It used to be said, and maybe still is, that Mormon-owned Marriott Corporation was one of the biggest purveyors of porn in the country. Surely it is now Google, except that they give it to you for free.

There are no age requirements to view the pix Google provides, and what parent would think to censor the leading search engine? Type "sexy twink" on an image search and the first pic is of a boy with his dick hanging out of his pants. The second pic is of a boy barebacking another boy. There is masturbation, cocksucking, butthole displays and on. And, to my eye, some of the guys seem younger than 18. Surely Google wouldn't provide that. But do the search yourself and see if you'd post the pic of the younger looking guys. Tampa Yankee would yank it right away!

I'm not posting any pix, I'm just sharing the findings that Google is a porn site and should at least make some effort to filter for age.

I believe this is called whistle blowing even if you are not a Google insider.

It used to be said, and maybe still is, that Mormon-owned Marriott Corporation was one of the biggest purveyors of porn in the country. Surely it is now Google, except that they give it to you for free.

There are no age requirements to view the pix Google provides, and what parent would think to censor the leading search engine? Type "sexy twink" on an image search and the first pic is of a boy with his dick hanging out of his pants. The second pic is of a boy barebacking another boy. There is masturbation, cocksucking, butthole displays and on. And, to my eye, some of the guys seem younger than 18. Surely Google wouldn't provide that. But do the search yourself and see if you'd post the pic of the younger looking guys. Tampa Yankee would yank it right away!

I'm not posting any pix, I'm just sharing the findings that Google is a porn site and should at least make some effort to filter for age.

Google isn't a content producer, it only delivers what other people have published on the web.

Search results are basically dependent on the metadata and text associated with the image by the publisher. In your example, I don't see any way the search algorithm can distinguish between 'age appropriate' and inappropriate images unless the image publishers have identified them as such in some way. The pictures come from pages with the words 'sexy twink' - some are hard-core, some are not.

It's a challenge.

And in the interest of disclosure, I should note that I am (was?) a librarian by training and still have that anti-censorship bias. (But I do recognize that sometimes censorship is appropriate. The tricky part part is when and by whom?)

Very interesting and something I had not really thought about before, probably because I don't have kids. But if I did, then I probably would have some concerns about this (although I also am not a big fan of censorship). I don't know how good it is, but google does have a surf control option called SafeSearch that can be activated and makes an attempt to limit adult content. http://www.google.com/goodtoknow/familysafety/tools/ I believe, from what I saw on a cursory review, that it does address image searches. Now I have no idea how well it works (or not) as I haven't given it a try but at least something is out there if parents so choose to use it (if they are even aware it exists).

Very interesting and something I had not really thought about before, probably because I don't have kids. But if I did, then I probably would have some concerns about this (although I also am not a big fan of censorship). I don't know how good it is, but google does have a surf control option called SafeSearch that can be activated and makes an attempt to limit adult content. http://www.google.com/goodtoknow/familysafety/tools/ I believe, from what I saw on a cursory review, that it does address image searches. Now I have no idea how well it works (or not) as I haven't given it a try but at least something is out there if parents so choose to use it (if they are even aware it exists).

Very interesting - thanks for investigating. it looks like they've managed much better than I thought they could.

Here's a link to the video showing how to engage 'SafeSearch'. Lucky's example search looks much 'cleaner' when SafeSearch is engaged.

I do wonder how many parents, etc. are aware of this - I find it odd that the option appears on results pages rather than the search pages. it looks like parents could also 'lock' the filter.