Talk:Internet pornography

I don't think this is neutral.

To take the most obvious example, in paragraph 1, you say certain types of pornography are 'sick' and 'totally unacceptable'. This is definitely opinion, even if it is a very common opinion, and should be marked as such. Moreover, a good many people think that many of the other forms of pornography that you mention are sick and totally unacceptable.

Seems a good point to me. How's that?

Fonzy - All pornography is illegal somewhere; child porn is probably legal in some places. Therefore, singling out child porn as "illegal" is distinctly parochial. - Khendon

I do not believe that child porn is legal anywhere. Our children are children, they do not become a sexual beeing until their age of puberty. So, show me a country where the children enters the age of puberty earlier than other countries and you have a point.

What matters here is not your "common sense" reasoning, but what is considered legal or not in jurisdictions that may have standards vastly different from the Western world.

I know pornoraghy is illegal some where. But i dont know anywhere where child pornography is legal. -fonzy. But if it is legal somewhere(which i doubt) its illegal everywhere else. - fonzy

This page seems to be somewhat redundant. The pornography article covers most of this material. If there are no objections, I'll integrate any new material here with that article. --Stephen Gilbert 13:28 Sep 22, 2002 (UTC)

An 86 year old man I'm doing a film on told us about when he first had sex, at age 10. How's that for child pornography? Oh yeh, that would put it at 1926. Another blow to the reactionaries.  :-P --KQ

He seems to be an early adopter, and you know very well that is not what this discussion is about.

No. I did not know that, and I did think it relevant. You would do well not to make assumptions about what people do and do not know.

My point is: he wanted to have sex, he had sex. To him, it was no big deal. We may find it disgusting but he wouldn't care. In other words, leave your value judgments out of the article.  :-) Best, --KQ

But how's he doing now, sexwise?

Removed ....

Nowadays, few other Internet industries can say they pull the kind of money that Internet pornography pulls every year.

Internet pornography has undergone the same sort of shakeup as other businesses. There really are relatively few sites that are actually making money.

(Answer to above regarding only a few sites making money)

From an inside industry perspective, that statement is half true. As everyone knows, the internet and what works/doesn't work is in constant transition...several years ago membership and large paysites were the rage and making outstanding money.

What's happened now is that as the online world has evolved, you can basically access anything you want for free from a mutlitude of sources relatively easily; even the most casual user can generally be taught and understands quite quickly how to use downloading tools to get access to what they want.

Hence outright membership sites have been in decline for probably the last 5 years; why would people pay money for things they can access free with a little effort? There are quite a few membership sites holding out against the tide, and some will say they are still going strong, but having worked for one I've seen the figures and they are trending one way.

Another evolution has been the absolute tidal wave of smaller paysites featuring a single XXX star or a particular genre, and these are still proving reasonably profitable, although you will find larger companies are working many of these satellite sites under various names. They are still making money because what they have is still relatively unique and the content contained within still isn't too widely distributed.

Again, in a few years that will change, and these satellite sites will also cease to be profitable, especially when adminstering multiple sites can be cumbersome and hard to organise for a larger company.

The website I administer started as a paysite...much to my chagrin, but as a team of people the decision was made despite what I've seen happening since 2000. It didn't last long in that format, and is now a free site. You can't hold back the tide, you have to go with it. We essentially are in a format that you once found only in large membership-based models, except we do it free.

Our site makes reasonable income from affiliate sales and a VOD theater (video on demand which is profitabile because they offer ease of use and range of choice, and also because they are generally very cheap). Sponsorship will also be an increasing factor as the site grows. But I would argue that the days of the mega-porn sites making mega-bucks, especially membership based ones, are just about over.

Regards,

Madison http://www.theeroticwoman.com

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madison H (talk • contribs) 05:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

What does this mean?

"Internet pornography is distributed primarily via websites through USENET."

