DirectNic Demands SlicksNetwork.com Hand Over Model IDs

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by sudden

You sure know how to beat a dead horse. Bitching about the same fucking thing .. and I dont just mean this, but every.. fucking.. thing.. over.. and.. over.. again..

It's like you like dragging shit thru mud not just once or twice, but until the river of mud has been entirely absorbed by whatever you're dragging.

And I'm not arguing about if what Lars did is good or bad, merely the fact that the majority of your posts contain bitching in the same fashion about a subject that changes about once every two to four weeks.

Ok lets talk about the business model of using a bogus virus scan that tells you that your machine is infected and even pops out the CD tray to encourage the surfer to get the "cure" which is nothing more than a trojan for adware.

[softball]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Ok lets talk about the business model of using a bogus virus scan that tells you that your machine is infected and even pops out the CD tray to encourage the surfer to get the "cure" which is nothing more than a trojan for adware.

I'm with Gonzo on this. But not on the kid gloves attitude to Directnic which I think....and do most of the boards I have read today....that it is outrageous.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

I'm with Gonzo on this. But not on the kid gloves attitude to Directnic which I think....and do most of the boards I have read today....that it is outrageous.

I dont think he will want to talk about it.

[softball]

Originally Posted by gonzo

I dont think he will want to talk about it.

Oh I am sure. But unless you know something that most don't, then something is really off the rails here. Putting someone out of business on a whim (or so it seems since there has been no directnic response) is just outrageous. That is, unless you are trying to go for another market...ie straight mainstream market, and are trying to position your company as a porn buster. Like I said, Joe Kennedy.

[tony404]

Internet policing ? its called a industry regulating itself or the government starts regulating for you. Imagine if everyone policed cp on line instead of waiting for the police. If you got proof everyone is of age ,you really got nothing to worry about.There would be no safe place for cp to happen in the internet world. oh I forgot in the online world its everyone's god given right to do whatever the fuck they want until they are arrested.
Then they cry why do they pick on us. lol

[softball]

Originally Posted by tony404

Internet policing ? its called a industry regulating itself or the government starts regulating for you. Imagine if everyone policed cp on line instead of waiting for the police. If you got proof everyone is of age ,you really got nothing to worry about.There would be no safe place for cp to happen in the internet world. oh I forgot in the online world its everyone's god given right to do whatever the fuck they want until they are arrested.
Then they cry why do they pick on us. lol

Not everyone is legally able to give out that information unless it is to the proper legal authorities. So what do you do then

[Hammer]

It's not DN's job to 'police' anything and since when is DirectNic part of this industry that you think should be policing itself? This isn't a case of policing ourselves, this is a case of an outside source policing us and doing it illegally.

[tony404]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Not everyone is legally able to give out that information unless it is to the proper legal authorities. So what do you do then

to prove age a blacked out picture id with only pic and birthdate showing. Your giving no personal info away.

[Hell Puppy]

Originally Posted by tony404

Internet policing ? its called a industry regulating itself or the government starts regulating for you. Imagine if everyone policed cp on line instead of waiting for the police. If you got proof everyone is of age ,you really got nothing to worry about.There would be no safe place for cp to happen in the internet world. oh I forgot in the online world its everyone's god given right to do whatever the fuck they want until they are arrested.
Then they cry why do they pick on us. lol

This isn't industry regulation though. This is one company appointing itself as having the authority to shutdown another company's business based upon regulations that have never even been validated in a court of law by a judge. I think most of the "industry" in fact still feels that 2257 as written is unconstitutional in fact.

Now I'm not defending anyone who wants to take pics of very young looking girls without covering their ass and making sure they're 18 and having ample docs to back it up. But in this case, I'm thinking more and more based on information available that Directnic overstepped their bounds. I'd be ok with it if they'd just opted not to do business with the guy and bounced him. That's what I do with people whose practices I do not like, I simply dont do business with them.

But they are way out on a limb here by locking the domain where it cant be moved if that is indeed what is happening. I keep thinking there has to be more to this than meets the eye as it doesn't make sense for Directnic to make a move this harsh.

My docs are clean, but I have to admit that I'd be BEYOND PISSED if a registrar put me on the spot like that. I'm their customer and they want to scrutinize my business? It's like having your landlord want to come in and make sure you have all of the required DOL information posted on your bulletin board in the breakroom. That's not their role.

Hosts can request docs when DMCA is put into play. And 2257 says Uncle Sam can knock on your door and inspect your records. Beyond that, vendors have no entitlement to audit a damned thing.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Oh I am sure. But unless you know something that most don't, then something is really off the rails here. Putting someone out of business on a whim (or so it seems since there has been no directnic response) is just outrageous. That is, unless you are trying to go for another market...ie straight mainstream market, and are trying to position your company as a porn buster. Like I said, Joe Kennedy.

