Violating their own policy

Someone brought the Net Authority Violations website to my attention today. I include the link so that my readers can read what it actually says. I read that one page, not even bothering to read the rest of their site, and reported their own site as violating internet acceptable use, for two of the five reasons they allow to submit.

They give three examples of seemingly innocent sites that are actually very bad. Example #1 I will not argue with. They say that pictures of unclothed babies shouldn't be posted. Quite frankly I would agree. No matter what our parents may put in our own photo albums, leave that off of the internet.

Example #2 is reason number one that they got a submission from me for their own site. This one I'm just going to quote. Paraphrasing won't do it justice.

If you read the bible (you should, it's great!) you know that dinosaurs never actually existed, and that God put those fossils and bones there to test our faith in Him. While the stories themselves may not contain any offensive material, the simple fact that they are about dinosaurs may cause a child to question his faith in the one true God. By blaspheming, this site is in violation of the Internet Acceptable Use Policy and should be added to our database.

The Bible never says that dinosaurs never existed. I don't recall the Bible ever referring to aardvarks, either, but we know they exist because...they exist. For anyone interested, Answers in Genesis has some good stuff about dinosaurs and the Bible. Quite frankly, the notion that God planted fossils and bones to test faith is silly. Could God have done that? Certainly. Would God have done that? No, I don't think so. God is not the author of confusion, and putting bones on the earth that don't belong to any animal that actually existed would be cause for confusion, would it not? I'll let Ken Ham argue the issue, however ;). I used the reason of blasphemy for reporting the site.

The third example has to do with pictures of farm animals. Again, paraphrasing would never do justice to this, so I quote:

But imagine that some of the photos of animals included the animal genitalia in plain sight. This is hardly something that young children should be looking at, and especially not to be associated with the joy of viewing a fun website. By associating a feeling of joy with animal genitalia, this website would be an extreme danger to children and should definitely be added to the Net Authority database as a bestiality offender.

Young children should also not be around dogs, either, if that is the case, or visit a farm or a zoo. I think it speaks for itself. I didn't report them for this, just found it...silly.

The second reason I reported them was the way they worded reason #5 for submitting offending sites: Bestiality (including interracial relationships). This I reported for being hateful material. That just ruffles my feathers, to say the least. To say that is to say that anyone who is not of my racial group is an animal, some other species, or otherwise sub-human. That, to me, is hateful.

Someone else who saw the website thought it was a joke. Perhaps it is a joke, but I think they are serious, and that is just sad. Good intentions, but highly impractical on some points and misled on others. So the site got a little reaction out of me...heh...