The continued march of wiki porn Options

[privatemusings]

so it falls to me to periodically review the contents of such important commons libraries as category:fellatio - and not having banged my head against a wall for a while, dropping a note into a noticeboard.

same old same old, I'm afraid - but the size of the library of freely licensed blowjob pics grows ever larger (as do the various, um.. specialist catergories which may be more your cup of tea?)

I'm hesitant to say this, but I had some interesting legal advice on this stuff recently, and intend to try to pursue a sensible conversation with the foundation about this.....

[Milton Roe]

so it falls to me to periodically review the contents of such important commons libraries as category:fellatio - and not having banged my head against a wall for a while, dropping a note into a noticeboard.

same old same old, I'm afraid - but the size of the library of freely licensed blowjob pics grows ever larger (as do the various, um.. specialist catergories which may be more your cup of tea?)

I'm hesitant to say this, but I had some interesting legal advice on this stuff recently, and intend to try to pursue a sensible conversation with the foundation about this.....

Well, so long as politeness is maintained, what can the matter be? A strong supporter of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, CiviliNation believes that free speech is enhanced through civil dialog and a rational exchange of information and ideas. By fostering an online culture in which individuals can fully engage and contribute without fear or threat of being the target of unwarranted abuse, harassment, or lies, the core ideals of democracy are upheld.

"I say, Andrea, do you suppose I might trouble you for a blow-job?"
"Since you ask nicely, Jimmy, I believe you might."
"That is immensely decent of you."

[...]

"Thank you for coming."
"On the contrary, thank you for having me."

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[the_undertow]

so it falls to me to periodically review the contents of such important commons libraries as category:fellatio - and not having banged my head against a wall for a while, dropping a note into a noticeboard.

same old same old, I'm afraid - but the size of the library of freely licensed blowjob pics grows ever larger (as do the various, um.. specialist catergories which may be more your cup of tea?)

I'm hesitant to say this, but I had some interesting legal advice on this stuff recently, and intend to try to pursue a sensible conversation with the foundation about this.....

Your intentions are correct, however you are assuming a level playing field. Unfortunately, I embody WP. I am unbending, unrelenting, and yet I realize that I am generally not on the right side of the coin.

No person in their right mind would freely volunteer their time at a soup-kitchen, knowing that their managers will be waving a gun in their face, constantly telling them that "You're doing it wrong."

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

This is the kind of intelligence they are encouraging ...

Description=I very want see photo of my pix in shop window or some other public place. who is want do it for me?

|Source=[http://www.flickr.com/photos/38547171@N02/3577786838/ lickdick] |Date=2009-05-22 01:26 |Author=[http://www.flickr.com/)

Try and remove it and you will probably get banned.

[Tarc]

This is the kind of intelligence they are encouraging ...

Description=I very want see photo of my pix in shop window or some other public place. who is want do it for me?

|Source=[http://www.flickr.com/photos/38547171@N02/3577786838/ lickdick] |Date=2009-05-22 01:26 |Author=[http://www.flickr.com/)

Try and remove it and you will probably get banned.

Damn work filters. Guess the BJ-browsing will have to wait a bit. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

[thekohser]

"I say, Andrea, do you suppose I might trouble you for a blow-job?"
"Since you ask nicely, Jimmy, I believe you might."
"That is immensely decent of you."

[...]

"Thank you for coming."
"On the contrary, thank you for having me."

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Best post thus far in 2010.

I think any of the people upset with the how the images on Commons might be viewed by pre-teens and other such youngsters should just sit their teenies down and let them have a cookie.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[thekohser]

Privatemusings and others, I hope you will take some time to consider the thoughts that I've laid out on Yahoo! Answers, and monitor the responses to these.

The first one:
At what age does the Wikipedia article and photo about Hafada piercing become appropriate?

The Wikipedia article about Hafada piercing ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafada_pier… ) is only one click away from the article about Earring, which is viewed about 37,000 times a month. Itself, the Hafada piercing article is viewed upwards of 12,000 times a month.

Should I be introducing my 6-year-old daughter to this article about Hafada piercing? What about her 9-year-old neighbor friend? When is it "too soon" to share all of the glorious things Wikipedia has to offer youngsters, or is it never too soon?

