Quote:
Originally Posted by NoWhErE
I think Roald is describing the parts where the author is accusing people of being guilty by association, when in reality, the truth is slightly more complex.
Yes, programs and networks should be more proactive in analyzing their traffic sources, but when you have hundreds or thousands of different traffic sources, the logistics of determining what is legal and what isn’t becomes insanely difficult, near impossible.
So condoning them is a slippery slope.
Some of the companies mentioned in the article do have direct associations and that should be investigated. However, a lot aren’t.
Some of the leaps the author makes are so far fetched that its almost equivalent to accusing Google for enabling illegal content because they had Analytics on their website.
|
You make good points; thank you for your response. I spent two hours reading the article and can only say that this topic has been heavily criticized. Some people dismiss the issue with a "Yeah, so what" attitude, but I become anxious when I see something that attracts pedophiles online. These individuals are a significant problem, and everything associated with them should take a more proactive stance in excluding them.
Thank you again for your comment.
