NSFW Porn link in user profile

June 27, 2006 10:36 AM

Cedar has posted an interesting AskMe question on how to occupy oneself during three months in the stir. But when curious minds eager for details on how he came to such a predicament click on the Homepage URL link in his user profile page, they're greeted with a "Whoa!!" NSFW porn site.

Shouldn't he warn folks on the profile page? Should I or someone warn readers of the AskMe thread? What's the drill on something like this? [And I hate to be paranoid, but could it be possible this is an attempt to drive traffic to said porn site?]
posted by mojohand to bugs at 10:36 AM (57 comments total)

I wonder if his site was hijacked? I've seen his blog, and that sir, was no blog.
posted by iconomy at 10:40 AM on June 27, 2006

1) I originally coded this question under etiquette but somehow that got lost. 2) I assume Cedar's link is a porn site, the few images I convinced me it cause real trouble at work and I closed it immediately.
posted by mojohand at 10:42 AM on June 27, 2006

[And I hate to be paranoid, but could it be possible this is an attempt to drive traffic to said porn site?]

Could be, but the link has a nofollow on it, so it isn't going to fool a search engine or anything.
posted by smackfu at 10:45 AM on June 27, 2006

cedar didnt tell anybody to click on his homepage - he was just filling out a profile.

That is, I too, thought about clicking on the link on his profile page but then stopped myself. I'm at work too and only click on sites that are familiar or have been pre-screened (i.e. metafilter links with a few comments already there to give an idea)

I think you just need to be more careful.
posted by vacapinta at 10:45 AM on June 27, 2006

Paranoia is fun, but it'd be weird for such a long-established member to suddenly piss away his reputation for the sake of a very limited number of profile-to-site clicksthrough; either something is up with his site, or he just unselfconciously runs a NSFW site.
posted by cortex at 10:46 AM on June 27, 2006

Shouldn't he warn folks on the profile page?

Yes, although I think the link should be removed anyway.
posted by cribcage at 10:48 AM on June 27, 2006

I withdraw the last sentence of my original post. Cedar's an old sweat here and a substantial contributor. Iconomy's suggestion is far more plausible. But that link remains dangerous. Not everone's as cautious as vac.
posted by mojohand at 10:50 AM on June 27, 2006

I had a domain that I let expire, and it got picked up by pornsters. Imagine my embarrassment when I realized I still had the url in my email sigs (yes the embarrassing part was that I even had a sig...). Cedar should know about this thread so he can comment and/or possibly update his profile. He may not know about this. Then again he may...
posted by iconomy at 10:53 AM on June 27, 2006

Meh. Preggo vag penetration.

What are you guys, the Taliban or something?
posted by bardic at 10:53 AM on June 27, 2006

Has this been fixed? I see a blog when I follow his homepage URL.
posted by RustyBrooks at 10:55 AM on June 27, 2006

It has been fixed - cedar's just posted a follow-up in the AskMe thread. (Domain hijacking).
posted by greycap at 10:57 AM on June 27, 2006

he just changed his homepage, btw.
posted by puke & cry at 10:57 AM on June 27, 2006

well, I should refresh more.
posted by puke & cry at 10:58 AM on June 27, 2006

One, I don't want to sound jaded, but a "WHOAH!!" porn site would feature Uzbek midgets fucking dinosaurs or something.

Two, isn't it possible that he filled out the profile years ago, has since lost the domain to a squatter, and doesn't care enough to change it? Because if that's what happened (and it seems plausible), I'm with him. I can't be bothered to do a lot of stupid shit, either.
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:58 AM on June 27, 2006

Profile updated due to spamming domain highjacking assholes.
posted by cedar at 1:53 PM EST on June 27 [+fave] [!]

