4chan archive /g/ (index)
similar threads
2013-04-03 07:41 32763844 Anonymous (this_is_my_sarcastic_face_by_radiomurders-d33dzmu.jpg 730x1095 117kB)
>tfw Google decides to make itself 100% worksafe and doing image searches now produces no more pr0nz
1 min later 32763863 Anonymous (mirc.jpg 390x550 92kB)
gogle plz
1 min later 32763887 Anonymous
>>32763844
You know that all they changed was requiring you to insert an extra descriptive word in your searches. Instead of "boobs", you have to type "naked boobs". Apparently it was done to make it harder for people to accidentally see porn while looking up images.
4 min later 32763933 Anonymous (google_search.png 941x586 761kB)
>>32763887
for example
5 min later 32763959 Anonymous
I just googled "cum on boobs" and I have to admit that I am very satisfied with the results
6 min later 32763972 Anonymous (google_search_part_2.png 933x584 878kB)
>>32763933
versus
7 min later 32763995 Anonymous
It's not blocking porn. SafeSearch is disabled by default.
7 min later 32763997 sage
>>32763887
How do you accidentally see porn?
8 min later 32764010 Anonymous
>>32763844
Google are pretty boneheaded
>search for "girls bathing"
>assume I'm going to see hot college co-eds in the shower
>nope instead I get 10 images of pedo crap
8 min later 32764028 Anonymous
>>32763995
enabled by default
can't be turned off
9 min later 32764040 Anonymous
>>32764010
You mean there was Captain Picard!?
10 min later 32764048 Anonymous
>>32764010
>CP
>surface Web
April Fools' was two days ago. Stop lying.
10 min later 32764051 s3krit
Who the fuck searches for porn on google?
11 min later 32764068 Anonymous (15.jpg 500x446 60kB)
>>32763959
did that, this was the result you will now have to live with
11 min later 32764070 Anonymous
>>32764040
no, not that. i meant there was family photos of little kids in the tub.
12 min later 32764083 Anonymous (Firefox_PrivateBrowsingWindow_JewgleNCR_DefaultPreferences.png 1366x768 131kB)
>>32764028
No.
12 min later 32764089 Anonymous
>go to google images
>search for "porn"
>page full of porn images
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand OP and the rest of you LOL NO GOOGLE IMAGES PORN are stupid.
13 min later 32764112 Anonymous
>>32764070
>>32764010
Hmm. I tried that just now. Instead, do "girls shower" and plenty of adult sluts.
13 min later 32764126 Anonymous
>>32764112
How weird
14 min later 32764139 Anonymous
>>32764126
I'm guessing that adults generally take showers, not baths, so if you search that, no preschoolers.
14 min later 32764143 Anonymous
>>32764089
Provide the local domain, faggot. Did you go to Google NCR (No Country Redirect), which is google.com, or is it a local Google domain like google.co.uk, etc.?
16 min later 32764161 Anonymous
>>32764048
There's CP on Wikipedia.
17 min later 32764179 Anonymous
>>32764161
Pics or it didn't happen
17 min later 32764185 Anonymous
>>32764161
Prove it.
17 min later 32764193 Anonymous
>>32763997
A huge percentage of the internet is porn. It's one of the biggest industries on the internet. You google image search even something innocent, scroll a few pages and previously you would find at least a few examples of porn, unless you have crafted your search to be quite specific.
I'm glad google have done this. Anyone can index the entire internet, given enough processing power and bandwidth. Making that index usable and useful for people to find what they're looking for (ie. not porn) is what makes google special.
>>32764048
There used to be quite a few special "garbage" queries you could type into google image search that revealed loads of CP thumbnails, cached by google. No idea if it's like that any more.
For the rest of you, you don't need google to find porn.
18 min later 32764215 Anonymous
>>32764143
>not going to google.com
Fucking foreignfags. No wonder you can't see porn, Google is punishing you for living in foreign shitholes.
18 min later 32764219 Anonymous
>>32764179
>>32764185
Google it.
19 min later 32764233 Anonymous
The Internet would not have caught on if it weren't for porn.
20 min later 32764257 Anonymous
>>32764215
>implying I don't go to Google NCR
See >>32764083 . Also, you are retarded. When you go to Google.com outside the United States of Femdictatorship, you're automatically redirected to the local domain. You need to go to https://www.google.com/ncr to force and set the NCR domain as the one to use.
22 min later 32764288 Anonymous
>>32764257
Forgot to say, after that, going to google.com will lead you to the NCR domain. You only have to set it once (until you delete all history stuff, that is).