Additional Details
You may also wish to look at the Wisconsin court case of State v. C & S Management to help inform your answer.

And, especially, the second one:
Is Wikipedia appropriate for 10-year-olds?

Yahoo! Answers participant "Bill M" recently said here that "Wikipedia has never purported to be appropriate for children, to my knowledge."

Jimmy Wales has in fact said:

"When we go down to younger students, and I don't have any particular idea of the cut-off dates, but certainly someone a lot younger than 16; a 10-year-old is writing a little short paper for class, and they want to say they got some information from Wikipedia, I think we should just be glad that the kid's writing and actually thinking about giving credit -- due credit -- to people who have helped. And I think that's wonderful."

Source: http://files.libertyfund.org/econtalk/y2… (at about the 19:30 mark)

So, my question is... if the 10-year-old is doing a report on "gel bracelets", such as those promoted by the Lance Armstong Foundation and the group Make Poverty History, thanks to an infobox at the bottom of the "gel bracelets" article, the 10-year-old may readily click to articles about "Donkey punch", "Gerbilling", "Rainbow party", and the really lovely "Soggy biscuit".

It's possible that this post here will result in that info template being removed from the gel bracelets article. But the point is, that template has been sitting there since July 30, 2008, thanks to User:Benjiboi (take a look at some of his edits, sometime). The article's been viewed about 12,000 to 14,000 times a month ( http://stats.grok.se/en/200808/gel_brace… ). How many of those views were 10-year-olds writing a "little short paper for class", who now know all about donkey punches and rainbow parties.

I say that this is NOT wholly the responsibility of "the parents" to stay on top of. If Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of the tax-advantaged project, is saying that his encyclopedia is "wonderful" for a 10-year-old, then when my 10-year-old is exposed to donkey punches and worse at an age that's inappropriate, if not illegal, for me to be exposing them to this, then I say it is high time that Jimmy Wales and his inept Foundation start taking responsibility and living up to their promotional hype.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[tarantino]

A prolific uploader of BDSM images wonders on the Commons OTRS Noticeboard if it might be a good idea if they expanded OTRS to include age verification.

He's told "I really don't think this is something the OTRS should be getting involved in" and "please be ensured that the current way of handeling age-related problems of Commons is accurate already and changes would - at the very least temporarily - decrease this".

[White Knight]

When I was 13 years old, I would have loved Wikipedia for its porn database. Back in those days I had to work for my damn porno. I had to time it just right so I had enough time to dial-up my 56k connection, find some decent pics, and get rid of all the evidence before my parents got back. Now kids gets it handed to them on a silver wiki-platter. Where's the sense of accomplishment in that?

This post has been edited by White Knight:

[JohnA]

An "encyclopedia" that does not distinguish between a child and an adult and has no idea of the notion of consent is a menace to society.

For those who haven't seen the link http://www.flickr.com/photos/38547171@N02/3577786838/

1. You have to login to yahoo.com and also consent to see the images
2. It shows pictures of oral sex (both F/M and M/M), BDSM, cross-dressing and humiliation

For Wikipedia to incorporate those images is disgraceful - there is no informed consent as to who sees those images.

[Doc glasgow]

When I was 13 years old, I would have loved Wikipedia for its porn database. Back in those days I had to work for my damn porno. I had to time it just right so I had enough time to dial-up my 56k connection, find some decent pics, and get rid of all the evidence before my parents got back. Now kids gets it handed to them on a silver wiki-platter. Where's the sense of accomplishment in that?

Ah, but that's because you hadn't heard of Bomis had you? It was all served up by uncle Jimmy on a patter even back then, if only you'd asked.

When I was 13 years old, I would have loved Wikipedia for its porn database. Back in those days I had to work for my damn porno. I had to time it just right so I had enough time to dial-up my 56k connection, find some decent pics, and get rid of all the evidence before my parents got back. Now kids gets it handed to them on a silver wiki-platter. Where's the sense of accomplishment in that?

Ah, but that's because you hadn't heard of Bomis had you? It was all served up by uncle Jimmy on a patter even back then, if only you'd asked.

