But why are _images_ of porn a problem for google groups, but textual porn
is not -- google groups includes textual porn newsgroups, such as
alt.sex.stories.moderated for example.

And why is google groups to be free of porn images, when users can encounter
them on the Web, and find porn images using google.

The second part is maybe a bit more understandable, since I assume that
groups.google archives are actually hosted by google, whereas the Web part
of google is just searching through sites hosted by others. But the first
part just doesn't make any sense to me, why sexually explicit images are
more of a liability than sexually explicit text.

Joanna

"al" wrote in message news:lxyoh.1922$%Q4.1744@trnddc06...
I thought the same thing after I wrote that. It has to be fear of lawyers
for the porn that is sure to find it's way through their filters. One day
it will be possible to have a computer look at images and decide which
belong in a given newsgroup and which do not. ...and one day humans will
live on Mars.

"Eric Hunt" wrote in message
...
Al,

I think it's the kiddie porn and warez groups that keeps Google from
carrying the binaries. Google's pockets are approaching infinite depth. I
would suspect carrying those groups is just too attractive a target for
the lawyers.

-Eric in SF
www.orchidphotos.org

al wrote:
I really wish and think one day perhaps Google will get over it's
aversion to binary newsgroups. Some of them are worth having around and
it's not like Google doesn't have the storage space or the 'retention'
capability.