Well it's been an eventful few days. Blogger decided to back down, kinda/maybe. They aren't gonna set the blogs to private, but the will be "stepping up enforcement around our existing policy prohibiting commercial porn". Whatever the fuck that means. Maybe it just applies to photo porn like with Patreon. Maybe it applies to even just having links to places like my site, or Affect3d, or Rotica. Who knows. It's the usual shit of being vague to keep their options open. So gonna leave the blog here for the moment. Will do the groundwork so I can transfer it to my site if need be. But don't wanna spend the time actually setting it up unless I have to. Got more important stuff to be doing right now - like learning game development. So in any case here's Google's statement on the matter...
An update on the Blogger porn content policy
This week, we announced a change to Blogger’s porn policy stating that blogs that distributed sexually explicit images or graphic nudity would be made private.
We’ve received lots of feedback about making a policy change that impacts longstanding blogs, and about the negative impact this could have on individuals who post sexually explicit content to express their identities.
We appreciate the feedback. Instead of making this change, we will be maintaining our existing policies.
Great. Thanks for being indecisively bad, Google.
In other news, there was the FCC vote on the whole net neutrality thing. Which is yet another giant tangled mess. Should service providers be able to charge for premium service or excessive usage? The raving capitalist in me says "yes". I mean it's kinda bullshit that most of the burden on the internet is imposed by a relatively small minority of sites - movies streaming, communications, large merchants, etc. Shouldn't they have to pay more? Plus, it's the ISPs business, they should be able to do what they want with it. And if they offer shitty service then somebody else will rise to replace them. Except of course, it's not that easy. Since internet providers have long-long-long running contracts with cities preventing the installation of other high-speed cables, thus preventing competition. Seriously, how is that legal?
And then there is the issue of - what is to prevent providers from extorting people for better service? ISPs already limit the traffic speed on the internet. It could run much much faster, they just prevent it for a variety of reasons both legitimate and nefarious. So what is to prevent them from choking it even more unless users pay higher fees? Well other than a sense of decency and good customer service, neither of which seem to matter much when you are the only game in town. The only option is of course, regulation. *queue ominous music*
Thus we end up with the FCC's vote. All data treated the same, no blocking, no prioritization. Seems fairly decent. Kind of. So yeah. Except something keeps nagging me. I mean, being from 'Murica, I recognize that we control the entire world. Oddly enough though, people in other countries don't always seem to agree on that absolute fact. (Weird, I know.) So are ISPs in other countries bound by the FCC's rules? Obviously they should be, but what happens if they block, throttle, or prioritize content? Do we invade them? Send a strongly worded letter? Pull a China and put up a Great Firewall against them? How do these rulings matter on a worldwide stage? Which is annoying enough, but there is something else in these rules.
"Broadband providers may not block access to legal content." "Providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic." "Providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic." Yeeaaahh. What exactly is the definition of "legal" and "lawful" again? How set in stone are those definitions? How does one even determine if specific content is illegal or unlawful? Is one instance of illegal content enough to justify illegal traffic? Or does it have to be repeated offenses? If Youtube users upload copyrighted material, does that make the traffic illegal? How does any of this shit work? How is it enforced? I know it's quibbling over details, but those things do tend to come back and bite us in the ass.
And finally, sucks that Leonard Nimoy died. Not surprising, cuz the guy looked... well "not good" in the last Trek movie. Like if you gave him a light push he would fall over dead. But still sucks.