Peki: Sooooo. . .Anyone got info on a good search engine that isn't run by a douchebag company?
stu1-1: [img7.imageshack.us image 850x569]Results with SafeSearch "off"
KrispyKritter: WhippingBoy: R.I.P. Google. You're no use to anyone anymore.Amen. Just like my cable service (we're old, not hip) that censors and bleeps broadcasts to a two adult household. Sometimes I feel life is not worth living.
Ehcks: So, can't you just... turn off Safe Search?Or am I missing the joke behind the outrage?
WhippingBoy: I think it's the other way around...
natmar_76: StoPPeRmobile: Thanks for your understanding during the process of going backwards.I hear you. I, too, am outraged at the extra 0.2 seconds it takes to specify that I don't just want tits, but I want completely nude tits. This isn't why I fought in the internet wars of 1999. This isn't the future I wanted for my children. My entire life has been moving towards a future where pornography is more and more immediate and accessible, not slightly LESS completely convenient and easy. I'm outraged like you are, internet compatriot.I had a dream, friends, I had a dream that everything was pornography. I had a dream that web browsers only showed breasts, mammaries, pubes, vulvas, flesh of the hottest sweatiest kinds. No Amazons, no video games, no politics, just sweaty smelly pornography, all day, every day. I had a dream, and this is not that dream. Tomorrow I'm organizing a million nerd march on Washington D.C. We are going to take this country by the throat and WE WILL NOT STOP UNTIL OUR DEMANDS ARE SATISFIED.But until then, my friends, and I know this is difficult for all of us, but we're just going to have to take that 0.199 seconds to type in "naked" before our image searches, or at least that we want to see "hairy pussies", not just plain old "vaginas".
Zombalupagus: stu1-1: Yuri Futanari: Begoggle: RIP rule 342009-2012For all your rule34 needs/do I really need to say NSFW?[img546.imageshack.us image 850x421]RULE 34 FAIL"tinker bell"No results.FAIL
Froonium: Don't ya just love being treated like little Puritan kids?
LordJiro: stu1-1: Yuri Futanari: Begoggle: RIP rule 342009-2012For all your rule34 needs/do I really need to say NSFW?[img546.imageshack.us image 850x421]RULE 34 FAILYou forgot the underscore.
diaphoresis: Fark gets no love.. they quote some loser on Reddit, but not Fark...[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x300]
Cyno01: How about just an "Unsafe search" option where when checked it returns nothing but porn.
stu1-1: Yuri Futanari: Begoggle: RIP rule 342009-2012For all your rule34 needs/do I really need to say NSFW?[img546.imageshack.us image 850x421]RULE 34 FAIL
Podmore: Someone else alluded to this, but here's the issue for me. I keep safe search turned off, not because I'm actively looking for porn (or maybe I should say, even when I'm not actively looking for porn) because I don't want my searches filtered. When I search for something, I want to see ALL the results in the order that the algorithms say best match my search terms. Now I get those results with the adult stuff stripped off, or I can add a term to get ONLY the adult stuff. There's no way to just get an unfiltered list of what I'm looking for.
Corvus: So on DuckDuckGo how do you do image searches?
Nuclear Monk: Accidental porn is the best kind of porn. Why would anyone want to get rid of that!?!
Do the needful: The real question here is "does someone have a job looking at and filtering out all of the 'porn', or does google have some sort of genital recognition algorithm?"
edmo: big dicks, teen sluts, cum babes... um, I'm not even trying and it's the same old pile of NSFW or anywhere else. I've not adjusted my search (Safe search off) so I'm not sure what others are missing. Looks the same to me
red5ish: If their goal is to protect the children I have only one thing to say:child proof caps on medicine bottles.To olden a thread
mjg: Google is for losers.Moved over to DuckDuckGo.com and haven't looked back.
tetsuo02: It is a sad day when "shaved beaver" returns pictures of hairless water-mammals.
Yuri Futanari: Begoggle: RIP rule 342009-2012For all your rule34 needs/do I really need to say NSFW?
that was my nickname in highschool: Hopefully someday they can make separate filters for gay and straight pr0n.
Shrinkwrap: Combined with the "improved" search filters (let's get rid of exact image size searches!), this is turning into a pile of suck.
KungFuJunkie: Because I have such a difficult time finding porn on the internet.... Is there a bet on when porn on the internet will surpass the 50% mark of all content on the internet, or has it already happened?
aremmes: So now I can't search for random word combinations to see what kind of porn it'll turn up? Damn you, Mountain View Chocolate Factory.
Jument: Actually that seems like a pretty decent feature. Not everyone is a porn hound, you guys.I mean, well, everyone reading this is a porn hound. I meant other people. The "squares". Your Mom, for example. Ok bad example. Your Mom probably surfs for porn all day. But you know what I mean.
Skywolf Philosopher: WhippingBoy: It's the principle of the thing.What do you expect principals to do all day?
Begoggle: RIP rule 342009-2012
Skywolf Philosopher: I do not comprehend the objections to this move, especially as regards puritanical interests, which Google is not an advocate of nor biased for. This simply lessens the ability to accidentally view pornography. If someone wants to view naked people farking with each other or animals or whatnot, type precisely that in, the same as one would do with anything else.
EnglishMan: Maybe now people will use Bing.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Aug 16 2017 20:00:49
Runtime: 0.482 sec (482 ms)