Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: Time/Newsweek Cyberporn Stories [ close to final mailing --
From: David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 14:52:34 -0400
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 1995 12:08:05 -0500 (CDT) From: hoffman () colette ogsm vanderbilt edu (Donna Hoffman) Here's an example of the sort of problems that can ensue when bad research moves into mainstream media as fact: Sen.Grassley, in official record: "...I want to emphasize that this is Carnegie Mellon University. This is not a study done by some religious organization..." "Mr. President, I want to repeat that: 83.5 percent of the 900,000 images reviewed -- these are all on the Internet -- are pornographic, according to the Carnegie Mellon study." In the first place, this is a study done by an undergrad in EE, not an expert in the subject matter. It is misleading to position the study as a "Carnegie Mellon study." In the second place, the 83.5% number does not refer to the 900,000 "images" reviewed, but to files from 17 alt.binaries groups. In the third place, 900,000 images were never examined. LISTINGS of those images were counted and a much smaller number of listings (not images) were actually analyzed. In the fourth place, NONE of those image files were on the Net - ALL were from adult BBSs. In the fifth place, since most the listings from adult BBSs were never examined for content, it is unknown how many would be considered pornographic by various definitions. But maybe the Senator never read the study, only the TIME report of the study.
Current thread:
- Re: Time/Newsweek Cyberporn Stories [ close to final mailing -- David Farber (Jul 05)