Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Porn Falls Behind
Could the porn-drives-technology
theory be
unraveling due to porn-producer paranoia?:
Porn gets a lot of credit for pushing technology forward. You probably owe your DVD player and your video-on-demand service to dedicated porn fans with discretionary income. But as web technology evolves to support true personalization and community -- into Web 2.0 -- porn is falling further behind the curve.
Like content was king in the 1990s, in the days of Web 2.0, community is the kingdom.
Community is all about interactivity and personalization. Given the interactive nature of sex and the personal nature of porn, you'd think adult sites would be all over Web 2.0. But with a few notable exceptions, they're not. And I think this is going to bite them in the ass not too far into the future if they don't catch up.
For the porn industry, which is at least as paranoid about piracy as the Recording Industry Association of America, allowing open data formats that let users to do with content what they will does not come naturally.
Nick Gillespie on digital porn here. Palestinian porn here. Pornocopia Deluxe here.
|8.10.07 @ 11:57AM|#
Paying for porn on the Internet is stupid. That's all that I'll say about that.
|8.10.07 @ 12:06PM|#
Porn 2.0: the actors pay the producer to make the film and put it all over the internet for free.
|8.10.07 @ 12:33PM|#
Given the number of ads on craigslist for people who want to do
porn, I'm not so sure that web 2.0 hasn't begun infiltrating the
sex industry.
The biggest problem, that I see, anyway, is that most people are
average looking, and hence not likely to want to engage in whatever
the result is of a mashup between web 2.0 and porn.
There's also the possible stigma that might result.
(Mom, if you were in a German Scheiße movie, you'd tell me,
right?)
|8.10.07 @ 12:41PM|#
Web 2.0 is for losers. Web 3-D is the future where the porn industry intends to lead us. Full immersion, too. I fear for some of our single commenters when this comes out.
Postmodern Sleaze|8.10.07 @ 1:13PM|#
"Can someone explain to me what the fuck Web 2.0 even is?"
"Sorry, I wiki'd it. It sounds dumb."
That has to be the most ironic thing I've read all day.
|8.10.07 @ 1:28PM|#
What's even more amusing is that Internet2 is not Web 2.0. And neither is the Information Superhighway :)
notalocal|8.10.07 @ 1:45PM|#
"Can someone explain to me what the fuck Web 2.0 even is?"
"Sorry, I wiki'd it. It sounds dumb."
"That has to be the most ironic thing I've read all day."
Postmodern Sleaze beat me to the punch on this one. If the irony
was intentional then Seitz is a comedic genius.
|8.10.07 @ 3:31PM|#
caption contest:
"Can't right now Hun, I've got my hands full filtering Junior's
internet content"
|8.10.07 @ 4:57PM|#
Luke: You know, I did feel something. I could
almost feel the nipples.
Ben: That's good. You have taken your first step into a larger
world.
|8.10.07 @ 5:21PM|#
HAN: Kid, I've surfed from one side of the intertubes to the other. I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything to make me believe there's one all-powerful webmaster controlling everything. There's no mystical energy field that controls my mouse.
|8.10.07 @ 6:47PM|#
Ben: Who's more foolish, the fool, or the fool who hides behind a computer screen and covers the boobies so his kid doesn't see them?
Obi Kenobi|8.11.07 @ 7:07AM|#
These aren't the trolls you're looking for. Go about your
business. Move along.
Web 2.0: Proof that millions of monkeys typing at keyboards WON'T
produce Shakespeare.
Steven Thomas|8.11.07 @ 11:35AM|#
Where the wild-type fails, adaptation steps in to save the day,
e.g.:
http://socialporn.net
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245