The whole first paragraph is redundant and uninformative and the article as whole seems to be defensive and somewhat POV. Ortolan88

I removed the italicized text, inserted by 61.9.192.173:

Today there are many forms of internet pornography available, though these should not be made available to children, and adult supervision must be maintained:

While this is certainly a common enough point of view, Wikipedia does not have an opinion on the matter. We can state (as is elsewhere stated in the article) that many people do have beliefs about protecting children from pornography, but we should always be careful to ascribe those beliefs to some person rather than expressing them in Wikipedia's own voice. --FOo 22:37 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

On the proposed list of pornographic websites: I am not sure that Wikipedia is capable of sustaining such a list without causing huge problems. First, it would be an open invitation to spammers. Second, there are hundreds of thousands of pornographic Web sites if the term is construed widely, and the list changes too rapidly for Wikipedia to keep up. Third, even a list of "important" pornographic Web sites would be filled with points of massive contention, since nobody can be expected to agree on what is or isn't pornography. —FOo 14:00, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Limiting it to porn sites with Wikipedia articles might help. Or lead to a spate of articles about porn sites... —tregoweth 15:36, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Beating a very (I hope) dead horse here.. Can't we just change the statement from "child porn is sick" to "child porn is considered sick by [..]"? Possibly with a proviso that the exact definition of "child" may differ from place to place (possibly with examples)? I'm sure some reputable source(s) can be found for that statement - like to U.S. DOJ, European Union, United Nations..

I know, this is basically a, "can't we all just get along?" statement.. which seem to be much out of fashion in the world today... Jimw338 (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have completed a complete rewrite of this article though it could possibly use further improvement. I'm also working on a seperate article to discuss the legal issues related to internet pornography in different contries so as to keep this article at a managable length. I kept a brief summery of the legal situation though with a link to the posted article. --Cab88 09:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Seriously. Even after the current rewrite it looks too dowdy without illustrations. Surely there must be a way to provide some? Mareklug ^talk 09:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I added some screenshot pictures appropriate for use in this article. --Cab88 11:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

18 years ago 223.224.13.68 (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the pictures should be included here - especially the first one. I imagine that an encyclopedia would want to be informative about internet porn, but the picture is a little much. I am deleting it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.165.220 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 November 2005.

Sorry ... Wikipedia is not censored. If you're looking for a place where it's acceptable to censor information because you are offended by it, then you're looking for a different encyclopedia project. --FOo 05:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Dude,you are looking at an article of an adult website...so what would you expect,Donald Duck serenading Barbie. Sugreev2001 13:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I remember reading in PC Answers once that at one time the most common form of Internet fraud consisted of bogus pornographic websites which asked for credit card details, supposedly as proof of age. Does anyone here know more about this? GCarty 15:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm editing the following section under "Legal status":

The concern over internet pornography is largely the result of activists and politicians who have expressed concern of the easy availability of pornography, especially by minors. This has led to a variety of attempts to restrict children’s access to internet porn such as the Communications Decency Act, many of which have either been ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court or are currently tied up in court.

This section sounds like thinly-veiled POV--first arguing without support that "the concern over internet pornography" really is mostly just activists and politicians, then generally implying (with no details) that attempts to restrict it have failed or are hopeless. It also seems unduly preoccupied with the U.S. --Mr. Billion 09:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi-

There's a mention (in the History section) of how porn was distributed over BBSes. While this is most definately true, BBSes are NOT the Internet in any way, shape or form (hmm, was FidoNet integrated with a few apps that ran on the 'net?). I'm also very unsure about whether or not people were sharing stuff on Usenet before BBSes.

Stilroc 05:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Those are good points. I've made some corrections to the article. KarlBunker 10:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for removing that piece of info without even discussing it. I'll try to keep up with any relevant discussions in case of future edits. -FrostyBytes 22:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

As mentioned above, BBSes are not the Internet. Should the title for this article not be "Online pornography"? 91.64.30.17 16:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Since BBS's are no longer a major player, I think the title "Internet pornography" best reflects the current situation. Including mention of BBS's makes sense as a part of the history, but I don't think that mention warrants changing the name of the article. In any case, "Online pornography" currently redirects to this article. KarlBunker 16:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think the above article should be merged here because it talks about alternate ways to access porn through the web. --w^{L<speak·check>} 00:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

wtf does that have to with porn, it's the wii article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.208.135 (talk) 02:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

There are several problems with this edit:

1. An image has been removed with no reason given, See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored.
2. "Web 2.0" is a buzzword rather than a meaningful term.
3. It is claimed that free sites have been "criticized" for cutting into the profits of pay sites. This isn't supported by the reference given, and is simply silly; the only ones who would "criticize" such a thing are those who are losing profits, and the correct term would be "complain about" rather than "criticize."
4. It isn't established that the disproportionate coverage given to "PornTube" style sites is warranted by the relative popularity of such sites.
5. It is stated that such sites "bypass spam, ads, and troublesome cookies." This is unsupported, and probably incorrect.
6. It is stated that such sites "have become the most visited pornography websites on the entire internet." This is also unsupported.
7. It is stated that the videos in such sites "are full-length instead of short clips." This is unsupported, arguably incorrect, and "full-length" and "short" aren't defined.
8. The edit repeats material elsewhere in the article.
9. The writing of the edit is generally poor.