And interestingly, Uncle Jimmy has covered his tracks.

We're sorry, access to http://www.bomis.com has been blocked by the site owner via robots.txt.

[tarantino]

A couple of the photos that Max Rebo Band transferred from flickr to commons are of this young female. Though her body brings back memories of high school, she must be a skinny adult because as the commoner said, "please be ensured that the current way of handeling age-related problems of Commons is accurate".

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

So, my question is... if the 10-year-old is doing a report on "gel bracelets" ...

It really is more just confirmation that the Pee-dia is a menace to society. This is a perfect example where Gel Braclets very much are something that would entice a child and even within the article ones gets ...

Different versions associate different colors with sex acts. For example, purple might be associated with kissing, red with lapdancing, and black with intercourse.

Some versions said the involved action occurs at parties held for the purpose, making them similar to contemporary rumors of "rainbow parties", a gathering at which groups of girls wearing varying shades of lipstick supposedly take turns fellating their classmates, leaving an array of colors on their penises.

with helpful links to fellating etc.

It is just porn fantasy.

10 year old ... computer ... daddy, what is fellating? ... click link to an extensively illustrated page.

If Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of the tax-advantaged project, is saying that his encyclopedia is "wonderful" for a 10-year-old, then when my 10-year-old is exposed to donkey punches and worse at an age that's inappropriate, if not illegal, for me to be exposing them to this, then I say it is high time that Jimmy Wales and his inept Foundation start taking responsibility and living up to their promotional hype.

[thekohser]

Not only that, but -- as usual -- Wikipedia can't even get its basic "facts" right. There is a distinct difference between the silicone gel bracelets (for "awareness" causes) and the flimsy jelly bracelets that Madonna wore in the 80's and are associated with this mythic sexual permissiveness game.

Wikipedia is so stupid, on so many levels.

[A Horse With No Name]

When I was 13 years old, I would have loved Wikipedia for its porn database. Back in those days I had to work for my damn porno. I had to time it just right so I had enough time to dial-up my 56k connection, find some decent pics, and get rid of all the evidence before my parents got back. Now kids gets it handed to them on a silver wiki-platter. Where's the sense of accomplishment in that?

You young whippersnappers! Back in my day, we had to cut down trees in order to see published pornography. And it was a communal experience -- a bunch of boys gathered around Mr. Herner or Mr. Flynt's magical magazines, sharing the excitement of seeing naughty bits of business on display!

Strangely, I recall a day when I was a teenage summer volunteer at a local senior citizens' center. Another teen volunteer brought Hustler to the center, hidden in a copy of the New York Post. Some elderly lady walked by, saw the newspaper, picked it up and announced, "I am borrowing this newspaper, okay?" The kid who brought in the newspaper quickly screamed "No!" while grabbing it from the old gal. As he ran away, clutching the publications, the poor lady looked around totally confused.

[privatemusings]

well, with thanks to 'Leonardo' - apparently the 'page views' tool shows that the most viewed pages on commons are sexually explicit.... I think this could get interesting.....

[EricBarbour]

Greg, I love it when you troll Yahoo Answers. That place is such a mess, and it seems that
the same Jimbo-Aid drinkers always end up attacking you, for criticizing the Mighty Wiki.

Is there some kind of seekrit agreement that WP fans must sit and watch Yahoo Answers,
in order to attack Greg Kohs whenever he pops up? Who is "GrimJack" anyway?
Perhaps he's someone we know well from WP?....

I also love some of the crazier questions. This one is quite amusing, esp. since Blnguyen pops up.

Mark my words, if the United States ever enacts an overarching system of censorship for
the public internet, Wikimedia's porn photos will be brought up in Congress as an example.

apparently the 'page views' tool shows that the most viewed pages on commons are sexually explicit.... I think this could get interesting.....

No kidding. Go and post THAT on Yahoo Answers and see what happens....

Isnt it interesting, that the list includes a photo of the Aussie kids-show group
the Wiggles. Surrounding them in the list are things like "Category: female genitalia"
and "Category: Ejaculation".....

