The Instigator
niceguy123
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
TheDeafCreeper
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should sites like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Tumbler etc be asked to remove porn?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
niceguy123
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 2/11/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 404 times Debate No: 86443
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

niceguy123

Pro

These type of sites are used by everybody from children to grandparents and from Presidents to school teachers. These are the most popular and common sites. They are used for study, email, networking, sharing and discussing serious stuff. Do you think that being so popular their support for porn is actually creating more curiosity and demand for porn? These sites are not even porn sites but yet they have huge amounts of it. Is it right to allow such essential service providing sites to host porn? There is also this additional hazard of exposing unsuspecting people to porn when they are searching for art, medical or News items. Do you think this is good for us?

Kindly vote after a deep introspection. Thank you.
TheDeafCreeper

Con

As stated here http://cyber.law.harvard.edu... under current controversy's, this debate has been going on for awhile, and the supreme court said that banning porn on sites like Google would violate the first adamant.

Also you usually need to be looking to find porn. Unless you look at porn often, you will most likely not find it in a recommenced tab.

I know my argument was short, but I'm confident this is enough for now.
Debate Round No. 1
niceguy123

Pro

Two major observations I would like to mention -

1. The First Amendment is for USA only, whereas these websites work with and earn from the world over. So, why should the 195 countries be forced to accept the law of only 1 country? The First Amendment and the US Constitution is legally, geographically, politically, economically, socially, militarily and philosophically limited to the boundaries of the USA. Why should the same limitation be not applied to the websites it hosts? Most of the porn sites today are located in the USA irrespective of where its audience is located. USA is spreading porn world over. From Senegal to Indonesia, all countries have the same problem when dealing with online pornography - "server location : USA". The USA can have whatever it wants within its boundaries but since the Internet is a global communication platform, it should listen to Global voices as well and make First Amendment applicable to only those websites that do not work and earn globally. It is also technologically feasible to have some content made available only for USA. The rest of the world can then decide for itself as they have their own Constitutions and Courts - USA is not the only country to have them!

2. Pornography is not expression, it is Conduct.

"Also you usually need to be looking to find porn. Unless you look at porn often, you will most likely not find it in a recommenced tab." - this doesn't address the main problem of easy, free and unrestricted access to porn. It also doesn't address the problem of mixing up porn with medical, art and NEWS searches. For example if you search "xyz sex scandal" for research, it leads to both Wikipedia and porn sites! This also doesn't stop anyone like a child for example, from deliberately or accidentally viewing porn on the same website he uses for email and homework. Safe search is not full proof as it can be defeated by searching "how to turn safe search off".

"Some banks are too big to fail" and these websites are "too big to be socially irresponsible". Their international reach and common usage should be enough to merit a case for removal of porn from their sites. Either these websites should come out openly and say "WE SUPPORT PORN" so that concerned people can move to different sites or they should say "WE DO NOT SUPPORT PORN" so that no one has to worry about or think twice before doing anything on these sites. Merely issuing disclaimers and hiding in the legally grey area is not enough commitment towards the majority of people who use these sites daily and do not watch porn.

Thank you for the reply. Now I leave it to others.
TheDeafCreeper

Con

I get what your saying about the constitution being in the u.s, but there are also other problems. The Internet is international, which would make it hard to ban porn on sights like Google. Governments all over the world would need to agree to ban it, and I shouldn't need to say most governments wouldn't agree to that. Sites like Google don't technically have porn on them either, what Google does is it brings up things with words that you search in it. So Google doesn't have porn on it, it is the websites. Banning porn on social media could also mean banning porn sites to prevent them for popping up in any way.

Also, making porn harder to find would mean that people looking for porn would need to look harder. Making porn harder to find would be a hassle for a lot of people, including company's like Google and facebook. They would need to go through and and block porn from popping up.

Also, just because on Google or Facebook you can find/post porn, does not mean they support it. The Google search engines job is to give you what your looking for, not give you things your not. Sure, some searches Co email up with porn sites, but you could avoid the porn sites by, I'll use your example, typing this,xyz sex scandal -porn. There anything containing the word porn will not come up. You could even add more by typing in xyz sex scandal -porn -something else -something else, so on. I know a kid would not type that, but kids should not be looking up things about sex scandals in the first place.

That is my argument for this round, I'm in trestle to see your response.
Debate Round No. 2
niceguy123

Pro

Thank you for the reply.

"Sites like Google don't technically have porn on them either, what Google does is it brings up things with words that you search in it." - Google has lots of porn esp. in its Blogger platform. It is today the easiest way to earn money for small time pornographers. There are literally millions of Blogger blogs with adult content ranging from nudity to extreme graphic content. Anyone can become a pornographer with the blogger platform. Sadly, there is no way to prevent its unwanted viewing esp. by minors because all Google does for guarding against viewing of these blogs is that, it simply asks whether or not you would like to enter an adult site. Leaving such a big decision on inexperienced and immature children or to the technologically challenged or unsuspecting persons is not good practice. Besides Google is trusted today by almost everyone to be completely safe and a lot many do not know yet that it is one of the top hosts for porn. Same goes to all the other massively popular sites.

Google search is becoming Google porn. It is fueling an increase in pornography demand because it is extremely easy now to locate even the most perverted porn with ease. It has inadvertently given rise to Revenge Porn and it also shows up sites that cleverly link to Child Pornography! Google knows this and they want it because it is profitable. In fact one will be surprised how much internet companies and ISPs depend on porn for profit! Some of the statistics are simply mind numbing.

Now, since these sites have infinite resources in the form of money and technology, they can very easily send porn to a different domain. For example Google.Com or Facebook.Com could be porn free, and Google.Xxx and Facebook.Xxx can be adult oriented. It will be easier to manage and parents or concerned individuals can be free from the worry of unwanted exposure to pornographic content as long as they can see .COM in the tab bar.

"Also, just because on Google or Facebook you can find/post porn, does not mean they support it. " - precisely the problem I have earlier stated. These companies are practicing 'don't ask don't tell' and have built castles in the legally grey areas. Will it be then completely paranoid to not trust such companies that hide behind sketchy laws? Will it be easier to trust Gmail if Google comes out of the dark and voices its opinion for once and for all? Isn't Gmail the new Post Office? Will you trust your Post Office if you knew it has other vexing businesses or that it has positioned itself in a legally grey area?

"There anything containing the word porn will not come up. " - suppose one wants to search for the Wikipedia pages on porn, or suppose one is researching porn, then how is it helpful to block every site that has the word 'porn' in it? The safe filters are utterly useless and there is not one software that is 100% full proof. For example, there is today simply no way to differentiate between news articles on porn and porn sites themselves, and this doesn't make life easier.

"but kids should not be looking up things about sex scandals in the first place." - kids will be kids - they will always be curious. It is the duty of parents and the society and Governments to give them an innocent and safe childhood. But sadly today, parents cannot be there all the time, society is hapless and Governments are heedless. It is really very sad to see young kids today growing up in a very sexually charged but morally diminished atmosphere.

Today, we are also leaving our children to their own devices and also leaving them to decide for themselves - thinking we also grew up the same way. But, in reality, the world has changed tremendously and we currently have no idea what its consequences are going to be. Perhaps, a little bit of discretion and moderation, I believe (along with many many others), will go a long way in checking those consequences, especially those consequences that are eventually going to be negative.

I will leave you all with the latest news on Facebook Porn (reported minutes ago) - http://www.bbc.com...

Thank You.
TheDeafCreeper

Con

I notice you have been focusing on children. What about the adults that are looking for porn. Is it really fair to stop them from viewing porn because of the kids that look at thing about porn or look for porn itself? That is the question you need to ask. There are plenty of programs parents can use to block sites. If a parent doesn't feel like setting one of those up is worth it, then they are giving their child the freedom to look at porn.

"suppose one wants to search for the Wikipedia pages on porn" Your saying that blocking out links with porn in it bad in this case, but if your physically look up things about porn, I would hope you would not mind seeing porn. A Wikipedia page about porn might have pornographic I miss on it, so even if you were avoiding every other site, you could still be exposed.
Debate Round No. 3
niceguy123

Pro

"I notice you have been focusing on children. What about the adults that are looking for porn. Is it really fair to stop them from viewing porn because of the kids that look at thing about porn or look for porn itself? That is the question you need to ask. " - there are many things that children are not allowed to have like alcohol, cigarettes and sex. Though adults can have them but they can not in public places like schools, buses, trains, museums etc. Also there are places where children are not allowed to enter. Only adults can enter. This is the law. Is this law not fair? Does any adult have to suffer for not being able to do these things in public? Similarly, adults looking for porn can always use other search engines or social networks but why use these massively popular sites? If these popular sites which are being used by billions of people want to cater to adult demand they can always setup a separate site like Googleporn.com and still make profit!

