simey
msg:3319533 | 2:26 am on Apr 24, 2007 (gmt 0) |
80% seemed kind of high until I read "a site merely had to contain a single post containing profanity" "real-time traffic passing through the company corporate proxying service"
|
blend27
msg:3319545 | 2:40 am on Apr 24, 2007 (gmt 0) |
"unknowingly expose corporate networks to legal liability" I have contacted 19 Universities in US in the past 2 week, pointing out exact links that were posted to our guest book trap. All were linked to one domain from their pages. All were promoting Meds. Half of EDUs removed that junk to date. Open Blogs is a different story. Vast Majority of this content came from Published PROXY lists. P.S. Today was actualy slow, the only one we got was for "flowers in new york" from Latvia
|
cmendla
msg:3319578 | 3:42 am on Apr 24, 2007 (gmt 0) |
A lot depends on what is deemed to be offensive. One of the 'nannies' blocks the NRA website as a 'hate site'. Also, as a previous poster pointed out, one 'swear word' was enough to count...
|
callivert
msg:3319588 | 3:49 am on Apr 24, 2007 (gmt 0) |
| a variety of unpleasant content, including porn, offensive language, hate posting, and malware |
|
... just sneaking "malware" onto the end of the list, hoping we won't notice, huh?
I've seen this reported elsewhere, that you can get viruses, trojans, and malware from reading blogs.
Well, I'm a blog reader and contributor, and I've never heard of anyone, anywhere, ever, getting a virus, trojan or malware installed from reading a blog.
If there has ever been such a case, I'd be curious to hear about it.
|
natural number
msg:3319589 | 3:50 am on Apr 24, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Is it really even likely they scanned every blog on the internet?
|
blend27
msg:3319602 | 4:19 am on Apr 24, 2007 (gmt 0) |
--callivert
you mean to say you never seen "you are visitor # 1000000000000" and have your AV do a popup?
|
callivert
msg:3319609 | 4:41 am on Apr 24, 2007 (gmt 0) |
| you mean to say you never seen "you are visitor # 1000000000000" and have your AV do a popup? |
|
oh yeah sure, but I can't think of any time it happened with a blog. Maybe it has, but not in recent memory. The vast majority of blogs are templated straight from blogger, wordpress, and typepad.
I don't want to be too dogmatic about this. There probably are blogs out there somewhere with all kinds of crap* installed. But the overall rate is surely lower for blogs than for websites in general. *this post, and therefore ww, tripped the "porn, offensive content, hate speech, and malware" filter. sorry Brett.
|
dibbern2
msg:3319650 | 6:17 am on Apr 24, 2007 (gmt 0) |
| But the overall rate is surely lower for blogs than for websites in general. |
|
Surely? I believe it's exactly opposite of that statement. It should read: But the overall rate is surely higher for blogs than for websites in general.
|
decaff
msg:3319667 | 6:41 am on Apr 24, 2007 (gmt 0) |
As has been the case on the web with any technology that enables marketing messages (no matter how offensive or redundant) to be distributed using new distribution nets (blogs)...abuse is inevitable...it's simply human nature.. Where the user base is allowed to build out the content without some margin of close scrutiny...the "spammers" will find their way to the party and spoil the goods...
|
Joff
msg:3319742 | 9:01 am on Apr 24, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Re. offensive content... I should hope so too - blogs are (more often than not) an individual's web log, allowing them to rant about whatever current issue is tickling their fancy at any given time, using whatever language they see fit. If people are going to venture into the big world wide (nasty, evil, scary) web then they're going to have to appreciate not everyone is as holy as thou. People shocked by it should stick to AOL safe in the knowledge that Connie (whatever happened to her btw?) will protect them from naughty words and photos of women (and men) wearing skirts above the knee.
|
scotland
msg:3319793 | 9:53 am on Apr 24, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Most of the offensive items in question will come from comment spam - with url's leading to offensive sites, or sites with malware. Many blogs I have visited recently have comments swithed off for this very reason, and I do the same as I don't get enough visitors to justify paying for spam filtering on my wordpress based blogs. I guess if they analysed the content on most e-mails in the world it would also be offensive or illegal - based on the amount of spam being sent. A world without spam and malware would I think be great.
|
Brett_Tabke
msg:3319928 | 12:52 pm on Apr 24, 2007 (gmt 0) |
I think there is a big lesson here for those that want to target corporate readers. That is if you use profanity in your postings, you will be tripping corp proxy filters.
|
sugarrae
msg:3321667 | 8:10 pm on Apr 25, 2007 (gmt 0) |
>>>contain a single post containing profanity So, then my blog must be downright "obscene". :P >>>filters Yeah, that is a concern. I've been at the airport before and been unable to get a few of my regular reads from sites that I don't consider anyone near offensive.
|
stakaman
msg:3322315 | 11:13 am on Apr 26, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Completely open to interpretation. Using 'strong' language to express your feelings in a blog post should not classify it as offensive content. This is a matter of classic US puritanism.
|
henry0
msg:3322323 | 11:22 am on Apr 26, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Are forums in a better shape?
|
Brett_Tabke
msg:3322366 | 12:12 pm on Apr 26, 2007 (gmt 0) |
No, but this one is henery :-) (I am a bit biased though - what a team)
|
snofoam
msg:3322412 | 12:58 pm on Apr 26, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Also, studies have shown 99.44% of blogs now infested with lame content.
|
crates
msg:3327230 | 10:38 am on May 1, 2007 (gmt 0) |
| Also, studies have shown 99.44% of blogs now infested with lame content. |
|
I'm not gonna lie to you... if we include LiveJournal and the like in the category of "blogs" (which for the record, I generally refrain from- anyone whose opinions are worth reading has a TLD), and we include the recapitulation of news previously reported by others under the heading of "lame content"... Well, then I'd say you're lowballing your numbers there.
|
|