There ya go...
posted by rollbiz at 10:58 AM on June 27, 2006

Yeah it looks like he fixed the link.
"Profile updated due to spamming domain highjacking assholes.
posted by cedar at 10:53 AM PST on June 27"
posted by metaname at 11:02 AM on June 27, 2006

Curley: What is 'meh' at home becomes 'whoa!' at work, especially as I: 1) work in a cubical 2) have my monitor facing outwards and 3) have a brand-new female manager who doesn't know me much at all. Things could have gotten ugly. I need to start following vacapinta-rules.

As for your other point, I conceded it while back.
posted by mojohand at 11:09 AM on June 27, 2006

a "WHOAH!!" porn site would feature Uzbek midgets fucking dinosaurs or something.

Uzbek midgets fucking dinosaurs are not nearly as sexy as you'd think. Uh, or so a friend told me...
posted by languagehat at 11:11 AM on June 27, 2006 [1 favorite]

3) have a brand-new female manager who doesn't know me much at all.

You should ask that prig what SHE thinks pregnant slovaks should do to score a little horse money. Do you really want to work there if you can't look at a pregnant clown pretending to enjoy sex acts?
posted by Mayor Curley at 11:12 AM on June 27, 2006

(I'm totally kidding, by the way. I think that governments should outlaw bad pornography and not leave it to workplaces. Obviously, by "bad" I mean "low quality".)
posted by Mayor Curley at 11:14 AM on June 27, 2006

Uzbek midgets fucking dinosaurs are not nearly as sexy as you'd think. Uh, or so a friend told me...

Really, it all comes down to whether the dinosaurs are long- or short-necked.
posted by COBRA! at 11:17 AM on June 27, 2006

Oops, I just e-mailed Matt asking if this was kosher or not.

That'll learn me to go 30 minutes without checking MeTa.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:24 AM on June 27, 2006

Alvy, we've done with the hijacked url and now we're on to midgets fucking dinosaurs. Please try to keep up.
posted by iconomy at 11:29 AM on June 27, 2006 [1 favorite]

I think that governments should outlaw bad pornography and not leave it to workplaces.

C'mon, Mayor - you know governments have no sensibility when it comes to Art.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:30 AM on June 27, 2006

Heheh, I wonder how many fpp links have been hijacked. Perhaps every link over one year old should be tagged as potentially NSFW.
posted by mischief at 11:30 AM on June 27, 2006

1) work in a cubical 2) have my monitor facing outwards and 3) have a brand-new female manager who doesn't know me much at all.

Hm, maybe you should get back to work then, huh?
posted by puke & cry at 11:37 AM on June 27, 2006

Oh, link ages would be great and useful! Like 0-3 months, 4-6, 6-12 and over a year old. They could be denoted by appearing in slightly different colours or something.
posted by By The Grace of God at 11:38 AM on June 27, 2006

Metafilter: Midgets fuc ohnevermind
posted by scrump at 11:43 AM on June 27, 2006

I'm senior and valued enough so that getting caught on a bit of Meta-screwing-off is one thing, puke & cry. Midget-on-dinosaur porn is quite another. A little bad luck and the iron gates of HR Hell could be clanging shut behind me this very minute. It doesn't bear thinking about.
posted by mojohand at 11:45 AM on June 27, 2006

Metafilter: hm, maybe you should get back to work then, huh?

(applies to me, anyway)
posted by greycap at 11:45 AM on June 27, 2006

am i the only one that thinks if he did want to put a porn site as his homepage that it would be a bad thing? sure, it'd be nice if it said nsfw but do we all have our panties in a wad over nudity?

it's been said a million times, ever since goatse was greenlighted for the blue, nothing on here should be considered sfw without a whole lot of caution.
posted by nadawi at 11:52 AM on June 27, 2006

There is no way ti indicate the url in your profile is NSFW and there shouldn't be one.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 11:57 AM on June 27, 2006

I guess this is what happens when you askmefi for legal advice.
posted by empath at 12:05 PM on June 27, 2006

Paranoia is fun, but it'd be weird for such a long-established member to suddenly piss away his reputation for the sake of . . .

For my money, there's a very low threshold on what could end that sentence.
posted by yerfatma at 12:12 PM on June 27, 2006

"I guess this is what happens when you askmefi for legal advice."

