DirectNic Demands SlicksNetwork.com Hand Over Model IDs

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by AnotherGrogan

I've stated my opinion (and it's factual about the thumbnail links on the reallyeighteen site being redirects... rather obvious when I click them)

That is still no excuse for what I saw on the various sites in question and I never went past the thumbs.

Each and every webmaster has the responsibility of running their sites in an honest, ethical method and also need to be constantly policing themselves. The only possible excuse for not being in full control of the content of your site and the links from your sites would be getting hacked and in that case it should be a very temporary thing. It is also every webmasters responsibility to make sure their sites do not get hacked by keeping adequate security in place.

[softball]

Originally Posted by sarettah

That is still no excuse for what I saw on the various sites in question and I never went past the thumbs.

Each and every webmaster has the responsibility of running their sites in an honest, ethical method and also need to be constantly policing themselves. The only possible excuse for not being in full control of the content of your site and the links from your sites would be getting hacked and in that case it should be a very temporary thing. It is also every webmasters responsibility to make sure their sites do not get hacked by keeping adequate security in place.

For once we actually agree on something.

[AnotherGrogan]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Each and every webmaster has the responsibility of running their sites in an honest, ethical method and also need to be constantly policing themselves. The only possible excuse for not being in full control of the content of your site and the links from your sites would be getting hacked and in that case it should be a very temporary thing. It is also every webmasters responsibility to make sure their sites do not get hacked by keeping adequate security in place.

As I said, perhaps he needs to do just that (re-evaluate his affiliates). What DirectNIC has done is overstepping their bounds. My point about it being redirects is, how would it be possible to submit "ID" for the models in the links that are just redirects?

In my time at that site (reallyeighteen), I saw nothing in the thumbnails that made me think it might lead to "cp". Young looking college age girls are not kiddie porn either.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by AnotherGrogan

As I said, perhaps he needs to do just that (re-evaluate his affiliates). What DirectNIC has done is overstepping their bounds. My point about it being redirects is, how would it be possible to submit "ID" for the models in the links that are just redirects?

In my time at that site (reallyeighteen), I saw nothing in the thumbnails that made me think it might lead to "cp". Young looking college age girls are not kiddie porn either.

Reallyeighteen was not the one causing the trouble from what I saw. Directnic basically siezed his entire account so everything he had registered with them was hit.

[AnotherGrogan]

Ok, sorry for having tunnel vision there. Reallyeighteen is the site that concerned me because it's one that I was using. I do also recall landing on amateurcurves through the redirects, but didn't realize they were the same people. I don't recall seeing anything bad there either.

I really hadn't given it much thought until today.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by AnotherGrogan

Ok, sorry for having tunnel vision there. Reallyeighteen is the site that concerned me because it's one that I was using. I do also recall landing on amateurcurves through the redirects, but didn't realize they were the same people. I don't recall seeing anything bad there either.

I really hadn't given it much thought until today.

TGP Networks will trade to sites both within their network and outside of them. It's a way for them to grow the number of clicks that come into their sites, and (in theory) increase sales.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by AnotherGrogan

As I said, perhaps he needs to do just that (re-evaluate his affiliates). What DirectNIC has done is overstepping their bounds. My point about it being redirects is, how would it be possible to submit "ID" for the models in the links that are just redirects?

In my time at that site (reallyeighteen), I saw nothing in the thumbnails that made me think it might lead to "cp". Young looking college age girls are not kiddie porn either.

I think you're referring to what they call in TGP as a SKIM. There's a difference between when you click a thumb and the skim sends you to a trade (in effect sending you to another site), or when it sends you to a gallery listing. A gallery listing oftentimes will have a link at the bottom with a "click here for 2257 information". Those are the listings that are "resident" to the tgp, as they are static links. THe redirected links are other people's sites, essentially.

[AnotherGrogan]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

I think you're referring to what they call in TGP as a SKIM. There's a difference between when you click a thumb and the skim sends you to a trade (in effect sending you to another site), or when it sends you to a gallery listing. A gallery listing oftentimes will have a link at the bottom with a "click here for 2257 information". Those are the listings that are "resident" to the tgp, as they are static links. THe redirected links are other people's sites, essentially.

Thanks for the explanation. I didn't know the terminology, but yes that's what I'm describing. Most thumbnail links on tgp sites do seem to lead to other domains, but I never really thought about which ones are resident. I just thought of those tgp sites as portals to affiliate and advertiser sites.

I've learned a few things by reading some threads here today and following some links, including a bit about how many of these TGP sites operate. I didn't realize the degree of automation in updating the pages.

I've seen "2257" info before, but it always seemed to be more of a disclaimer to me. "These models were over the age of 18 when the pics were taken, and records are held by those who published the pics" or whatever it says. I never paid a lot of attention to it as I don't live in the US.

So then, a domain registrar might overstep their bounds in more ways than one. Namely, exerting self granted authority where laws like this have no jurisdiction. For example, someone might have no such requirement in another country to be able to produce such records (or as mentioned, it might even be prohibited by law to disclose such info), yet a righteous domain registrar can lock up the domains and demand that they produce this? Registrars should be just that... registrars.

Edit: I should think that sort of policing is more appropriate for a hosting provider, to object to content and take sites offline. Domain registrars should provide the administrative service of registering domains, impartially.

-----------------------------------------------

Also, thanks for the welcome Gonzo and LadyMischief. This looks like a pretty cool place :-)