING to do with the other.

It used to annoy me to no end when the mainstream press seemed to want to lump adult entertainment and child pornography together... as if one caused the other. IFFOR taking the "child advocacy" direction seems a bit like casinos running service announcements for gambling addiction resources. Or an oil company feeling compelled to run commercials about how they're really fantastic for the environment!

So what does everyone else think... is this a good idea to go beyond just keeping child porn away, or does it help create and legitimize erroneous suggestions of a link between adult entertainment and child abuse? Or... is this nothing more than the equivalent of a sleazy politician trying to legitimize itself by kissing babies and passing worthless legislation "for the children" to win over easily manipulated voters?

I'm guessing there's a wide range of opinions on this one.

That was just stupid shit Lawley threw together to get xxx approved. Actions speak louder than words and promoting xxx on TV during prime time, on channels kids watch, shows he doesn't give a shit about kids.

Of course it's sleazy.

Honestly, when was the last time anyone came across any real pre-teen child porn online?

At least they are off to a GREAT start... :thumbsup

http://i.lulzimg.com/a76e73481d.jpg

Well granted, we are still early on... not TOO much has been spelled out yet, but from what I know of the people over there running the show, they're going to want to have some political bullshit to use in Washington... they didn't set up a presence there for nothing. Sleazy people, I think, often hide behind "WE LOVE CHILDREN!" campaigns. We all know this game, and personally... it makes me sick.

I'm a father, and I don't need IFFOR to look out for by son... I do a pretty awesome job on that front simply being a responsible parent. I don't know how far they'll go with this shit, but I think it's a dangerous direction to head into.

Lawley is out to fuck the adult industry, not help it.

Every idiot buying one of his domains is just helping him achieve his goal...

Lobbying takes money and some short sighted people are helping him fill his war chest.

RTA labels are free, because they actually do want to help protect children from adult content. Lawley charges a premium for the same thing.

Thanks, Connor!
 

This thread is important. Thanks for starting it, Connor!

From the article, quoting Sharon Girling, the chair of IFFOR's (rather unfortunately-named) "child abuse working group."

The idea that labeling .XXX sites has created a "safe area on the internet for children and families" is patently absurd. The rest of the Web (you know... the 99.999999% of it that has nothing whatsoever to do with .XXX?) isn't affected one iota by whatever labeling provisions or other policies IFFOR cooks up.

If I'm wrong, where is this wonderful new "safe area," exactly?

Presumably not on .XXX (right?), and since IFFOR's oversight and its labeling protocols only extend to .XXX..... what in the world is she prattling on about here?

As the kids these days might say: EPIC LOGIC FAIL.

Oh yeah we are getting fucked alright. In the meantime .XXX is flying their ads all over the place including places where kids will stumble across it when they shouldn't even know about it. Not only is that irresponsible and greedy but it's fuckin disgusting.

Because in addition... those that DON'T want to see .XXX ads are going to lump them in with the adult industry at large. Once again "those bad porn people are trying to push their product on all of us... and now this time, their shitty domain extension"... and of course how are we going to educate all these people that , NO, .XXX is NOT a part of our industry. Even if we could, many won't even care.

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?

A investigator from the Reese Commisionman who spent his life investigating the Not For Profit groups came to the conclusion that the agenda of most is to try to create monopolies

one of the first .xxx working sites allows/allowed user uploaded content

its how they get it to be law in the us my friends. I remember reading about iffor being part of the time in wash dc. Why would they be in wash dc hmmmmm

And how they lump us in with CP is fucking annoying. Some porn chick works as a lunch lady gets fired because she worked in porn and is near children. Its funny Ive never read about some porn star molesting kids but heard alot about coaches, teaches and clergy doing it.

This is all part of the big set up. They are just starting to grease everyone's ass. Something wicked this way comes.

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.

What, you don't now suddenly feel it's safe to turn 8 year olds loose on the Internet now that .XXX has arrived to create a "safe area" for them? lol

What "area" is that exactly... I'm still looking for it. Are .com's now "safe" for kids? Nope. Are they suggesting .XXX is a "safe area" for kids? Wow, I hope not. And I hope nobody in the mainstream thinks that's where they're going.

