TOS question

[TVB]

I'm planning on launching a self-serving promotional site about ...

me!

And of course, me! talks alot about sex because sex is fun and should be talked about (not to mention the health benefits of actually having sex). No porn or anything like that (which i know would be a TOS violation) but am curious if the above concept would be a TOS violation?

Obviously, I'd prefer to host here but don't want to cause anyone to get uncomfortable talking about something so healthy %)

Betsy

[Mandi]

I can't presume to speak for FQ, but for my users at various sites, I've always drawn the line between Sexuality Education/Sexual Health Topics vs. Topics for Titilation's Sake.

So far, no TOS flames in my inbox, LOL.

[TVB]

That is my assumption too, but just checking :-)

It's going to be blog (which means there will be upcoming MT questions from me)

Betsy

[Deb]

From the Terms of Service (http://www.futurequest.net/Services/TOS/) Adult/Pornographic Content: Content designed to sexually arouse is prohibited throughout the FutureQuest Network. This includes sites that may allude to sexual content and/or links to adult content elsewhere. In general, frontal nudity (not for science, health, fine art, or general educational purposes) and/or content meant to sexually arouse is prohibited. Child Pornography of any kind is prohibited throughout the FutureQuest Network and will be reported to the authorities if found. FutureQuest reserves the right to determine what violates this policy. We do not prohibit discussions concerning sex which include personal views and experiences etc. In a blog type format of you enjoying the sound of your keyboard, and others enjoying the tune themselves, it should be fine. However, a webcam of sorts (a picture is worth a thousand words) would likely cause the line to be crossed as would text content that was placed there for the purpose of sexually arousing the readers....

There are some sites that ride the fine line between what we will permit on the FutureQuest Network and what we will not, but the majority of sites are clearly on one side of the line or the other. Best judgment usually prevails.

In the end, we do reserve the right to determine what crosses the line and what does not, though we try to be pretty fair in the area. Procreation, recreation, and education are still very real reasons for the act not to be banned completely ;)

What I personally request and strongly advise of any site owner, with a web site on any network, that will contain such content for any reason, is that they do not place the content on their main page and that the entry page to such content has a 'fair warning' placed on it alerting viewers that such content may be present and that children/parents should use discretionary caution.

Deb
- Our children came from something special, and ironically can be hurt from that same act. Let's just be responsible.

[Chipmunk]

Excellent points Deb! Two years ago when I first read the TOS, I was particularly impressed at the pornography discussion. That's a topic that's hard to nail down, but the two hard defs in the TOS fitted our comfort level.


Just to add some tech notes to your suggestion about preventing accidental visits from folks who would feel uncomfortable (we all know what sort of links even very innocuous terms can lead to):


One of the advantages of keeping all pics "squeaky clean" is that image content filtering technology is very primitive and unreliable. Text filtering is far more capable, and can quickly evaluate a page.

You may want to block robots in all "sensitive" areas of your site, so visitors could only arrive in those areas via your own pages that have warnings as per Deb above.

It's very wise to implement self PICS content rating (http://www.w3.org/PICS/). Most nerds agree this is the optimal solution, and appeals to our free speech streak, since it defines tools that allow the content creator to pre-label content that could be offensive or inappropriate for specific audiences, and lets those audiences choose what they want to block. The only downside is that the main PICS systems are representative of a very narrow view of the world, though they should be adequate for your purposes.


Here's an American Library Association overview of internet filtering:
http://www.ala.org/ala/pla/plapubs/technotes/internetfiltering.htm

The definitive work has been done by librarian Karen G. Schneider in her 1997 book A Practical Guide to Internet filters for which she has a companion website:
http://www.bluehighways.com/tifap/

[TVB]

Thanks Deb. No nekkid pics or anything. It's commentary on the new sexual prudenish revolution in America under George.

Betsy

[Seanh39]

Originally posted by TVB:
It's commentary on the new sexual prudenish revolution in America under George.

Betsy

I don't think I understand what is being said here...

Sean

[TVB]

I don't think I understand what is being said here...

Neither do I and I started the conversation! And no, there are not any pictures of Janet Jackson's right breast (or to say it in Wassercratsese: right accroutement)

Betsy