Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Zapata (ZAP) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Phil(bullrider) who wrote (262)	7/18/1998 9:20:00 PM
From: Joseph G.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1206

<<They also know I have access to the "history" of where they have been.>> Can't they just re-boot the box, or something?

To: Phil(bullrider) who wrote (262)	7/18/1998 11:40:00 PM
From: RJC2006	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1206

<<<<Even though you say your argument is not about censorship, I really don't understand your argument unless it is. You say it is about appearance. Appearance to who? Isn't that only another way of censoring?>>>> OK, I am going to explain this to you one more time. Read it very carefully. The issue that I have concerns advertising and advertising means dollars. Sites such as Bianca's have two ways to make money. The first is membership. As Bianca's does not require mandatory membership this is not a reliable source of revenue. The other is advertising. Right now it appears that one of Bianca's main banners is danni.com which is a basically a porn actresses pic site. Now when attracting advertisers one must be able to sell their content and make the client look good. Now log on to Bianca's and tell me where you see any Fortune 500 company with advertising logos or banners. Doesn't this tell you something? It tells me that it is no wonder the owners claim that after 5 years they are still on a shoestring budget. This tells me that they aren't growing in revenue no matter how many people they sign up. It also tells me that after 5 years not too many institutions are hip on advertising on their site. The only reason that I can attribute that to is content. No site with thousands of users would be able to keep good advertising dollars from coming in. <<<"It doesn't appear right to me, therefore, it's not right.">>> This has nothing to do with whether it is right to me or not. It has to do with common sense. <<<"Appearance" is only another excuse for censorship.>>> I believe that you should do a little research on exactly what censorship really is. Normally it is defined as the deliberate ban of speech and the written word by a government institution. <<< Who gets to do the censoring? In my home, it's me. My children have total access to the internet and the WWW. They also know I have access to the "history" of where they have been. My wife and I have taught them right from wrong, and now it is up to them to show us we haven't failed. Hopefully, by our example, in the way we live our lives, will rub off on them. If not, I won't blame society for my failure, I will blame myself, for not trying hard enough.>>> Phil, you have turned this into a political argument. It is not a political argument it is a business arguemnt. As I have already described above internet chat sites rely heavily on advertising dollars. However, some of the rooms at Bianca's would not be able to lure one single Fortune 500 company to advertise on there if life depended on it. You may not like the noun "appearance" but any shrewd marketer will tell you that it isn't the only thing it is everything. <<But when it comes to censorship, whether for "appearance" or otherwise, I don't want you telling me what I can do, see, read, etc., and I certainly would not even try to dictate the same to you.>>> Well as you have decided to continue in this vein I want to ask you how many Fortune 500 companies would allow their employees to display hardcore XXX material at their work sites. How about in their offices and cubicles? Whether you or I like the suppression of this type of material is irrelevant. The reason that it is not allowed is that it can bring a multi-million dollar law suit against you. Now how are you going to explain to your shareholders that you have policies that prohibit this type of material in the workplace but that you still deem it worthy to spend the company's money for advertising on a chat board that has a section entitled the Smut Shack AND that the company's name and logo are plastered right there with Danni Whatshername, the porn queen. Try giving them your argument and see how far you'd get.