If we let those nice people in the government filter our interwebs for us we wouldn't see this "filth".
The homepage of the children’s section of Directgov currently sports an unfortunate banner by the name of Buster’s World, which just so happens to be the name of a gay porn fetish site. The Register has contacted the Department for Children, Schools and Families to ask if it was aware that youngsters could innocently search …
This post has been deleted by its author
There's nothing wrong with "search online for xxxxx" as an approach to getting a web presence - that's how it's supposed to work when people can't remember, don't know, mistype, or receive a mistranscribed URL.
...what seems to be missing here is that nobody thought to *do* a "search online for xxxxx" and make sure the kids won't get XXX!
// ha ha, only serious :/
I think that's where it started in the UK. Wouldn't that have made a great spoiler campaign by electrolux/hoover/everyone else - flood the internet and blogs with a picture of a pair of knackers with the words 'Dyson Ball' nearby it.
I still think it's a terrifying tactic, it just takes a bit of coordination and the advertiser ends up in this position, and the agency get fired...
“Who at Direct Gov thought that the domain name of a gay porn site was a good idea for their Kids portal??”, she reasonably asked.
As opposed to a straight porn site, which the quote makes it sound she would have been happy with.
I bet she votes DUP, the homophobe ;-)
I view it as just another example of gov.uk stupidity under the banner of ZanuLabour. When you have a government that thinks education, experience, and sheer talent are dangerous, anti-proletarian elitisms, it should come as no surprise that in 13 years the rot has permeated the entire structure of British government from top to bottom.
Cameron might make a great deal of electoral hay by proposing that all government employees be required to requalify for their positions. Those not displaying acceptable (i e, high) levels of intelligence and sheer gumption would be dismissed with prejudice (and no benefits).
Sayonara, stupid cops. Sayonara, stupid H&S drones. Sayonara, stupid dustmen. Sayonara, stupid social workers. Sayonara, stupid managers. And sayonara, stupid MPs.
Which icon most suitably symbolizes "a proposal for social revolution"? I'll use Tux for the moment.
"...the supplier’s usual thorough checking procedures".
Sure. They overcharge you, outsource the work to a bloke living in a slum in Mumbai then give you that line about procedures. We've all been there, and there aren't any "procedures" beyond "they'll love this" and checking the bank balance.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
the first thing you do when creating any new web site is to perform a quick google search to check that:
1. No one already has the domain name registered
2. There's no sites with a similar name that might lead people to the wrong domain
3. There's preferably no results that show up alongside your site in the first page of results that offer pro[n]/Copyright infringement/incitement to violence/etc
I'd think the only way they could have made this gaff is if the people doing this basic due diligence are sitting behind a web filter when doing the above google search, and resulting SEO. That is seriously the only plausable way this could have happened when you are talking this much in development costs and who's money is paying for it.
Are the government departments allowed to have anyone working on projects with web filter stuff turned off to avoid things like this happening?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020