Nevertheless, the mention of YouTube-style sites is a valid addition to the article, IMO. I've added this to the appropriate section of the article. RedSpruce 13:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

If I am not mistaken, there was once under "see also" or perhaps "sources", a pdf essay (sort of) that had the name "Downloaded & Downgraded", or something like that. Now I don't know if it was even for this article, but I don't know wich article it was obviously and I need to find a place to ask. I would really like to obtain this pdf again, I guess it's still out on the net somewhere. But I cannot find it. I've been Googling for it for weeks. Again, it was about internet pornography addiction, rather. If anyone know, or have a clue, please respond. Thanks. / Daniel (SWEDEN) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonn.daniel (talk • contribs) 11:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:Porn-site.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

This has been fixed. RedSpruce (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Internet pornography is pornography that is distributed via the Internet." O RLY? --71.83.118.171 (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Need samples like this? http://top100.elfpot.com/ --SbmUser (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

TGP --SbmUser (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

100.34.149.19 (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Realy need this part ? --SbmUser (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Everyone knows that porn is always at the vanguard of technological advances on the internets. I'd say that's worth mentioning, if someone can come up with some citations. 202.64.168.196 (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

If everyone knows it, then surely you can find a citation to a reliable source that demonstrates it? --FOo (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have added a section on child porn. Please feel free to add additional references to it as appropriate. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The line: "The production of child pornography has become very profitable, bringing in several billion dollars a year, and is no longer limited to pedophiles" seems to be completely unfounded other than referencing an opinion piece written by some random attorney.

"The Roth Commission also determined that there was no evidence for the existence of large underground networks of commercial traders, despite the claims regularly made in the media and some official documents. Child pornography was made almost exclusively for private use by the makers:

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of child pornography seized in arrests made in the United States has not been produced or distributed for profit."

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1.htm

--70.180.165.244 (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Rule 34 redirects here but isn't mentioned on the page. Can anybody add a definition for this or is there a reason it's been excluded? Just curious. Neil McKillop (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey all you XKCD readers - rule 34 is basically that there is porn out there involving *every* topic. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rule%2034 And Wolfram's rule 34 is something completely different, having to do with cellular atomata and programming. Get it? Get it? ErikHaugen (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, we get it.

Neil has a point, if we're going to redirect Rule 34 to this page at all, we need some description of it on the page. Wellspring (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Rule 34 is not some kind of inside joke. Even my 13-year-old has heard of it (although, like me, she wonders what list it's rule #34 of). We need some mention here, even if there was a consensus at some distant past point that it didn't need its own article. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Agreed on the redirect needing some more info, as I just got here due to the same XKCD comic. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 15:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, since no one seemed too against having the definition here, I've added it. I'm not all too sure on how to reference the fact that it's fairly widespread on the internet, so that might have to be cited later if anyone can find something. Terovian (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is an utterly non-notable inside joke, totally without meaningful references. I like xkcd too, but Wikipedia is not here to document jokes on the internet. Can anyone provide a reference other than urban dictionary and xkcd itself, to justify the assertion that this idea is "widespread"? It not, it shouldn't appear here; and no, the redirect is not an excuse to keep the mention, if it's no longer relevant it can be deleted. -- SCZenz (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Err... The redirect *is* an excuse to mention it in the article. Otherwise someone should just delete the redirect. 209.173.13.162 (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Once the redirect is established as irrelevant, as I just said, it can be deleted. But the existence of a redirect can't possibly be used as a justification for the inclusion of material that doesn't otherwise fit. But hey, if it makes you feel better, I'll get started on having the redirect deleted right now! -- SCZenz (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm still new on the "trivial vs. non-trivial" argument, but search Google images for "rule 34" with the safe search off. I'm convinced it's real considering both the total number of entries and different websites on which the the images appear. Tucson Indigo (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Rule 34 existed long before xkcd did a comic on it. A simple google search will show thousands of links referencing it. In any event, the fact remains that there's a redirect and we're not mentioning the topic being redirected from. Wellspring (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