"There are plenty of programs parents can use to block sites. If a parent doesn't feel like setting one of those up is worth it, then they are giving their child the freedom to look at porn." - does anybody here honestly believe these programs work 100%? Also, why should people be forced to pay money to use the internet as well as protect themselves from it? There are also plenty of burdens and responsibilities on the parents already and try adding constant vigil on Internet habits to it.

Like I said earlier, it will bring tremendous peace of mind to most people if the top common sites are porn free. As long as you use only these sites you are safe and your kids are too.

"Your saying that blocking out links with porn in it bad in this case, but if your physically look up things about porn, I would hope you would not mind seeing porn. A Wikipedia page about porn might have pornographic I miss on it, so even if you were avoiding every other site, you could still be exposed." - The Wikipedia page on porn is the perfect example of what a porn free site should deliver. If google were safe and you typed 'porn' you would see links to articles, to advocacy papers, to commentary, to links to related issues like sexual exploitation etc. - like turning on a kind of permanent safe search that cannot be turned off - boosting your intellect rather than redirecting your blood-flow. If anybody wants to deliberately watch porn he/she can simply go to another site or Googleporn.com! Filtering your content will then be much easier than what it is now.

Also what about massively popular sites like Twitter, Facebook and image hosts/blogs like Tumbler etc? Are these porn sites? If not then why serve porn? A porn star having a Twitter account can be understood, but to allow users to share porn? Its not even a private share like in Whatsaspp but it is all public! These are therefore porn sites proper.

The logic of my arguments is based on the fact that pornography is a 'personal secret/thing' for most people. In most societies people do not even consider it a 'necessity' except for maybe the USA and its likes. This status kept the peace. In the digital age the same peace can be kept by moving pornography to an 'adult access only' department. There is absolutely no need to flaunt and circulate it without caution like it is being done today.

I will try to add new points soon. Thanks again for the reply.
TheDeafCreeper

Con

TheDeafCreeper forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
niceguy123

Pro

Sorry to see the debate round was forfeited but nevertheless here are a two more arguments -

1. Social responsibility on the Internet - All big corporations have social responsibility called Corporate Social Responsibility.

"Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is defined as the voluntary activities undertaken by a company to operate in an economic, social and environmentally sustainable manner."

I argue that to achieve social sustainability in today's world it is imperative that big global Internet corporations listen to the voices of everyone and not just particular sections of the society. Social sustainability also require non-approval of social and personal evils and vices. And, since online pornography has been linked to social evils and vices as well as to personal disorders and crime, it must be handled with great care and never openly and carelessly distributed.

2. Corporate propaganda on the Internet - "Corporate propaganda refers to propaganda disseminated by a corporation (or corporations), for the purpose of manipulating public opinion concerning to that corporation, and its activities."

Today Corporate propaganda is being used to push political, economic and social ideas. It is no longer concerned with only corporate image and profit. But often while pushing an idea, side effects are created and these side effects are seldom addressed properly. For example, on one hand global Internet corporations are pushing liberty and on the other hand they are permitting the misuse of liberty - all at the same time. I argue that this a double edged sword with equally sharp edges on both sides. It promotes both good and evil and the grey area in between. Pornography for the individual and society today, lies in the grey area and therefore calls for some magnitude of discretion. The contemporary ambivalence of big global Internet corporations towards pornography often suggests that pornography is 'good' - which is a a theory that has yet not been verified and set as the true answer.
TheDeafCreeper

Con

TheDeafCreeper forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TheDeafCreeper 1 year ago
TheDeafCreeper
Using my tablet is harder then I thought it would be.
Posted by TheDeafCreeper 1 year ago
TheDeafCreeper
Darn spell check for in trestle!!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lord_megatron 1 year ago
lord_megatron
niceguy123TheDeafCreeper
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited