« PREVIOUS ENTRY
“Please stand by”

How much porn is online, anyway?

Check this out: A site that automatically generates a gallery of 104 pictures chosen randomly from Altavista. It’s programmed by the fine folks behind ga2so.com, and my friend El Rey found it for me.

Here’s the thing: Since the images are randomly selected, they’re an interesting way to divine the nature of online pictorial content. What do people post? Plenty of really horrible shots of family vacations, obscure inventions, and corporate infographics, for sure. But El Rey had his own observation: “Judging by what I’ve seen,” he wrote, “the Internet is about 5 to 10 per cent poorly-lit porn.”

Which is, you know, rather less porn than I’d expected. Remember the famous 1995 Carnegie-Mellon study that claimed to have studied newsgroup images and determined that 85% of them were pornographic? Wired issued an immediate smackdown of the study, but I’d still have expected that there would be a colossal amount of smut online. Still, judging by my own perusal of those Altavista images, I’d say the percentage is even smaller than El Rey suggested; it looks more like 3 to 4 per cent.

Which makes me wonder — how would that percentage stack up against the real world? Or to put it another way: Of all the content produced in the entire world in every medium (television, magazines, books, etc), what fraction is porn? Does such a metric exist? I surfed around a while looking to see if anyone had ever attempted to uncover such a weird statistic, with no luck (though I did find nearly-as-weird material, including a study of “how much pornography there is in Finland at the beginning of the 21st century”).

My favorite find, though, was Porncheck — an online tool that lets you “you make sure your computer always has exactly the right amount of porn.” It’s a joke, of course, but a funny one, and with a civil-rights edge:

Note: No actual porn scan was performed. This is just a bogus scare tactic for your amusement. We have no way of seeing what’s on your hard drive; we’re just echoing the http values back to you.

But if this demonstration frightened you, your reaction could indicate excess porn on your computer. On the other hand, if you weren’t scared at all, not even a little bit, that could be a warning sign of insufficient porn.

Only you can be the judge of whether your computer has too much pornography. (Actually, that’s not strictly true. A judge, for example, could be the judge.)

Oh, and by the way? If you’re at work and have a no-porn policy, do not click on that original random-Altavista-picture link. Or if you do, don’t come blaming me when you get fired.

(Thanks to El Rey for this one!)


blog comments powered by Disqus

Search This Site


Bio:

I'm Clive Thompson, a writer on science, technology, and culture. This blog collects bits of offbeat research I'm running into, and musings thereon.

Currently, I'm a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and a columnist for Wired magazine. I also write for Fast Company and Wired magazine's web site, among other places. Email or AOL IM me (pomeranian99) to say hi or send in something strange!

More of Me

Twitter
Tumblr
Flickr


Recent Entries

A long German word for “noticing when ads are being customized based on your surfing history”

Gay squid sex

“El Ajedrecista” — an analog chess-playing computer from 1912

Hacking the Model T

“How did you find my site?” and Vannevar Bush’s memex

» visit the Collision Detection archives

Clive Thompson's Tumblr
a bunch of stuff

May 20, 2011 » 02:28 PM

From Christopher Kennedy’s very droll book “Neitzsche’s Horse”.

July 28, 2010 » 07:35 AM
“Wr” - S

July 06, 2010 » 10:05 AM

My Xbox broke, and I was trying to Google some possible technical solutions, when I noticed that Google appears to be encouraging me to make a typo. I suppose it’s possible that Google’s algorithms know that typing “wont” instead of “won’t” would produce better results.

June 29, 2010 » 05:00 PM

On the other hand, when I tried the test for multitasking, I was pretty abysmal. I performed worse than people who identify themselves as heavy multitaskers, and those who identify as low multitaskers.

June 29, 2010 » 04:58 PM

I finally got around to trying out the interactive “test your distractability and multitasking” page at the New York Times, which they put up alongside their story earlier this month about how computer distractions are eroding our lives. 

According to the test, I guess I have good focus — I’m not very distractable! 

» visit my Tumblr

Recent Comments

Photos

» see all of my photos on Flickr

Collision Detection: A Blog by Clive Thompson