🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan12.081015.2515@psych.psy.uq.oz.au>, jonathan@psych.psy.uq.oz.au (Jonathan Dwyer) writes:
|> 
|> Just my $0.02 worth (for Geoff) from a random point in the discussion:
|> 
|> We can be liberal or conservative,
|> 
[...]
|> 
|> HOWEVER, we all know what the media make of such things
|> in their scramble for advertising ratings, and remember what
|> happened to Prodigy.......
|> 
|> If the discussion of AARNet and its content ever hits shows like
|> Hinch, Current Affair or even 7:30 Report, we all know that the
|> 'outraged (not to mention recession-squeezed) taxpayer' routine
|> will be dragged out, leading to the government imposed 'quick fix'
|> to mollify the supposed 'outraged taxpayers'.
|> 

	A couple of years ago, I remember one of our system admins telling me
why there wasn't an X-rated gifs on ftp-able locations anymore.

	The story was that it used to be very simple to download these picts
from numerous ftp sites and it was quite common. Anyway, 60 minutes (USA) got 
ahold of this and beat it up saying that any 14 year old kid could dial up
a BBS and ftp to his hearts content (assuming he knew what it was he was looking
for). Supposedly, this led to a ban of some sort on x-rated gifs on ftp sites.

	Is this true???

	Also, last year Peter Deutsch (sp?) came out here and gave a talk about
Archie at NetWorkshop. After that he gave a similar talk where I was working
and at the end of it he put a list of stats on Archie - the most popular
requests. It was something like this:

GIF		100 thousands,
*.gif		ditto.
sex		10 thousands
SEX		ditto.
girl.gif	thousands
(big gap)
*.zip		hundreds

I would imagine that AARNet could not be to different to the rest of the 
Internet. There seems to be a fair demand for the stuff that some people want
to ban.

Personally I don't subscribe to those groups but I wouldn't stop others from
doing so...


Jason.