Ive seen the same thing as everyone else has concerning directnic.

Ill wait and see how this develops.

[sudden]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Ok lets talk about the business model of using a bogus virus scan that tells you that your machine is infected and even pops out the CD tray to encourage the surfer to get the "cure" which is nothing more than a trojan for adware.

Go ahead and talk about it. Doesn't make it the case. Putting emphasis on something, or elevating the risk more than other businesses and 'bogus' is not the same thing. And buying advertising from an ad network is not the same thing as owning the ad network. Though I understand the confusion, seeing as you have been stuck on the Lars deal for months now and still seem to think he's a partner in Zango.

Get your facts straight. Oh and maybe you should try some of the shit you keep bitching about so as to stop making a lousy $4k/mo I'm sure you'd be less interested in the business of others and their methods if you were at a decent income, like $40k/mo...

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by sudden

Go ahead and talk about it. Doesn't make it the case. Putting emphasis on something, or elevating the risk more than other businesses and 'bogus' is not the same thing. And buying advertising from an ad network is not the same thing as owning the ad network. Though I understand the confusion, seeing as you have been stuck on the Lars deal for months now and still seem to think he's a partner in Zango.

Get your facts straight. Oh and maybe you should try some of the shit you keep bitching about so as to stop making a lousy $4k/mo I'm sure you'd be less interested in the business of others and their methods if you were at a decent income, like $40k/mo...

So you think is a good business model to trick a surfer with a bogus virus scan and pop out the cd tray .... load the "fix" on the machine.. which is nothing more than a trojan for adware?

[sudden]

Originally Posted by gonzo

So you think is a good business model to trick a surfer with a bogus virus scan and pop out the cd tray .... load the "fix" on the machine.. which is nothing more than a trojan for adware?

Didn't say I did. Nor do I know who you're referring to when you mention a bogus virus scan. My point was you may want to try some ideas that you haven't tried as you're obviously not doing too well with what you're doing right now, and you seem very bitter about it complaining about what everyone else (who is doing well) is doing wrong.

And asking other's on how to do shady shit (but getting no help) doesn't count as far as trying ideas go.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by sudden

Didn't say I did. Nor do I know who you're referring to when you mention a bogus virus scan. My point was you may want to try some ideas that you haven't tried as you're obviously not doing too well with what you're doing right now, and you seem very bitter about it complaining about what everyone else (who is doing well) is doing wrong.

And asking other's on how to do shady shit (but getting no help) doesn't count as far as trying ideas go.

So you dont work for or own innovativemarketing?

[AnotherGrogan]

Hello folks

I'm not in the Adult Website business (though I've often thought about having an adult site)

I'm a user who has been going to reallyeighteen.com (and sites like it) periodically for a few years roughly and I'd like to share my perspective on this.

The problem as I perceive it is that the site doesn't really host the content, the thumbnails are redirects that pass control over to other sites and each time you click them you may end up somewhere else. The links don't always lead to the pictures shown in the thumbnails and once you get to another gallery of similar redirects you just don't know where you are going to end up if you click those links. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. Grannies, kiddies, animal sex... nothing to do with the thumbnail images.

Indeed, a few times I've ended up at galleries showing pictures of what are obviously children. I haven't worried that much about it because it was very infrequent and I just closed that particular browser tab if I saw anything like that, realizing it's not really their fault once control has been passed on to another site.

Yesterday, I noticed that there was no dns for reallyeighteen. At the time I thought it was just a temporary glitch, or they were moving or something. I know how to use whois and get the authoritative nameserver and then query that to get the IP. So I did that, and set up a hosts file entry for the site so the virtual hostname would work. It seemed to be business as usual, but I hadn't been there in a few weeks.

Today, when I checked and the problem still wasn't solved I started to suspect that something like this had occurred and started to search for answers. Google has de-listed them from their databases, citing a request from chillingeffects.org. So the only info I found was from a few (questionable) spyware removal sites with instructions for cookie removal (I use Linux so I don't give a shit about Windows malware, and I always delete cookies and browsing data after visiting adult sites so that's no problem either)

A Yahoo search led me to this discussion here and now I understand what's going on. Looking again at the registrar info, I now see it's in "Registrar-hold" status (didn't read the info that closely yesterday)

From my perspective, I'll not be going back to reallyeighteen again, because I simply don't want to be associated with the stigma of "kiddie porn". I like pictures of nice young ladies in the 18-20 age range (I'm not even especially fond of "hard core"), but I'm not exposing myself to some potential overzealous and righteous ISP employee for what I might accidently land on. It really got me thinking about that. Whether charges hold up in court or not, once you've been accused of anything to do with child porn you're finished.