Ouch.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:15 PM on June 27, 2006

up there, where it said would be a bad thing...change to WOULDN"T. as it, i don't give a damn if someone wants a porn site as their homepage.
posted by nadawi at 12:27 PM on June 27, 2006

For my money, there's a very low threshold on what could end that sentence.

Really? I'm not saying it's totally implausible for most values of Foo, but it'd probably be weird.
posted by cortex at 12:58 PM on June 27, 2006

empath, I remembered that ask.mefi, too. I hope cedar is ok.
posted by shoepal at 2:19 PM on June 27, 2006

I know that it's kind of off topic, since he didn't mean for his profile to go to a porn site, but here are my thoughts from a previous thread on what NSFW really means, excerpted here because my original comment was rather specific about the circumstance at the time:

I think the NSFW tag is stupid for the reason Joeforking mentioned above: With certain rare exceptions, there isn't much browsing at work that is safe. Certainly the entirety of Metafilter isn't safe, since it's personal browsing being done at work. See, NSFW was originally designed to help people doing illicit web browsing during working hours. It was meant to say "there's no way you'll convince your boss that the pic of an elephant pissing behind this link is part of your normal operating procedure, so DON'T CLICK IT." It wasn't meant to say "This post violates your workplace's policy," because it was assumed that all personal browsing does that. It was acknowledgement that illicit browsing happened, and was a sign of cameraderie between the poster and the audience, a kind of hip wink for the in-the-know to say "hey, I don't judge how you waste your company's money. I just want you to know that this one link cannot be disguised as work. beware." So if you get caught clicking ANYTHING at work, it's your own fault, in my opinion. We are not your safeguards, we're just shumcks on the internet and NSFW is a FAVOR. It's us doing you a solid during your tomfoolery. It is certainly NOT any sort of obligation, and if you think it is, you need to pull your head out of your ass.

Now, the "pull your head out of your ass," is not directed at anyone here, at least in tone, but I would appreciate it if people stopped demanding that NSFW be appended to things you shouldn't be seeing at work. I browse at work all the time, and I fully understand that whatever happens to me at work is the result of my own actions, and not those of anyone else. Clicker beware, and all that.
posted by shmegegge at 2:36 PM on June 27, 2006 [1 favorite]

shmegegge: Most people here are in the same position I am. if I'm getting my work done a modest amount of non-work Web usage is not a problem. But it is a very different thing to have my boss see a screenful of a typical Metafilter link, and porn. One gets me kidded, one gets me ... screwed. Since the point of Mefi is links to the best of the Web, why should I have to act as if every nth link might cost me my job?

I had to review your MeFi postings to force myself to remember you're not stupid, so why are you defending such an untenable position? I'm having a problem coming up with a rationale other than childish obstinacy. Got any suggestions?
posted by mojohand at 3:35 PM on June 27, 2006

Since the point of Mefi is links to the best of the Web, why should I have to act as if every nth link might cost me my job?

Because it might be. That you can do a little websurfing does not mean that the web owes you. I don't know if I'm 100% onboard with shmeggege, but I see the position as being far from untenable or childish.

You should proceed with caution. If someone is nice enough to help you out with that, happy day. But short of actively tricking you into clicking on something dangerous, there's no goddam foul in not babysitting your websurfery.
posted by cortex at 3:42 PM on June 27, 2006 [1 favorite]

Key point: best of the web != best of the things you can look at at work.
posted by cortex at 3:43 PM on June 27, 2006

I had to review your MeFi postings to force myself to remember you're not stupid...

I'm not inclined to review your MeFi postings, but I'll allow the benefit of assuming you're not generally this much of a dick.

...if I'm getting my work done a modest amount of non-work Web usage is not a problem. But it is a very different thing...

I'm not responsible for the fickle tolerances of your employer.