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

well, with thanks to 'Leonardo' - apparently the 'page views' tool shows that the most viewed pages on commons are sexually explicit.... I think this could get interesting.....

I think you might just have handed us the smoking gun. Indisputable evidence, if every there was the need for more, to finish off its educational, "child friendly" image.

Take one discussion re deletion and what do you get?

Image:Bibliotheek (nude).jpg

We need some coherence in this project about nudity. There's no proof that she's not underage. There's no proof it's not a private place. There's no proof she gave consent. 3 reasons to delete this picture! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Nudity!=porn and underage nudity IS NOT illegal. -N 15:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC) .

User N, aka Nard the Bard (T-C-L-K-R-D) also has a image of a big wad of marijuana on his user page.

And elsewhere ...

Bushytails (T-C-L-K-R-D) ... Usually, when I take photos, I take far more than needed. For example, when taking the photos for strap-on dildo, I took about 450 photos. As such, if you'd like a photo of another angle or the like, drop me a line on my talk page and I'll see if I have it ... I have lots and lots of unuploaded photos.

[carbuncle]

well, with thanks to 'Leonardo' - apparently the 'page views' tool shows that the most viewed pages on commons are sexually explicit.... I think this could get interesting.....

What is wrong with the youth of America that this sequence shows up...?

36 Image:Sarah Palin seated.jpg 66959
37 Category:Nude women 65461
38 Category:Shaved genitalia (female) 64589
39 Category:Nudity 63282
40 Category:Female toplessness 62221
41 Category:Breasts

"Sarah Palin seated" tops the others? Unless that image also belongs to the categories that follow it, I think this is a troubling sign...

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[JohnA]

A couple of the photos that Max Rebo Band transferred from flickr to commons are of this young female. Though her body brings back memories of high school, she must be a skinny adult because as the commoner said, "please be ensured that the current way of handeling age-related problems of Commons is accurate".

Can you tell if this girl is over 18? Because I can't.

I've heard reports of producers of adult movies refuse to use certain girls because although they have identifying information that they are definitely over 18, they look much younger and the producers don't want any trouble with the law.

Quite unlike Wikipedia which has fewer scruples than many adult film makers.

[Peter Damian]

Just noticed this thread. Thanks PM.

[Somey]

"Sarah Palin seated" tops the others? Unless that image also belongs to the categories that follow it, I think this is a troubling sign...

(IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/img/splegs.jpg)

[Trick cyclist]

For those who haven't seen the link http://www.flickr.com/photos/38547171@N02/3577786838/

There seems to be a network of alert admins on Flickr. The first comment on that picture is "Hi, I'm an admin for a group called amateur-sex, and we'd love to have this added to the group!" I havent seen whats in the amateur-sex group.

Does anyone know if anyone at Flickr checks if pictures are obscene and need this over-18 protection or indeed if they check whether people in the photos are over 18?

[thekohser]

Greg, I love it when you troll Yahoo Answers. That place is such a mess

Thank you, Eric. I do my best -- it's like my civic duty.

well, with thanks to 'Leonardo' - apparently the 'page views' tool shows that the most viewed pages on commons are sexually explicit.... I think this could get interesting.....

Can't we get the Grok machine to re-run this, so the data is not from August 2008?

And, why the intense interest in "detallesanmateos.jpg"?

[CharlotteWebb]

well, with thanks to 'Leonardo' - apparently the 'page views' tool shows that the most viewed pages on commons are sexually explicit.... I think this could get interesting.....

Can't we get the Grok machine to re-run this, so the data is not from August 2008?

And, why the intense interest in "detallesanmateos.jpg"?

Indeed, what the hell is "commons.m"? When you start at this url all the page links will point to an unresolvable domain name, but if you remove the ".m", navigation works fine but the traffic statistics are much different, and lower.

[Krimpet]

"Sarah Palin seated" tops the others? Unless that image also belongs to the categories that follow it, I think this is a troubling sign...

I suspect that in late August '08, when Palin was still virtually a nobody and Alaska was still a fabled land from a storybook, that image was one of the top Google hits for her name, so on 8/29/08 when you had a flood of people suddenly wondering "who the hell is Sarah Palin?," they all landed on that page from Google. Hence why that image had 35,600 hits on that day.

Why this picture of "The Wiggles" is #26 - just beating out "Oral sex" - is a bit more befuddling, though.

[White Knight]

I'm seriously considering sending a letter to my representative conveying my concerns about how Wikipedia doesn't keep sufficient records of the age of the people in the nude photos there, and also my concerns about how easy it is for children to accidentally access pornography on Wikipedia. Although the Wikipedia admins may scream "WP:NOTCENSORED!" I have a feeling that King Jimbo would quickly cave in if the federal government actually started looking into Wikipedia's compliance with the law. As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia hasn't faced any significant legal or governmental challenges as yet.

I need your help though. I don't know enough about the inner workings of Wikipedia to write an intelligent letter, so if you guys could help me figure out what evidence I should include, and some good points to make in the letter, it would be very beneficial. Not to mention that if you feel motivated to write a letter to your senator or representative, we could all use the same one.

Awaiting your responses,
WK

[wikademia.org]

I'm seriously considering sending a letter to my representative conveying my concerns about how Wikipedia doesn't keep sufficient records of the age of the people in the nude photos there, and also my concerns about how easy it is for children to accidentally access pornography on Wikipedia. Although the Wikipedia admins may scream "WP:NOTCENSORED!" I have a feeling that King Jimbo would quickly cave in if the federal government actually started looking into Wikipedia's compliance with the law. As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia hasn't faced any significant legal or governmental challenges as yet.

I need your help though. I don't know enough about the inner workings of Wikipedia to write an intelligent letter, so if you guys could help me figure out what evidence I should include, and some good points to make in the letter, it would be very beneficial. Not to mention that if you feel motivated to write a letter to your senator or representative, we could all use the same one.

Awaiting your responses,
WK

it seems something like that will have to happen eventually... also maybe the appropriate gov entity will start to examine the early connections between Wikia and Wikipedia.. especially if Wikia has continued "success"

[thekohser]

I need your help though. I don't know enough about the inner workings of Wikipedia to write an intelligent letter, so if you guys could help me figure out what evidence I should include, and some good points to make in the letter, it would be very beneficial. Not to mention that if you feel motivated to write a letter to your senator or representative, we could all use the same one.

Whitey, it sounds like a job that a collaborative wiki could help facilitate. Why don't you get a coat-rack skeleton of a letter started on Encyc, Wikidemia, Wikipedia Review, or Google Knol, then point us to it, and perhaps we could whip up something really snazzy. You know me, I like the idea of letters to Congress.

[privatemusings]

re : the letter writing - I tend to agree, although I'm an absolutely incurable optimist, so would also support raising this directly with the foundation at the same time.

The legal stuff I mentioned obliquely in my post before relates to both 'section 2257' stuff and legal issues around facilitating free access to rather a lot of very explicit material - the high page view stat.s for explicit material on commons is rather an important part of this jigsaw, I reckon.

Quick word on that too - I noticed the 'm' in the page view tool too, and wondered if it relates to 'mobile' or something? Further, if you go to the frontpage of the stat.s tool, it allows you to select 'commons' and then go month by month on individual categories / images etc. - it's the 'top' button which seems to refer back to August 08 figures no matter what.

I'll probably send a letter in my own name, to the Australian authorities by April / May if we just can't get any traction for progress from the foundation end, and would be up for synchronising / making a combined effort. For what it's worth also, I believe there's a good chance of some media coverage on this one too.....

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

re : the letter writing - I tend to agree, although I'm an absolutely incurable optimist, so would also support raising this directly with the foundation at the same time.

I'll probably send a letter in my own name, to the Australian authorities by April / May if we just can't get any traction for progress from the foundation end, and would be up for synchronising / making a combined effort.

For what it's worth also, I believe there's a good chance of some media coverage on this one too.....

I forked this topic with my own thoughts and a nice new eye catching title ... How to knock $1,000,000 holes in ....

The documentation of the porn is a dirty job for 'someones' to do but it will very much help those of us who feel strongly enough to take action on this.