It's unfortunate, and I agree that this should not be the job of a domain registrar. Not only that, how the Hell can they provide ID for the models when it's not even them who has "hired" them? Maybe I'm not fully understanding how all of this works, but it seems to me that perhaps slick networks just has to be more discriminating in their afiliations. Shutting them down is inappropriate. Cripes... drop their domains and let them transfer them or re-register elsewhere if they don't approve of the content. That's where the registrar's responsibility should end. Similar for Web hosts. Drop the customer if you don't approve, but don't fuck with them.

I'm sure I'm not alone in the way I think, so this has probably really hurt them. They'll not be able to use those domain names again... they'll have to start anew. This whole thing sickens me and that domain registrar can burn in Hell. I'll certainly never use or recommend them.

Again, I do not want to encounter child porn, but this is way over the top.

[gonzo]

Anyone here doesnt think this is a huge issue now?

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Anyone here doesnt think this is a huge issue now?

I thought so the second I saw the first post on GFY. Our lawyers are reviewing everything (on the US side). As far as the Canadian side I already know where we stand (as I am currently a privacy comissioner for our former content company, we still have to hold the records even if we are not currently conducting business).

[Peaches]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Anyone here doesnt think this is a huge issue now?

I think that's the fakest "surfer letter" I've ever seen.

[Jace]

Originally Posted by AnotherGrogan

Hello folks

I'm not in the Adult Website business (though I've often thought about having an adult site)

I'm a user who has been going to reallyeighteen.com (and sites like it) periodically for a few years roughly and I'd like to share my perspective on this.

The problem as I perceive it is that the site doesn't really host the content, the thumbnails are redirects that pass control over to other sites and each time you click them you may end up somewhere else. The links don't always lead to the pictures shown in the thumbnails and once you get to another gallery of similar redirects you just don't know where you are going to end up if you click those links. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. Grannies, kiddies, animal sex... nothing to do with the thumbnail images.

Indeed, a few times I've ended up at galleries showing pictures of what are obviously children. I haven't worried that much about it because it was very infrequent and I just closed that particular browser tab if I saw anything like that, realizing it's not really their fault once control has been passed on to another site.

Yesterday, I noticed that there was no dns for reallyeighteen. At the time I thought it was just a temporary glitch, or they were moving or something. I know how to use whois and get the authoritative nameserver and then query that to get the IP. So I did that, and set up a hosts file entry for the site so the virtual hostname would work. It seemed to be business as usual, but I hadn't been there in a few weeks.

Today, when I checked and the problem still wasn't solved I started to suspect that something like this had occurred and started to search for answers. Google has de-listed them from their databases, citing a request from chillingeffects.org. So the only info I found was from a few (questionable) spyware removal sites with instructions for cookie removal (I use Linux so I don't give a shit about Windows malware, and I always delete cookies and browsing data after visiting adult sites so that's no problem either)

A Yahoo search led me to this discussion here and now I understand what's going on. Looking again at the registrar info, I now see it's in "Registrar-hold" status (didn't read the info that closely yesterday)

From my perspective, I'll not be going back to reallyeighteen again, because I simply don't want to be associated with the stigma of "kiddie porn". I like pictures of nice young ladies in the 18-20 age range (I'm not even especially fond of "hard core"), but I'm not exposing myself to some potential overzealous and righteous ISP employee for what I might accidently land on. It really got me thinking about that. Whether charges hold up in court or not, once you've been accused of anything to do with child porn you're finished.

It's unfortunate, and I agree that this should not be the job of a domain registrar. Not only that, how the Hell can they provide ID for the models when it's not even them who has "hired" them? Maybe I'm not fully understanding how all of this works, but it seems to me that perhaps slick networks just has to be more discriminating in their afiliations. Shutting them down is inappropriate. Cripes... drop their domains and let them transfer them or re-register elsewhere if they don't approve of the content. That's where the registrar's responsibility should end. Similar for Web hosts. Drop the customer if you don't approve, but don't fuck with them.

I'm sure I'm not alone in the way I think, so this has probably really hurt them. They'll not be able to use those domain names again... they'll have to start anew. This whole thing sickens me and that domain registrar can burn in Hell. I'll certainly never use or recommend them.

Again, I do not want to encounter child porn, but this is way over the top.

after reading this a few times I have to agree it looks pretty fake

then again, the one thing I hate about the internet comes into play, you never fucking know anymore

[softball]

The veracity of that letter is way suspicious.