Take some responsibility, would you please? I think NSFW is a useful courtesy, and I argued in favor of Matt deleting the link in question — but you're whining about how you might have gotten fired because you stumbled across boobies while you were fucking around on the Internet during work hours, and you're calling someone else's argument untenable.
posted by cribcage at 3:51 PM on June 27, 2006

During the 80's there was a boom in employment throughout the UK, most especially in the London area. I worked at the Daily Mirror selling ad space by telephone. Circumstances at the time made it easy. In fact the paper grew in size to accommodate the demand for job ads. The gif of this story is bring the bacon home, and the hammer won't call the the pot names. [NSFW is irrelevant if you are indispensable. If you are dispensable. Don't be. Trees can't smell alone.]
posted by econous at 4:04 PM on June 27, 2006

empath writes 'I guess this is what happens when you askmefi for legal advice.'

Oh God. He didn't quote Arkell v. Pressdram, did he?
posted by blag at 4:34 PM on June 27, 2006

Take some responsibility, would you please? . . . you're whining about how you might have gotten fired because you stumbled across boobies while you were fucking around on the Internet during work hours

I'm always confused by someone on the Internet declaring their aversion to common courtesy. Having once spent an hour surfing hardcore pr0n sites trying to figure out some JavaScript trickery for a client who insisted on popup windows, not much on the 'net is going to get me fired. Doesn't mean I have to be a dick about it. What does being polite cost you, besides having to hold onto your rage until you get home to the TV?
posted by yerfatma at 5:24 PM on June 27, 2006

I'm always confused by someone on the Internet declaring their aversion to common courtesy.

Well, let's take a look at what I wrote.

I think NSFW is a useful courtesy...

You're confused, alright.
posted by cribcage at 6:00 PM on June 27, 2006

Yeah, but you weren't courteous enough in your reasonable argument about the merit of courtesy!
posted by cortex at 7:41 PM on June 27, 2006

This specific example actually demonstrates why NSFW doesn't work and why you can never assume safe surfing at work unless you stay within very rigid parameters.

There was nothing shady in my intent on clicking Cedar's profile-listed home page, and he had no shady intent in linking it on his profile. There was no need for him (from his perspective) to put NSFW on it. Yet despite sterling intent and etiquette all around hello, here I end up with straight up, hard core nasty all over my screen. That's okay: I'm at home.

I'm afraid cribcage is correct. The absence of NSFW can guarantee nothing. Its presence is certainly a courtesy, but lo in this vast unfettered interwildernet it can only be a an optional one and thus of limited usefulness.
posted by nanojath at 9:11 PM on June 27, 2006

And while we're on the subject of NSFW, how come so little nun porn has anal in it? What, you're hardcore enough to fuck a nun, but not fuck a nun in the ass? What's up with that?
posted by klangklangston at 8:12 AM on June 28, 2006 [2 favorites]

wow, mojohand's comment is almost impossibly ridiculous. I appreciate all the people who bothered defending me on that, since you've adequately said precisely what I would have.

yerfatma: I would say that cribcage didn't have an aversion to courtesy so much as he was responding to discourtesy in like manner, and quite justly.
posted by shmegegge at 8:18 AM on June 28, 2006

klang, the nun is running the show. It goes where she says, and if you argue you're getting a ruler right across the jimmy.
posted by cortex at 8:19 AM on June 28, 2006

How much nun porn have you watched, anyway?
posted by cribcage at 9:30 AM on June 28, 2006

I would say that cribcage didn't have an aversion to courtesy so much as he was responding to discourtesy in like manner, and quite justly

Yeah, fair enough, though it'd be a better place if people didn't even consider a scale to measure the justification of discourtesy.
posted by yerfatma at 11:40 AM on June 28, 2006

true. the same could be said for the world at large.
posted by shmegegge at 11:55 AM on June 28, 2006

Right, and as such, sorry cribcage.
posted by yerfatma at 5:57 PM on June 28, 2006

so how's everyone doing tonight?

me? I'm a'ight, I guess. you know. same shit different day.

word.
posted by shmegegge at 3:38 PM on July 25, 2006