We all know by now what "impact" .XXX will REALLY have on child online safety. What concerns me is, if the .XXX people, in their quest for money, make misleading and false claims about "child protection," thinking this is a selling point or that it gives them politician advantage to use in other ways that help them, and then mainstream erroneously believes .XXX is a general industry initiative, we're going to ALL look like sleazy politicians peddling clear lines of bullshit to get rich. Guilt by proximity, in this case.

Just to play the devil's advocate here. How is what you're describing different than what the ASACP does now? If we're linking the wording of child protection with lumping the adult industry into the same group as child abusers, and the idea of a self-imposed penance or self-regulation, the ASACP does this right now.

Again, just playing devil's advocate.

Well that's a bit of a whole 'nother conversation, I wouldn't want to get off track because I expect that ASACP would cause a lot of emotions and opinions one way or another. I'll say this: the truth is, it was a little controversial when ASACP went the "child protection" route, and I and others expressed to them a belief this was a mistake. That said, one difference is that ASACP doesn't have the financial pockets that IFFOR does, meaning they couldn't affect us as deeply as IFFOR can. IFFOR is running massive ad campaigns ... according to one individual over there, they even ran a campaign on Major League Baseball ... which if true is amazing in it audacity. Also, ASACP never had and never will have (I don't think) the Washington connection that IFFOR has set up and will almost certainly grow and evolve.

there is nothing nude on the ads. kids see worse on afternoon wrestling. why is everyone so prudish about this?

Anyone know of a single child ASACP protected?

I'm assuming IFFOR will be the same shit. Lots of press, lots of meetings, no real doing anything of substantial value, and not a single child protected. Just another way to keep a group of people paid.

I certainly don't mean to get off track from your point or your article. That wasn't my intention. I'm just trying to step back and look at the situation from all angles. Which is why I'm trying to understand the difference between our current way of operating as an industry, and the current view of the industry, from that which IFFOR brings to the industry.

I think it's because a lot of people in the industry feel it isn't wise for what appears to be the "industry" to push the subject of adult entertainment in front of people while their kids are present, in environments where parents have every good reason to believe it would NOT be pushed in front of them ... it can make people uncomfortable, which makes them angry.

It's not that these "prudish" industry people (as you put it) believe it will harm the kids, but rather that history has shown parents don't appreciate it, and it brings the industry unwanted negative feelings which can result in things like misguided legislation and censorship efforts.

IFFOR > ASACP v2

IFFOR brings BIG MONEY into the equation. It also has the APPEARANCE of a general industry welfare group, but in fact it was made by a group with much more narrow interests. I'm sure you know too that the person who brought the "child protection" angle to ASACP now currently works for IFFOR, right? Unless she quit and I missed the news.

there has been zero negative response to the ads from what i have seen outside of the gfy echo chamber. if there is post it and will stand corrected.

bend over and enjoy :Oh crap

It comes down to if they were really interested in protecting kids, they wouldn't want to inform them that porn and only porn can be found at anything ending in XXX.

I have less concern about the ads than the hypocrisy of a company like ICM running the ads. It defeats their stated purposes, two ways... It supposedly being an industry only domain and that it's to shield kids from pornography.

I'm honestly just a novice in the industry and trying to understand the different points of view on this subject. I didn't know that one person brought those changes to the ASACP, or that she works for IFFOR. She must be quite persuasive if there was such opposition from the industry and to now have implemented her agenda twice.

Except Youtube deleting one.

But it's good you have your pulse on the rest of the world.

Yeah, I was kind of wondering how he knows what people are thinking in their homes ... and how that might affect things in the future.

Yup, she's good at politics and posturing... absolutely.

youtube deletes thousands of videos every day for nothing.

surely there must be proof outside of gfy about the huge uproar over xxx ads.

You're making a bigger deal about it than it is... it's not a matter of a "huge uproar" versus "it's perfectly fine and dandy" ... there is a middle ground. Sometimes large changes in public opinion happen over extended periods of time. Surely you understand this.

Great reading!