Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Considered "18+"

daniel.haxx.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 156 posts

Re: Considered "18+"

#21

Post by 0daystock »

nimbius wrote: post #9

im always chuffed and fascinated when tech companies cloister themselves in the robes of moral arbiter. Twitter does this now, albeit it seems like a cheap excuse to pump user numbers by forcing authentication. Why 18? why not 21? or 23? What qualifies as explicitly "adult" content? violence perhaps could disqualify most military recruiting sites from my vodaphone. Alcohol? its certainly a moral vice in the UAE but i…

The people responsible for making and distributing this type of software and filters for it are mediocre minds, it's as simple as that. It gives them (usually an overzealous IT person) power and thus identity over smarter engineers, turning it a sadistic spectacle sport for them. The only answer is to remove their power by using end-to-end encryption with programs like Tor and simply laugh at their pathetic antics.

Re: Considered "18+"

#23

Post by astura »

Sigh Automatic classification of material as "adult" has always sucked. I remember watching a news report where schools filters had classified webpages referencing the current Super Bowl (Super Bowl XXX) as adult content due to XXX typically being associated with adult material.

The opposite happens too - see Elsagate. The newest version of Elsagate material, which I've only seen one person talking about, is weird/inappropriate stories aimed at children but disguised as baking videos - https://youtu.be/HfcKCk6vPCE?t=295

Re: Considered "18+"

#24

Post by imglorp »

nimbius wrote: post #9

im always chuffed and fascinated when tech companies cloister themselves in the robes of moral arbiter. Twitter does this now, albeit it seems like a cheap excuse to pump user numbers by forcing authentication. Why 18? why not 21? or 23? What qualifies as explicitly "adult" content? violence perhaps could disqualify most military recruiting sites from my vodaphone. Alcohol? its certainly a moral vice in the UAE but i…

> pump user numbers by forcing authentication

Pump, how? Wouldn't forcing ID tank the numbers when all the bots are excluded?

Re: Considered "18+"

#25

Post by sofixa »

isaacfrond wrote: post #15

It is not totally clear from the article, but it appears Vodafone blocks a site as 'for 18+' when really it is a case of an incorrect certificate. To get round it you need to register with Vodafone. At least google allows me to click away such warnings (while warning that doom is imminent).

Isn't the certificate "incorrect" only because Vodafone block the site and intercept the TLS connection? That's why the "incorrect" TLS cert presented mentions Vodafone's "solution" for traffic filtering. That's my read of things.

Re: Considered "18+"

#27

Post by Terretta »

Can’t think what the “ha” would stand for in their analysis, but the se and xx can be indicators of adultness when you have a naive algo for dealing with bot spam domains for adult-content-as-spam:

Some even started using multiple X's (i.e. XX, XXX, etc.) to give the impression that their film contained more graphic sexual content than the simple X rating. In some cases, the X ratings were applied by reviewers or film scholars, e.g. William Rotsler, who wrote "The XXX-rating is for Hardcore, the XX-rating is for Softcore, and an X-rating is for comparatively cool films." — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_rating

That said if they think the domain is a soft hit they should look at content, site age and classification in e.g. bluecoat, etc., which would counter the soft domain indicator. If the site allows comments and doesn’t always successfully moderate or filter out adult bot spam links, that can make even clean content sites get filtered. To be clear, not! aware of any spam at this site, but as a heads up to anyone w/ open commenting, comment engines that allow a website link are often bot-bait.

Re: Considered "18+"

#28

Post by Symbiote »

donatj wrote: post #13

A number of my personal sites end up blocked by corporate firewalls. It’s slightly infuriating. Even my own company. I got in a literal fight with IT needing to justify the why in why I needed access to my own website. Like I can live without it, but it’s nothing but my blog where I rant about tech. The why should be why is it blocked to begin with. The default state should not be blocked .

Even more ridiculous: several small sites run by my team, from our own public IP space, have been blocked by the corporate firewall.

There has never been anything wrong with them, it's just braindead blocking software purchased by incompetent managers.

Re: Considered "18+"

#29

Post by ugjka »

Symbiote wrote: post #28
donatj wrote: post #13

A number of my personal sites end up blocked by corporate firewalls. It’s slightly infuriating. Even my own company. I got in a literal fight with IT needing to justify the why in why I needed access to my own website. Like I can live without it, but it’s nothing but my blog where I rant about tech. The why should be why is it blocked to begin with. The default state should not be blocked .

Even more ridiculous: several small sites run by my team, from our own public IP space, have been blocked by the corporate firewall. There has never been anything wrong with them, it's just braindead blocking software purchased by incompetent managers.

Yeah "We block 50% more than our competitors" "Good deal!"

Re: Considered "18+"

#30

Post by ______-_-______ »

edent wrote: post #17

Many years ago, I used to work for Vodafone - and had some responsibility for their filtering stuff. One of the main problems was that, at the time, it was all managed by Blue Coat. As they were a US company, many of the "violations" that they picked up just weren't considered problematic for a UK / EU audience. Similarly, they would use blanked keyword blocking. So sex education resources would frequently get blocke…

I wonder what the disconnect is that causes people to blame Vodafone for content requested over their network, but not Royal Mail for the content that arrives in their mailbox, or Google/Chrome for the content of webpages, or Dunder Mifflin for content printed on paper. Has that ever actually happened, or is it just corporate risk aversion?
Post reply on HN