The biggest punch to the dick over this is that all of those pictures on that thread they flagged can be found by doing a Google image search and turning the SafeSearch feature to the strictest setting.

sherm03;829667 wrote:The biggest punch to the dick over this is that all of those pictures on that thread they flagged can be found by doing a Google image search and turning the SafeSearch feature to the strictest setting.

Yep. Like I said, they are all PG-13. Fuckin' pricks.

O-Trap;829647 wrote:Nah. Google wouldn't give two sharts (ugh) if some no-name site owner came to them to tattle.

What if he filed a complaint saying he was the parent of a 14 yr old girl, who visits this site and he is offended by all the adult content that is displayed for her to see.

password;829673 wrote:What if he filed a complaint saying he was the parent of a 14 yr old girl, who visits this site and he is offended by all the adult content that is displayed for her to see.

They'd say, "Call the cops. We aren't the Internet police."

It's against their terms for their advertising, but that's the only reason they care about it. As was said, you can "Google" all the pictures posted.

O-Trap;829727 wrote:They'd say, "Call the cops. We aren't the Internet police."

It's against their terms for their advertising, but that's the only reason they care about it. As was said, you can "Google" all the pictures posted.

Ok, Fuck Google!

Yes. They're s.

sherm03;829667 wrote:The biggest punch to the **** over this is that all of those pictures on that thread they flagged can be found by doing a Google image search and turning the SafeSearch feature to the strictest setting.

we should just make threads with every post being a link to google itself with these images. it may cause google to implode.

The Google+ thread and the pornstar thread should offset one another since they're getting free advertising.

Ouch!

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201107141644dowjonesdjonline000575&title=google-2q-profit-rises-36%25widely-beats-expectations

Google 2Q Profit Rises 36%, Widely Beats Expectations

Google Inc.'s (GOOG) second-quarter earnings rose 36% and widely beat expectations, as the Internet giant reported record-high revenue and more sedate cost growth.

Shares were up 12% to $592.77 in after-hours trading. Through the close, the stock had fallen 11% this year, while the wider market has risen.

Total costs climbed 38%, a slightly faster clip than the latest period's revenue growth, but tamer than the first quarter's 46% gain in costs. Previously, Google's surging investment in new products, advertising, hiring and worker compensation had hurt profitability.

Search ads--the company's primary source of revenue--continued to strengthen. U.S. paid clicks, a measure of how frequently consumers click on its ads, were up 18% compared with a year earlier and 2% sequentially.

The average cost that advertisers paid Google per click grew 12% over a year earlier and 6% from the previous quarter. That is a higher rate of growth than recent periods.

The results are the first with co-founder Larry Page firmly installed as chief executive. Page reorganized top management soon after he took the reins earlier this year, a bid to improve Google's agility and innovation. But since his terse appearance on the first-quarter conference call, he has stayed out of the spotlight.

Thursday, Page said in a release that Google had a great quarter, noting the top line hit a record high. "I'm super excited about the amazing response to Google+ which lets you share just like in real life," he said, referring to the company's nascent social-networking push.

Google posted a profit of $2.51 billion, or $7.68 a share, up from $1.84 billion, or $5.71 a share, a year earlier. Excluding stock-compensation costs and income-tax effects, profit rose to $8.74 from $6.45 a share.

Revenue increased 32% to $9.03 billion. Traffic-acquisition costs, commissions paid to marketing partners, comprised 24% of ad revenue. After the costs, revenue rose 36% to $6.92 billion.

Analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters expected earnings of $7.85 a share on revenue of $6.55 billion after traffic-acquisition costs.

Gross margin rose to 64.9% from 63.8%.

-By Joan E. Solsman, Dow Jones Newswires; 212-416-2291; joan.solsman@ dowjones.com

(END) Dow Jones Newswires
07-14-111644ET
Copyright (c) 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Start charging 12 bucks a year and swear like sailors?

am i bad person for never clicking on ads?

Glory Days;830441 wrote:am i bad person for never clicking on ads?

no

I click on them just out of curiosity sometimes. They're obviously contextual, and are geared toward your browsing history.

I saw one for an offer I promoted today via Internet marketing, except I did it on a per-sale basis. Made a good chunk of change.

I have only clicked on ONE ad, and that was to find out how to obtain a dregree.

ernest_t_bass;830479 wrote:I have only clicked on ONE ad, and that was to find out how to obtain a dregree.

And did you succeed? Do you have your dregree?

O-Trap;830503 wrote:And did you succeed? Do you have your dregree?

My life has never been the same.

According to Google's Guide to Net Neutrality:

Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days... Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online

hypocrites...

Tobias Fünke;831898 wrote:hypocrites...

When the company is paying you, they can tell you whatever they want. That doesn't make them hypocrites at all.

SportsAndLady;829522 wrote:Do they not realize that cussing is a real thing and acceptable in 2011's society?

Not all of society deems cussing acceptable.

"Frog in a pot"

Captain Cavalier;832141 wrote:Not all of society deems cussing acceptable.

"Frog in a pot"

No, but in a significant portion of society, it is. There are pockets of society that find many things distasteful: profanity, the consumption of meat, certain religious practices, etc.

Having said that, it IS Google's prerogative to do as they wish in this regard.

Captain Cavalier;832141 wrote:Not all of society deems cussing acceptable.

"Frog in a pot"

Cavstensity, is that you?

justincredible;829509 wrote:Got another one of their bullshit emails saying I've got 72 hours to make changes.

How are they trying to screw you?

Skyhook79;832565 wrote:How are they trying to screw you?

In the butt.

justincredible;832615 wrote:In the butt.

Wes must be jealous

Where are the Urin and blood bombs?!?!