A number of feminists, such as Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon have argued that pornography is degrading and objectifying to women and therefore should be outlawed. Other feminists, such as Patricia Petersen, have argued that pornography may play an important role in reducing the incidence of sex crimes and violence against women and children. She also argues that neither women nor the government have the right to tell adult women what to do with their bodies and that if they choose to be pornographic models then that this their business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.56.231 (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I added the below link and it was deleted by Orangemike 6 minutes later as "irrelevant to article". This article has an extensive discussion Child Pornography and the link provided has resources to help people who are concerned about downloading such material. It's non-comercial and not politically or religously biased. While it may be more appropiate on the Pornography addiction page it is still relevant here. Link= CROGA.org provider of free, multi-lingual, anonymous self-help resources for people who are worried about downloading and using illegal images Stillwaterising (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

But the link is not about internet pornography, the subject of this article. That link may be useful for some people, but it doesn't add anything to the readers' understanding of what internet pornography is. Wikipedia is not a directory; and "It's useful!" is not a very strong argument. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Bangladesh has about 84 pornography web site. Regularly a huge number of porno enter into site every day and minute, reported Prothom alo on 25 oct issue.BTRC failed to control the web site. They reported it was the task of MoHomes. Sec Mohomes reported that if we control or stop the site nextday they they will start in another web site. Manusher jany Foundation surved and reported that77% child are the viewer of the pornosite.Bangladesh now passing very tough time. most of the elite peoples children spent their night viewing porno site without hegitation. Their parents are very busy withir earnig and personal affairs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azizur Rahman (talk • contribs) 09:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

How come the only mention of sexual abuse is in the child-pornography section? Many internet porn sites, whilst not regarded as "real" sexual abuse certinaly like to portray themselves in that vain and a form of abuse is often part of their "theme", for example: "Exploited Teens" (www.exploitedteens.com) "Bang Bus" (www.bangbus.com) "Anal Hell" (www.analhell.com) "Gag Fuck" (www.maxhardcore.com)

There should be a new section in the article describing how internet porn has pushed the subject matter to its limits and now offers punters thematic variations on all manners of seual abuse including incest, rape, anal pain, exploitation etc.

What also needs to be mentioned with regards to the developments that internet pornography has hastened is the categorization of the models or the types of sex, the standard categories are (by looking at two popular sites xhamster.com and pornhub.com):

 Amateur, Anal, Asian, BBW, BDSM, Bukkake Black and Ebony, Blondes, Blowjobs, Busty, Cartoons, Celebrities, Facials, Flashing, Funny, Group Sex, Hairy, Handjobs, Hardcore, Latina, Lesbians, Milf, Mature, Masturbation, Pornstars, Squirting, Teens

The could be a discussion about how, for example, some catgories refer to the race of the women (and where race is mentioned it is almost always in connection with the women), how some refer to the age (mature, teen, old), and how others refer to sexual fetishes (hair, fat, black skin) etc.

None of this is explored though patently obvious from even the most cursory glance at most internet porn sites.Mondoallegro (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Maybe because it is obvious? How else do you expect a male human to categorise porn? As much as every white person assumes a white person when told about one without the race mentioned at all, as much every man assumes a male person when told about one without the sex mentioned.

You could write a whole article about psychological schemes in porn, but why instead and especially mention the phenomenon in an article about internet porn? - 92.225.45.83 (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and I forgot to clearly say: You have these categories for example in video stores and adult movie theaters also. - 92.225.45.83 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

{{editsemiprotected}} The first reference: ^ "Article 'Adult on Web' – Jun. 5, 2007". http://pornjade.com/articles/1.html. Retrieved 2007-07-28.

points to a parked domain: which contains essentially just a solicitation to sell the parked domain "This domain may be for sale. Buy this Domain"

64.89.225.29 (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Partly done: Reference has been tagged with {{dead link}}. In due course it will be replaced with a live one or just deleted. Favonian (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

From the comments above, it seems there is a fair consensus that this page does require images. And that such images are not inappropriate.

As per WP:NOT and specifically WP:Sexual_content, Wikipedia is not censored. In fact: "Wikipedia contains content which is likely to offend others. Sexual content cannot be removed from Wikipedia just because it is sexually charged."

That said, while it would be inappropriate to mention anything along the lines of "sexual content ahead" (that should be fairly obvious from the article's title at least) perhaps we can link somewhere to this: Wikipedia:Options_to_not_see_an_image. If only to staunch future editors from removing the images out of offendedness, and unwittingly partaking in vandalism.

--Carbon Rodney 15:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

The link for Internet pornography statistics should be removed, given that the page no longer exists and clicking it just redirects to this one. Also, other contributors discussing the deletion came to the consensus that the contents should be merged with this article. However, I can't fix either of these issues because I haven't made enough edits to Wikipedia yet, and this article is semi-protected (probably better fixed by a more experienced editor anyway). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candyguitar (talk • contribs) 19:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

In order to delete the redirect, you have to start a discussion at WP:Redirects for discussion. It's not likely that the redirect will be deleted, though, because it's been around for a few months.