26 min later 32764367 Anonymous
>>32764219
>searching for CP on Google
30 min later 32764445 Anonymous
>>32764193
>There used to be quite a few special "garbage" queries you could type into google image search that revealed loads of CP thumbnails
Yes we all know about searching for "onionib"
30 min later 32764452 Anonymous
>>32764367
Fine, then you'll never get to know whether or not there really is CP on Wikipedia.
31 min later 32764473 Anonymous
>>32764452
Oh, but how his life will be incomplete!
31 min later 32764477 Anonymous
>>32764452
Are you really telling me to search for child pornography on Google? Don't you see the obvious problem here?
32 min later 32764492 Anonymous
>Working at a place that cares about porn
I thought we were adults here?
I bet your workplace cares about coming in on time and how many breaks you take throughout the day too. Have fun in your fascist work environments.
34 min later 32764553 Anonymous
>>32764477
Well, if Wikipedia gets away with hosting it, why shouldn't you get away with simply looking for it? If you type 'CP on Wikipedia,' they'll know you were curious about that story. They get that more often.
37 min later 32764616 Anonymous
>>32764553
But what exactly are you referring to? There is porn on Wikipedia because they are not censored; however, child pornography is banned. Only lolicon, shotacon, etc. is allowed.
39 min later 32764669 Anonymous (Untitled.png 1680x1010 3072kB)
Works for me.
39 min later 32764672 Anonymous
>Using google to find porn
>93 days in remembrance of the year 2012
41 min later 32764713 Anonymous
>>32764616
There's a Scorpions album that has CP as the cover (one of the band members took a nude of their daughter), and because Jimmy Whales is very firm about providing as much information as possible, they refuse to take it down. There was some controversy about it and the page got blocked in the UK but nothing beside that and it's still there to view.
42 min later 32764741 Anonymous
>>32764672
SafeSearch is disabled by default, that's why. But the non-user controllable filtering might still be restricted to Google NCR (google.com).
43 min later 32764759 Anonymous
>>32764713
>TFW you have to put stickers over the album when stocking it.
Retail sucks.
44 min later 32764776 Anonymous
>>32764713
>nude
>child pornography
L.E.L.
47 min later 32764823 Anonymous
>>32764776
So then you'd be fine with posting those images to 4chan, right? Can you prove that to me?
47 min later 32764824 Anonymous
>>32764185
>>32764179
Google blind faith
48 min later 32764843 Anonymous
>>32764823
No. But it's retarded to consider nude or erotic as pornography when it's two completely different shit, just because it's of a child. Fucking feminazism.
49 min later 32764863 Anonymous
>>32764823
The mods simply ban any child nudity on here, no matter how innocuous.
49 min later 32764869 Anonymous
>>32764824
OH MAN, A FUCKING ALBUM COVER.
I hope the party van isn't about to show up.
Try googling PTHC instead and get back to me.
51 min later 32764910 Anonymous
>>32764843
>nude or erotic
Actually, AFAIK, the latter is the defining factor. Non-nudes can be CP if it's a child posing in an erotic position.
52 min later 32764925 Anonymous
>>32764028
but that's wrong you fucking retard
52 min later 32764928 Anonymous
>Several years ago
>Friend tells me to google search this weird ass combo of numbers and letters on google
>Hurf durf okay
>copypaste it
>Search
>Cheese god damn pizza all over google images
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPED right on out of there and wipe my cache and all that shit.
Yeah google's a dark place no matter what
52 min later 32764938 Anonymous
>>32764863
o rly
53 min later 32764957 Anonymous
>>32764910
>considering something erotic as pornography, which by definition is the explicit depiction of sexual activity for sexual gratification
Why are people this retarded?
54 min later 32764963 Anonymous
>>32764938
Sure is. Even if you had a (say) 3 yo kid and posted a picture of them running naked through a sprinkler, you'd probably get banned on here.
56 min later 32765010 Anonymous
>>32764928
That's why I think it's so weird how heavy evidence like your image catch can be when it's so easy to accidentally come in contact with cp. Even on a normal website like 4chan you get thrown to death it.
56 min later 32765033 Anonymous
>>32765010
*with it
57 min later 32765053 Anonymous
>>32764963
How do you know? Certainly you don't post pictures of your naked three-year-olds, do you?
58 min later 32765082 Anonymous
>>32764957
Well, they can count as such, as far as the law is concerned. Is my wording clear enough for you this way?
58 min later 32765087 Anonymous
>>32765053
FBI (Fucking Bureaucratic Inbreds) entrapment. DDG it.
59 min later 32765107 Anonymous
>>32765082
I know how the law goes. It's still perversely retarded.
1 hours later 32765126 Anonymous
http://www.buzzfeed.com/reyhan/tech -confessional-the-googler-who-looks -at-the-wo
>Inb4 >Buzzfeed
1 hours later 32765146 Anonymous
>>32765053
>Certainly you don't post pictures of your naked three-year-olds, do you?
