Archive for the ‘Explanation needed’ Category

Is the web all about sex?

Tuesday, July 14th, 2009
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

flowerbee

Ever since I wrote the post about the future trend of adultery more than half of my Google ads on my mainpage have been somehow related to dating or sex. There has been a plentiful of offers to meet and marry Asian, Chinese, Baltic, East-European, Moldovian and ladies of other origins. Relationship advice is also offered, which kind of completes the picture. Examples can be seen here (with some luck, ultimately it depends on Google):

There seems to be an abundance of this kind of ads. In principle I have nothing against this, specially now that Google seems to be getting the ads right on my single post pages (it used to put dating ads even to posts about environment). However, it did make me wonder about the question on how much is the web about sex, or more generally, somehow related to sex.

Most of the searches about the issue lead to this article by Cecil Adams who asked that very same question but concentrating purely on pornography. It was written in 2005, and the conclusion was that there are plenty of other things in the web besides porn (according to some estimates mentioned in the article it presented less than 1% share of all the webpages). In another, more recent (2008) article Tom Chatfield took a look on a list of the world’s most popular sites and was already wondering whether to declare cyberporn dead.

On the other hand, there are evidence pointing to the other direction as well. Middle East’s and North Africa’s web-traffic for example have been said to be very much sex-related (articles here (Wired 2001) and here (Afrol 2006(?)), former more outdated than the latter), some of the estimates put the figure at 80%. Whatever the truth is, I would imagine the situation to be roughly similar elsewhere. Furthermore, Adams mentions in his text that at the time of writing search word “sex” gave 214 million pages in Google. Now the figure is at (somewhat ironically) 699 million, meaning it has more than tripled. Then again, in the web, what hasn’t?

The thing that makes the estimation even more difficult is that even though related, it is still one thing what people search for and another what kinds of websites are out there. Google Trends provides some help by showing that “sex” is still one of the most popular search words in the web, even though there has not been much change for years. “Porn” on the other hand has been rising in popularity and was almost as popular as “sex” (because of the crisis perhaps..). Personally I was able to find only one searchword (“Facebook”) that was more popular than the two.

However, even this does not tell us the whole truth. Searches done with the word “sex” might also refer to other things. Vice versa, people might look for sexually explicit content by using other words than “sex”. Furthermore, sex can be also disquised in the sense it can be used in ads etc. in pages and sites that are not considered to be have nothing to do with sex. People who surf around Flickr might do so to find pictures of pretty girls instead of beautiful scenery. Ultimately, it can be very difficult to define which page, visit or search is really “sex-related”.

In any case, it seems safe to say that sex in all of its forms maintains a very strong position in the web.  No matter how much we embrace the web as a solution to many of the big and small problems we face today, it also reflects our more primitive functions as well. Following the idea of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, before moving into solving those bigger problems we need to satisfy the more basic needs first. Apparently the web helps us to meet those needs. That might also be the reason why a bit under 40% of Americans would rather choose to have no sex for two weeks than to give up their Internet access for the same period; by giving up Internet you actually end up giving both, the Internet and the sex.

The answer why sex will never disappear from the net also lies there (even though some may wish so). Sex is too much in us, for obvious reasons, and the web provides such a convinient tool to get one’s hands on it. Eventually, that is all the internet is, a tool to share information (understood here in the broadest sense of the term). If it is education or knowledge that we search, it is very much out there in the web. If it is sex, there is no shortage of that either.

So far it seems to be more the latter. It might be a question of maturing, but in the end no matter how educated or civilised, we, or at least many of us, cannot completely forget that more biological side of us. Then again, as long as no one gets hurt or injured, why should we? In any case, I would still be interested to know how much of the internet traffic or sites are sex related. Thus, if there is anyone out there who has a clue or wants to throw in his/her 2 cents, please do so by leaving a comment.

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

The Iranian Election

Friday, June 26th, 2009
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

June 17 Photos of Protests at Karim Khan Street, Tehran, Iran.
Creative Commons License photo credit: misterarasmus

This has been puzzling me recently: Despite the massive demonstrations, I have not seen any news report/article over the claimed wrongdoings in the Iranian election. All the western media I read only reported that Ahmadinejad won by a clear margin and none of them noted any rigging of the votes etc. However, the opposition claims this has been very much the case. I suppose (but do not know) there were no independent election monitors. Then again, as far as I know, none of the western states or the UN has criticized the election process as such, just the way the authorities have handled the demonstrations. Furthermore, in this case the rigging should have been massive, the margin was so huge between the two.

