In response to The Daily Post’s writing prompt: “Image Search.”
Can you say “dangerous”?
Random word searches and images on Google or Bing (I prefer Bing, just because I get points for searching and it feeds my addiction to get free stuff) are nothing if dangerous. The joke use to be how many pages could you search for something innocent (like say, your name) until you hit the first pornographic reference. It use to be page 6 as the average. These days, it’s more like.. row 6.
Sure, there are now those fancy search settings that let you moderate the content you see, and at times I use them all the while hearing the voices of ‘censorship’ crying in my ears. But seriously, that’s not even the point.
Here’s a great for instance… I just Bing’d the word ‘innocent’. With the safe filter off, 3rd photo. The 3rd photo. I’m not talking about just nudity though, it was much more sexualized then that. And if I did what the prompt told me, the 11th photo, well, it was the same girl (the third photo of her) in a different sexual position, and this post would have an X rating on it. Google was at least a lot better when it came to this. It took to almost row 9 before I hit a photo I would feel uncomfortable posting, another 2 rows for a bare breasted woman with tape covering the “bumpy bits” (I credit Marty Feldman for that one), and then from that point.. well I stopped scrolling a few rows down as the lewdity increased.
So, I think I’m just going to stick with Mr. Rogers.
I picked the first photo because, well…
I was too afraid to find out what lie under the first 4 rows…