>people on 4chan
>reproducing
LOLgoodone
1 hours later 32765152 Anonymous
you can actually find real CP on google with the right search term. Which I forgot. It was a bunch of numbers and letters.
Pretty fucking glad I don't know it.
1 hours later 32765156 Anonymous
>>32765053
/g/ is sfw dumbass, so they'll ban you regardless of age.
1 hours later 32765196 Anonymous
>>32764938
>>32764963
Moot and the mods aren't lawyers and don't know the legal intricacies of what is and isn't CP, so they figure it's just easier to ban anything that could be seen as questionable.
1 hours later 32765283 Anonymous
>>32765196
I'd think it's more a case of them knowing the userbase all too well and that it's highly unlikely that anyone would post pics on 4chan of children on in a sprinkler for innocent purposes.
1 hours later 32765317 Anonymous
>>32765107
So if they worded it differently and just said "we punish child pornography as well as erotic child nudity," it would've been fine? I don't even know what wording they use. Why do you care so much about the wording?
1 hours later 32765355 25 and
>>32764051
your dad
1 hours later 32765372 Anonymous
>>32765317
It'd prolly be a lot clearer and straight to the point instead of all the fucking legalese. Still, child pornography laws are abusive and perverse themselves because politicians use child pornography as a scapegoat for their real goals. Take shit like the UN considering a "child" anyone below 18, when it's fucking scientifically invalid without doubts.
1 hours later 32765384 Anonymous
>>32765317
The law is correct about NN images still potentially being illegal. What if you had a kid in snow pants and a parka sucking some guy off? I think nearly any court would find that to be CP.
1 hours later 32765403 Anonymous
>>32765384
But that would be pornography, not erotica.
1 hours later 32765424 Anonymous
Google image search is pretty shitty. I use [spoiler]Bing[/spoiler].
1 hours later 32765431 Anonymous
>>32765424
>Bing still can't into reverse searching
lel
1 hours later 32765432 Anonymous
>>32765372
>Still, child pornography laws are abusive and perverse themselves because politicians use child pornography as a scapegoat for their real goals
Yes, it is true that politicians and the legal system do exploit people's nature fear of pedophiles for their own self-aggrandizement. You no doubt heard of the infamous fame daycare molestation cases in the 80s? A couple of douchebag prosecutors out to advance their careers ruined the lives of innocent people.
1 hours later 32765448 Anonymous (3-4-2013 21-51-02.png 1906x991 2529kB)
Even it still allows to disable safe search for me, I am sure that there were better results before.
1 hours later 32765466 Anonymous
>>32765432
>You no doubt heard of the infamous fame daycare molestation cases in the 80s?
Where can I read about it? As I'm not American, I'm not familiar with that case, not to mention I didn't even exist prior to the early 1990s.
1 hours later 32765551 Anonymous
>>32765403
There has always been a distinct dividing line between CP (meaning actual PTHC where sex acts are performed) versus child modeling/erotica. The PTHC stuff is much more underground and hard to find and it attracts a different fan base than the kind of people that were into, say, LS Models.
the difference is that the child erotica fans are usually pretty harmless basement dwellers who want to just fap in peace while the PTHC guys are often active pedophiles who seek out and molest children IRL.
1 hours later 32765556 Anonymous
>>32765372
How do external factors like the rhetoric used by politicians affects the justness of those laws at all?
Also, what does science have to do with this? If they used a different word than child or just spelled out "anyone under the age of eighteen" all the time, would it suddenly have been okay and scientifically valid? Why do you care so much about the wording?
1 hours later 32765574 Anonymous
>>32765466
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-ca re_sex-abuse_hysteria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kern_C ounty_child_abuse_cases
1 hours later 32765622 Anonymous
>>32765432
How about that Fox News cocksucker Bill O'Lielly and his Quixotic quest to promote Jessica's Law
1 hours later 32765647 Anonymous
>>32765556
in some areas, IIRC, you can be thrown in jail or labeled a sexual predator because you had sex with a 16/17 year old when you were 18.
don't quote me on that, I'm not law man.
1 hours later 32765652 Anonymous
>>32765556
>Why do you care so much about the wording?
Because it's unjust, logically questionable and scientifically invalid. And because I'm a pedophile myself though I only care about 2D (after all, ロリコン = lolicon is the common Japanese term for "pedophile"). I do hate child molesters as anyone else and would fucking lose my shit if someone hurt a child.
1 hours later 32765793 Anonymous
>>32765551
Note that here I use the term "pedophile" to mean someone who actually touches children, not someone who has those urges but doesn't act on them.
1.889 0.157