Opt_in for online porn

A place to socialise and share opinions with other members of the BGAFD Community.
one eyed jack
Posts: 12410
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Opt_in for online porn

Post by one eyed jack »

TheAltruist wrote:

"Your views are hindered by pound signs"

I'll admit to the money thing but its certainly not a hindrance. If the girls worked for me and I did content share all the time then I would just shrug it off but I'm still one of the best if not a respectable payers of those for their services (yeah yeah break out the finger violins)

On another note: This opt in just plays against what the government hope to achieve by encouraging people to seek it out for free as youve all stated here.

There will be scant difference to children finding porn on the net and thats what the government and all those other anti porn idiots should realise.

Maybe their views are hindered by protecting the kids while they are not doing anything at all but cause more chaos

Its like using gasoline to put out the fire!

I think somewhere down the line they will realise this mistake but scoff into their lattes and murmur "well at least we killed the fucking porn industry...heheheh"

You cant kill porn. It is the ultimate bogey man. It will just come back and explode out in different ways. Look at AdultWork,. Seems everyone has an account on there these days. There are more people getting naked, swinging and shagging on electronic devices everywhere more than ever now.

It wont be stopped unless they wipe everyone off th eplanet because the interest in it is fueled by the user. Not the producers. Even if it has to be given away for free

www.realcouples.com
www.onemanbanned.com
www.linkmojo.me/realcouples
www.twitter.com/realcouples
www.facebook.com/realcouples
thealtruist
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: Opt_in for online porn

Post by thealtruist »

In hindsight I shouldn't have said "hindered by pound signs". They were the wrong choice of words. I apologise for that. There was no offence meant or intended.

What I meant was that because of your involvement in the industry you're more passionate about the loss of profit and income because of the thieves. I couldn't agree more. It is stealing. But this passion is obscuring your view of what me, Eric and millions of other people are angry and upset about; the unforgiveable intrusion by the government to know EXACTLY what it is you're doing, looking at and plan to do. Being made to opt in is a gross of violation of our right to to privacy.

Take yourself out of the industry and become a viewer just like me and Eric. You might feel a little different.
David Johnson
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Message from Civil Libertarian Jim Slip

Post by David Johnson »

More slop from Slip.

A quick translation of Jim's post.

I am in favour of civil liberties unless I can make money out of a restriction on civil lberties.

And hey guys this is one of those scenarios, beause it will affect all those newbies just getting started with their sites. www.jimslip.com should do quite well, thank you very much.

It will also get rid of bandwidth timewasters to use Jim's phrase. Who are bandwidth timewasters? Its the majority of you wankers on the forum accessing free porn!!!! Get a real life or at least get your credit cards out and join www.jimslip.com

I am loveable Jim Slip, most loved character in pornoland.
jimslip
Posts: 3913
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: David Johnson- Stalin would be proud of you!

Post by jimslip »

DJ, I noticed you've had a break from BGAFD, presumably you've been down at New Labour headquarters screaming, "You told be to say everything was perfect under New Labour and now you saying we fucked everything up!! You even smiled as the banks piss all over us, cos you were too chicken shit scared to control the greedy fuckers! I can't keep spewing bollocks on BGAFD, no one believes me anymore, can't you give me another job, perhaps there a forum for the "Mentally infirm", I'm sure I could make a difference with them??"

I don't even know why you even have a view on this topic. You and your PC brain controllers would happily have crushed all of us in porn and smashed BGAFD if given the chance. Don't you think your pinup, Harriett Har-Person wouldn't have got around to us in the end?

The difference is if New labour were still in power we would be now deemed "enemies of the state", not for the making and distribution of porn, but for the making and distribution of , heterosexual porn! Yes by now the PC crazed New Labour nutters (and I include you amongst them) would have marginalised us in straight porn and you would have been tasked with collecting all the information you could from posters on BGAFD to be passed on to your NL controllers.

Possibly by now we would have been served with notices stating, "We have been informed that you are a consumer and/or producer of pornography for consumption by heterosexuals. Under the Hetero Pornography Act 2011, it is an offence to produce indecent material that excludes, gays, lesbians and the disabled. If you are found guilty you could face up to 20 years in prison!"

You DJ are the last person on Earth who should be lecturing ANYONE on civil liberties, when all you do is stomp up and down the corridors of BGAFD, finger wagging and scolding anyone who steps out of line with your PC codswallop!

Unfortunately you are too brainless and devoid of imagination to understand what I am trying to say. You simply must drag your infantile political dogma into every other persons point of view.

<http://www.jimslip.com>
Winner "Best Loved Character"TVX SHAFTAS 2010
Winner of "Best On-Line scene & Best Gonzo Production" at UKAP Awards 2006
Winner of Best TVX series 2011, "Laras Anal Adventures"
David Johnson
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Jimslip

Post by David Johnson »

"DJ, I noticed you've had a break from BGAFD"

I knew you'd miss me !wink!

I notice you challenge nothing in my message i.e. you are in favour of civil liberties unless it is a restriction on civil liberties like the opt-in rule which you stated on this forum would help your website at the detriment of other newer, less established websites as well as getting rid of bandwidth timewasters.

Forumites will note that any amount of meaningless blah about politics from you will not disguise the above point which you very obviously fail to deny.
David Johnson
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Remind me again.....

Post by David Johnson »

"Unfortunately you are too brainless and devoid of imagination to understand what I am trying to say."

Then perhaps you can explain or remind me again, did you or did you not state on this forum at the beginning of the year

"To top it all can anyone remember new Labour were also hell bent on creating their surveillance police state? with for example ID cards, who would have been forced on people like ourselves, but I wonder how many of New Labour's interest groups could have opted out of ID cards by citing them as a violation of the Human Rights Act? New Labour were always talking about some ever new technology for spying or watching us, whether it was cameras on wheely bins or more CCTV on roads,"

and then in April when you worked out that one of these plans from people "hell bent on creating their surveillance police state" could make you money.

"Personally, I have no problem with "Opt in", because its just rids us of millions of freebie hunters, 14 year old boys and general bandwidth wasters"

""Opt in" doesn't effect successful, established websites like jimslip.com, but it will effect fledgling new websites that are already struggling to stay afloat or simply starting out"


Or did I just imagine it all, Jimbo?
David Johnson
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Mr Flat Eric

Post by David Johnson »

"I have a lot of time for you normally Jim. But I fear that in this instance, your personal business motives are blinding you to the bigger picture, and the much more sinister implications and motives behind an "opt-in" scheme of the type being proposed."

I take everything back - well almost everything. A perceptive, intelligent, articulate comment. I have underestimated you, Mr Eric.
David Johnson
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Mr Flat Eric

Post by David Johnson »

It is also worth pointing out that opt in has unintended consequences.

People cite the example of mobile phone opt ins. Well it was the mobile phone opt in process that ended up blocking access to the Brook Street Sexual Health Advisory service until they got it sorted out.

And as you rightly point out, a big issue is who decides what is sexual content and how do they define it which can have an enormous impact on what is available in web searches. One of the major failings of the Claire Perry (Claire Perry being a Tory MP driving the opt in campaign) Parliamentary report is that it did not attempt to define pornography, adult content or "internet porn".
Flat_Eric
Posts: 1859
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: Opt_in for online porn

Post by Flat_Eric »

Fuck me, I'm having an "alternate universe" moment - singing from the same hymn sheet as DJ and finding myself nodding in agreement with what he's saying. !shocked!

- Eric
Flat_Eric
Posts: 1859
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: Opt_in for online porn

Post by Flat_Eric »

Exactly right David - who is it who gets to decide what "porn" is??

- Eric
Locked