Again, I think this is where collating archives of the Pee-dia over months are going to be helpful in establishing trends and players.

It would be futile on the scale of the Sorcerer Apprentice's just to "clean up" the Wiki, rather than aim for reform, because we know the same shit from the same arseholes - or individuals going through the arsehole phase - will merely return later ... unless serious reform is enabled.

Why should the rest of society ... the rest of "the community" ... the next generation of kids being enculted into Uncle Jimbo's Plaything ... pay for that?

[White Knight]

I'll probably send a letter in my own name, to the Australian authorities by April / May if we just can't get any traction for progress from the foundation end, and would be up for synchronising / making a combined effort. For what it's worth also, I believe there's a good chance of some media coverage on this one too.....

Sounds good. Rudd already banned half of the internet. What's one more website to the Great Firewall of Australia?

[Milton Roe]

I'll probably send a letter in my own name, to the Australian authorities by April / May if we just can't get any traction for progress from the foundation end, and would be up for synchronising / making a combined effort. For what it's worth also, I believe there's a good chance of some media coverage on this one too.....

Sounds good. Rudd already banned half of the internet. What's one more website to the Great Firewall of Australia?

How is it that the great country of giant knives and crocodiles, built by former criminals and surrounded by wild bush frontiers--- seems presently to be run entirely by maiden-aunts? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) Got to be a story, there. Perhaps some juice is Oz plants that makes the testicles shrink?

[privatemusings]

* ps. - links below are very much 'not safe for work' *

so, partly inspired by previous work by gallant wikipedia reviewers, I thought it might be interesting to make a short video - sort of the equivalent of my essay.

My plan (ok, not really a plan, but my 'I scratched my head for 20 seconds and came up with this thing....) is to try and get a bit of feedback, probably write and record a better script, and then try and solicit some reactions / feedback from a bit of a wider field.

It's a work in progress, and I have a few other ideas, about which more anon.....





This post has been edited by privatemusings:

[Somey]

It's a work in progress, and I have a few other ideas, about which more anon.....

Eeek. Well, the first thing I would suggest (though it's a bit more work) would be to float the URL of each image directly in front, to make the point that you're not just showing porn imagery from, like, wherever.

Your script is fine, though it might help to have some recorded statements by other people spliced in, just for good measure. (Maybe I could even record one - I got a new microphone recently, and it sounds much better! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) )

[privatemusings]

...float the URL of each image directly in front, to make the point that you're not just showing porn imagery from, like, wherever.

that's a good idea - and I don't think it's very hard? (I'm just using 'picasa' to make the video) - for the extra stupid, I'll probably add a 'these are actual images from wikimedia projects' caption too?

.. it might help to have some recorded statements by other people spliced in, just for good measure. (Maybe I could even record one - I got a new microphone recently, and it sounds much better! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) )

sounds great :-) - one other idea I've had is to make 5 or 6 short vid.s and then release them once every couple of weeks - things like some screen grab.s of previous discussions (there's been some spectacular point-missing on noticeboards in the past!) - and maybe quotes from jimmy etc. - there's probably also some audio from the wikivoices chat that can be used too?

If you're up for making a 30 sec. statement (or hey, go the full castro, and we'll extend to a couple of hours, right?!) that'd be great - same goes for anyone else reading this - reply to this thread to indicate interest, if that's cool...

[privatemusings]

I posted to foundation-l about this, and flicked jimmy a note too - just for the record.

This post has been edited by privatemusings:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Take some pageshots of the Wikipedia images before they are removed

http://www.webcitation.org/

[dogbiscuit]

Excellent video, though it put me off me cornflakes. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Very nice, low key voiceover. Put in the references to Wikipedia and then get people to forward to their senators??? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

[thekohser]

My key recommendations would be to point out the "most visited pages" list, to demonstrate that Wikipedia is, in a way, primarily acting as a sex- and porn-related web portal. And then to remind the viewer that Wikipedia's governing foundation captured over $7 million in 2009, mostly tax-advantaged contributions. Thus, American taxpayers can catch a break on their personal income tax return by subsidizing an Internet porn portal.

That should get more than a few Republicans fired up.