If the election was fair, from my perspective it is a done deal, the current president won and that’s it. In accordance with the democratic principles the opposition should in this case congratulate the winner and get ready for their job as the opposition again, frustating as it might be. In any case, as already noted above, I do not know. I just wish somebody could tell what or why is it exactly that the opposition got so “upset” about, or is it more just a general custom that after the elections this always happens (I recall that it was not like this the last time, but with this memory nothing is certain…). In what way was the election not fair?

On the other hand, I did read that it was said that especially the young were more likely to vote for the opposition. If the turnout was considerably high, how is it possible that in a country where the medium age is 27 Ahmadinejad was able to win with such a big margin?

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Break Now to Fix Later..?

Wednesday, May 20th, 2009
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

car

Zapatero’s government and few other actors will subsidy a purchase of a car in Spain with 2000 euros (news here (Yahoo)). I already have a car,  but if i didn’t I would be very much tempted to buy one. I don’t know all the details of the deal, but it sounds to me that if you get a discount of 2000 euros it is something worth looking into, especially since I would buy one of the tiny ones, a.k.a cheaper ones (I understood the discount is the same no matter which kind of car you buy). From a consumers point of view it all sounds very nice, especially if you have you have the cash to pay the remaining part of the price.

On a more meaningful level, I wonder if this new policy is really the right way to go. I suppose the grand idea behind the plan is to save the jobs of the industry etc. In general there is nothing wrong with that, I just think the money could be spent better: instead of just giving it away it might be directed toward retraining of the people or in creating new opportunities or social safety nets when/if things get really bad. Overall the policy reminds me of the one made few years ago in order to increase birth rates; the government promised 2500€ for every new born baby. That is just fine, but as most parents commented, the problems lie ahead. There is lack of daycare places, the working hours are problematic not to mention the challenges that lie in combining work and family life. In the end of the day, the 2500 euros might not help you that much. The same goes for the 2000 euros:  it seems questionable whether the subsidy will be able to save the jobs after all.

Putting economics aside, the other issue is the environment. On my opinion it all comes down to the question on whether purchasing a new car can be seen as an environmentally friendly act? My own intuitive response is no, but I suppose if we forget the production “costs” (how much of all sorts of resources does it take to product a car) and assume that the buyer already has a car,well, the question becomes at least one worth asking. If an old car, which consumes a lot of gasoline and pollutes even more,  is changed into a new one that uses very little petrol and has all the high tech parts for polluting less, will the environment benefit? That again depends on what happens to the old one. Does it get recycled or will it replace an even older one that gets recycled? Or will there be just another car more on the road?

To me it seems likely that the ones who will take advantage of this offer are the ones who possess a certain level of welfare, and thus, already own a car that is reasonably new (you dont see too many poor people buying new cars at the time of a crisis). This again means that the difference in energy efficiency etc. might not be that great between the current car and the new one. Furthermore, since the current car is actually relatively new, it means that the current car will not be thrashed and recycled, but will be in any case kept in the road, no matter if sold or not. Naturally it is possible that the one who buys the current car will thrash his/hers even older one, but then again the difference on eco-friendliness is no longer that great.

The thing is, that at the same time as giving subsidies to buy a new car, “they (Zapatero’s government)  included a reduction in taxes for small businesses and a 20-billion-euro fund to finance sustainable development projects”. I suppose the most important aim of these acts is to revitalize economy, but isn’t there something funny that at the same time you try to sell more cars and establish a fund aimed to protect the environment? I mean you establish a 20-billion-euro fund to make things more green, and at the same time you put lots of money in order to make things less green:  “Lets really break things now so we have a lot more to fix later on”. Or maybe it is just that breaking and fixing are equally good, both mean jobs and boost for the economy. On the environmental side the question remains the same though, but if buying a new car is seen as environmentally friendly (?), then there is no problem. Furthermore, then I would really like to have that new car. Just miss the remaining part of the price.

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)