Google to be shut down
 

I guess the feds should be raiding Google's offices, confiscating their servers and shutting them down within the next couple of weeks for 2257 violations.

http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...porn&&start=20

Lolol


L$

hahahahhahahaha
hmm

dont think so some how!

tony

funny i clicked one of the pics and found this
http://www.virgins-party.com/index2.html

check out the title

you wish

this is the first time we've ever had this thread. no, really, it is.

does that mean the prices of my google stock will be going down?

It is already known that Google is exempt from 2257, money talks and so on.

if google gets shut down, U.S. would loose billions and billions of dollars in tax revenue, will never happen

I am glad they are leaving them up.

It will make one hell of a defense argument when the attorney gets the pc hooked up to the overhead in the court room and types in kiddy porn in googles image locator and all the cp comes up. and points out to the jury if the govt is ok with this how can they be busting my balls for paperwork on a 23 year old! funny 2257 is suppose to be for cp but yet they exempt google from it which is one of the few sites in the us that has cp on it. 2257 defense attorneys will love this.

Google will be Shutting Down?
Not even in GFYer's wildest dream!LOL!

i dont htink so

haha, damn SE spammers

billions in tax revenue? I will have whatever it is you are smoking

Search engines, hosting companies, and similar services are exempt.

How many times does this have to be posted?

Did anyone read the regulations?

Don't expect reading out of GFY when it comes to 2257 regulations :1orglaugh

yeah like that will ever happen :1orglaugh

I may be smoked up, but you are pure stupid. What about all the people that advertise on google and make money and, hence pay taxes. Also Google pays taxes from the revenue it gets. If this is all combined, it means billions in tax revenues for the U.S. government

billions? i think not

U.S. online retailers expect sales to climb 22 percent to $172.4 billion in 2005, with cosmetics, perfume and other categories aimed at women likely to show the biggest gains, according to a survey released late on Monday.

The annual Forrester Research and Shop.org study of 136 retailers found that online sales rose 23.8 percent to $141.4 billion in 2004. Excluding sales of travel services, online sales were also up 23.8 percent, to $89 billion, representing 4.6 percent of total U.S. retail sales.

Profitability improved last year, with online retailers reporting operating margins of 28 percent, up from 21 percent in 2003, according to the survey.

The survey found that more women are shopping on the Internet, so categories with products they purchase will probably see the biggest sales growth this year.

"Though initially adopted by men as a shopping tool, women are flocking to the Internet in droves to comparison shop, research and buy," said Scott Silverman, executive director of Shop.org, the online retailing arm of the National Retail Federation trade group.

Looking ahead at online sales performance for various categories this year, the survey respondents on average said they expect increases of 33 percent for cosmetics and perfume, 32 percent for over-the-counter medications and personal care, and 31 percent for jewelry and luxury goods.

Source: Reuters


Google being the number one search engine, the numbers are in billions

U.S. government makes a lot of tax dollars, so do many vested interests from google, it would be unlikely.

:1orglaugh

Quick guys, short Googles stock!

Some companies will never see an inspection

hehe.. nice try!

not even Bill Gates can pull the plug at Google.com

:smokin

Because they are not required to follow the new regulations:

(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:

(i) Photo or film processing, including digitization of previously existing visual depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no other commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, printing, and video duplicators;

(ii) Mere distribution;

(iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in
paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the depicted performers;

(iv) A provider of web-hosting services who does not, and
reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service; or

(v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.

Read "v".

They can control the content as much as any other site out there.

No they can't. Like hosting companies, their content is not posted by Google employees and they deal with millions of images from many sources.

They do not manually moderate their content.

Large forum sites like GFY have an exclusion under "v" because they do not moderate the content before it is posted. The content, like with hosts, is created by third parties.

As with hosting companies, as long as large services like that respond to complaints, they should be exempt under the new regulations.

So you set up a script that spiders some thumbs from the well known thumb tgps, threw some banners up that are compliant and bam you have yourself a site thats compliant?

just because they DON'T moderate the content doesn't mean they CAN'T moderate the content. under your argument, TGPs cannot be held liable, because they don't moderate the thumbnails being posted which is absolutely possible, since some scripts have a function that auto approves any post.

My thoughts exactly

It would be almost impossible to believe that Google could "reasonably" magage all of the archived content on their site - just like it is impossible for a hosting company or ISP to manage everything on their servers.

Let's take you argument further - why shouldn't AOL be responsible for everything posted by every one of their users?

Because it is not reasonable.

It may be reasonable to think that a TGP, who manually reviews every submission before it is approved, can be held somewhat responsible for the content that is posted.

It is not reasonable to think that GFY, where every post is submitted without moderation, by different users, at a high rate, should be held to the same standard as a fully moderated service.

The government has made an exclusion in allowing for sites and services that cannot "reasonably" manage all of the content being posted.

If you want to test the regulations by saying that you can't reasonably manage your moderated TGP submissions, you can do that. But you will have to be able to defend that position in court.

Using this logic with Google, someone could put up a CP forum and let users post pics. They can't reasonably be expected to stop it, they aren't putting it up.

When you see google images go down it is time to get out of the biz.

why? in fact, it should be expected that Google moderate their image index even more, since they ACTIVELY ACQUIRE content from other servers. I'd say 99.999% of the images displayed on Google images are not from people who have submitted their site to Google. It's from images that Googlebot has actively spidered. It's the same thing if i personally go around to a bunch of sites and hotlink their images. They do it through software. I do it through copy and paste.

why not? is it a matter of scale? volume? if i set up a TGP (i haven't) that automatically approves any thumbnail submitted, how is that different than a message board? i don't actively seek out content and post it myself like Google is doing.

what if it's auto approved? this message board is auto approved. only after a photo has been 'published' will a moderator delete an image. but at that point, a prosecutor can say 'too bad, the photo was published'.

yes, to make this argument would require a significant amount of money - probably more than 99% of TGP operators have. but it's a valid argument.

The "logic" you are talking about is exactly the same logic that the government has been using all along.

AOL cannot be held responsible for hosting a CP forum if they respond to complaints and remove the illegal content when they become aware of it.

If you set up a forum with the main intent of allowing people to break the law, then of course you could be held responsible for it. Look what happened to Napster. Google does not do what they do with the intent of linking to or hosting illegal images. It happens sometimes, but it is not the intent.

If Lensman setup this forum for adult webmasters to do legal business, and some webmaster, without his knowledge, posted a photo without 2257, that would be seen differently than if someone set up a forum to post illegal CP content.

This exemption from liability is not new in any way, they are just applying it to 2257 in the same way it's been applied to other content in the past.

Some of you are acting like this is a new idea.

But could the webmaster "reasonably" have been expected to moderate every single post on a very large message board? I don't think so. AOL is not expected to moderate all of their message boards for illegal content. They are expected to respond when they find out about a problem.

These are all questions that a jury will have to decide. One important key word will be "reasonable".

If you manually approve your TGP submissions, how are you going to convince a jury that you couldn't comply with 2257 laws because you didn't have control over the content that you manually approved?

Lensman can show a jury that his forum has millions of posts and tens of thousands of users, who are posting all of the time. That makes it a lot harder, if not impossible to "reasonably" manage all of the content.

This is the same type of rule that the government has been applying to hosts and ISPs for a long time. It makes sense to exclude certain types of sites from the regulations.