Also, the deletion discussion was closed as "redirect", not "merge and redirect". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, 76.103.213.6 (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

What makes that an appropriate category for this article? Internet pornography is not censored everywhere. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think an image which represents both pornography and the internet, such as a performer from a website. however, i couldnt find any good ones (lots of shots of people at awards events). the closest i get is this:

 

which is horrible, but you get the idea. everyone knows what a pornographic image looks like. can we find one that somehow exemplified internet porn?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

PS when i used the search terms "internet" and "pornography" at the commons, i got 34 listings....Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

here's a better one:

 

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do we really need an image? Neither of these two images really supports the text. peterl (talk) 09:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

41.189.162.14 (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Internet pornography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071008070541/http://pornjade.com/articles/1.html to http://pornjade.com/articles/1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150227102036/http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_02-19-2006/Andrew_Vachss to http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_02-19-2006/Andrew_Vachss

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is a question I am trying to get a handle on. I haven't found even rough estimates yet. If anyone knows a source please respond. Anonymous8083 (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I have found a source and now I would like to make an edit to the page.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I think this info is very important, so I suggest putting it in the article lead, although at the end.

A 2015 study finds "a big jump" in pornography viewing over the past few decades, with the largest increase occurring between people born in the 1970s and those born in the 1980s. While the study's authors note this increase is "smaller than conventional wisdom might predict," it's still quite significant. Children born in the 1980s onward are also the first to grow up in a world where they have access to the Internet beginning in their teenage years, and this early exposure and access to Internet pornography may be the primary driver of the increase.^[1]

Anonymous8083 (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Done clpo13_(talk) 23:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

124.206.170.138 (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

"The NCMEC estimated in 2003 that 20 percent of all pornography traded over the Internet was child pornography [...]" This sounds unreasonable. The paragraph claims to cite an article written by NCMEC called "CHILD PORN AMONG FASTEST GROWING INTERNET BUSINESSES", and it links to the dead page http://www.ncmec.org/missingkids/servlet/NewsEventServlet?.LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2064. The wayback machine (http://web.archive.org/web/20120209222049/http://www.ncmec.org/missingkids/servlet/NewsEventServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2064) allowed me to view the original article, which in itself cites another article, “Internet Sex Crimes Against Minors: The Response of Law Enforcement, November 2003. (Alexandria, Virginia: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, November 2003)" page 3. I found this document at http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV70.pdf, but page 3 is just the title page, and I cannot find corroborating statistics. The closest is on page 17, but it makes no claims as to "the estimated number of all pornography traded over the internet".

This needs to be corrected, but I'm not sure how. I don't have any wikipedia skeels :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamkiller (talk • contribs) 22:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Internet pornography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080306150623/http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/childporn.html to http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/childporn.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150415101647/http://www.icmec.org/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_X1&PageId=4346 to http://www.icmec.org/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_X1&PageId=4346
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150608012528/http://polis.osce.org/library/f/4060/3771/GOV-USA-RPT-4060-EN-3771 to http://polis.osce.org/library/f/4060/3771/GOV-USA-RPT-4060-EN-3771

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

37.237.154.21 (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Tollens (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Following an edit to improve Information behavior I thought I'd link a reference to this page as well but since the page is semi protected I cannot do so. I have not bothered to register an account since I mostly do small edits such as adding references, but maybe someone else could do the following:

1. there's a spurious section with the title "Usenet" that could be removed (or its content prefixed to the "Usenet News" section
2. the last paragraph of the "Usenet News" section could be promoted to be a section in its own right (suggestion: "Internet search engines")
3. a last couple sentences added to the new section: "Commercial search engines report that a sizeable proportion of their search traffic is search for adult or erotic material but are unwilling to disclose the exact percentage. Much of the end consumption of erotic material, as evidenced in log studies and dwell time metrics at one major search engine, consists in fact of exploring the contents of the database rather than downloading the contents.
4. and here's the reference for a workshop where those things were discussed and reported:

^[1]

make the usa spreed the world weird 2601:204:D77F:9440:C897:70C6:BC01:3390 (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Partly done: by MtPenguinMonster (the first suggestion). For the others, perhaps you could give a more complete write-up of the suggested new section, with all the sources needed to support the section. Pinchme123 (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply