Cyberscare Scrapbook

http://www.playboy.com/forum/archive/scare.html (PC Press Internet CD, 03/1996)

never in the history of science has so much been made out of so little

Excerpted from The Playboy Forum
November 1995

This past summer America witnessed a truly bizarre media blitz on the dangers of Internet pornography.

On the floor of the Senate, James Exon (D-Neb.) orchestrated a private tour of online copulation to enlist votes for his Communications Decency Act. The Georgetown Law Journal had published a dubious research paper by Carnegie Mellon undergrad Marty Rimm that claimed -- among other things -- that 83.5 percent of all digital images on Usenet were pornographic. Time, which got an exclusive first look at Rimm's "Marketing Pornography on the Information Superhighway: A Study of 917,410 Images, Descriptions, Short Stories and Animations Downloaded 8.5 Million Times by Consumers in Over 2000 Cities in 40 Countries, Provinces and Territories," devoted its July 3 cover story to the research and congressional debate. Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition appeared on "Nightline" sputtering a statistic pulled out of thin air and demanding government intervention. The Senate obliged, voting 84 to 16 to punish "indecent" and "filthy" words and images in cyberspace.

It didn't take long for antiporn zealots to latch on to Rimm's study, claiming it proved that women were being tortured, raped and objectified in digital space. But few people bothered to read Rimm's 86-page study or the many detailed critiques that immediately popped up on the Internet.

Unfortunately, the many efforts to show Rimm's study for what it was (a sloppy grab for media attention) and Exon's legislation for what it was (censorship by prior restraint) were too little, too late. The idea that the Internet is saturated with harmful and vile pornography available at the "click of a button" had already entered the American psyche. Only those willing to look past the initial rhetoric discovered that the reality of the situation wasn't so neat and tidy.

JUST A CLICK AWAY?

Rimm's research failed to emphasize that 99.7 percent of the images he studied were found on private, adult bulletin boards, which are not part of the Internet and not accessible to children. From the study:

"In order to collect descriptive lists of the pornographic images available on each bulletin board system, as well as a representative sampling of the images themselves, the research team placed more than 300 hours of long-distance telephone calls to the adult BBSes selected by the team. Every BBS asked members of the research team to provide a real name, an address, business and home phone numbers, date of birth, password and type of computer and modem. Most asked where the members of the research team had heard about their BBS, and approximately half of them required photocopies of a driver's license with proof of age before granting further access to their systems. Still others asked for the user's mother's maiden name (purportedly in case the password was forgotten) and required users to read legal disclaimers related to pornographic files."

At one point in his study, Rimm makes it clear his research of porn on the Internet didn't really involve the Internet. "It is difficult to estimate the extent to which the Internet is being used to carry pornographic images," he writes. "Unfortunately, no reliable data are available to answer this question." Rimm's numbers may not stand up, but he's no dummy. A study called "Marketing Pornography on Private, Adult Bulletin Boards Not Available to Children" would never have made the cover of Time -- or the Senate floor.

FALSIES

Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) speaking on the Senate floor the day Time's article hit newsstands: "Of the images reviewed, 83.5 percent -- all on the Internet -- are pornographic."

There are thousands of newsgroups on the Internet, but Rimm chose 32 groups that deal with images. His bias is evident. "Of 32 digital image newsgroups located on Usenet, 17 contained pornographic imagery. Among the 15 nonpornographic groups, 827 image posts were counted during the seven-day period. Among the 17 pornographic newsgroups, 4206 image posts were counted, or 83.5 percent of the total posts from all 32 groups." In other words, in a study of 32 newsgroups in which more than half were devoted to pornographic images, 8 in 10 of the postings were pornographic images. Eureka!

Rimm subsequently pointed out that because the Usenet represents only 11.5 percent of the Internet, its pornographic content represents 0.35 percent of all Net traffic.

ONE MORE REASON WHY BULLETIN BOARDS SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH THE INTERNET

Mike Godwin, general counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, reacting to Rimm's study: "It's as if you did a study of bookstores in Times Square and used it to generalize about what was in Barnes & Noble stores nationwide."

MOST UNDERREPORTED FACT

In an article accompanying Rimm's study, NYU Law School Professor Carlin Meyer reports: "Interestingly, the Carnegie Mellon study never found such descriptions as snuff, kill or murder and rarely found such others as pain, torture, agony, hurts, suffocates and the like. The term rape appeared fewer than a dozen times in descriptions of more than 900,000 images."

WEIRDEST DEFENSE OF STUDY

Professor Meyer: "The Internet makes it possible for people with enormously varied backgrounds and religious or moral belief systems to engage in distanced and therefore relatively safe discussion of otherwise emotionally difficult subjects such as sexual beliefs and practices. Imagine, for example, an uninhibited cross-cultural discussion of the Colombian Caribbean coast practice in which teenage boys matriculate to manhood by having sex with donkeys. Subscribers to sexual-, anthropologic-, zoophilic- or bestiality-related newsgroups could debate whether this ritual may be a more effective way to prevent teen pregnancy than those rituals promoted by their own cultures. They could argue about whether proving one's manhood with donkeys is worse than doing so by abusing young women or by purchasing the services of prostitutes."

GREAT MOMENTS IN PSEUDOSCIENCE: STARE AT AN IMAGE LONG ENOUGH AND YOU'LL SEE A VIDEO!

A major flaw in Rimm's methodology was that his team did not actually view all 917,410 images he claims were downloaded from 68 adult BBSes at least 8.5 million times during two months. Instead, to complete "the first systematic study of pornography on the information superhighway," the researchers collected "descriptive listings" used to market the images. The team analyzed 3823 different words found in the one- or two-line blurbs (you can't see the images until you've paid to download them), then broke them down into 63 categories.

At times, this aspect of Rimm's study provides for entertaining reading as he struggles with how to classify the 10,000 images his team actually viewed. From the study:

"This is as much a study of words as of images, of words that describe images, of words as revealing in their accuracy as in their inaccuracy. Consider the description 'She has one fist in her girlfriend's asshole and another fist in her pussy.' Examination of the downloaded image revealed that only two fingers were in the anus. The research team did not classify this as anal fisting. However, the bulletin board customer who has a fetish for anal fisting of women and who downloads the image may not be upset to discover that only two fingers, and not the entire hand, are inserted in the anus. In fact, the photo may serve as the starting point of another fantasy. The divergence between word and image suggests a certain flux. The dichotomy between now and later is an extremely clever way for the pornographer to make a still image assume a certain motion. In the viewer's mind, it may even become a movie."

DEAR GOD@HEAVEN.COM

A prayer written by Senate chaplain Lloyd John Ogilvie and read into the record by Senator Exon before debate on his online decency bill:

"Almighty God, Lord of all life, we praise you for the advancements in computerized communications that we enjoy in our time. Sadly, however, there are those who litter this information superhighway with obscene, indecent and destructive pornography. Virtual but virtueless reality is projected in the most twisted, sick misuse of sexuality. Violent people with sexual pathologies are able to stalk and harass the innocent. Cybersolicitation of teenagers reveals the dark side of online victimization. Lord, we are profoundly concerned about the impact of this on our children.

We have learned from careful study how children can become addicted to pornography at an early age. Their understanding and appreciation of your gift of sexuality can be denigrated and eventually debilitated. Pornography disallowed in print and mail is now readily available to young children who learn how to use the computer. O God, help us care for our children. Give us wisdom to create regulations that will protect the innocent. Lord, give us courage to balance our reverence for freedom of speech with responsibility for what is said and depicted.

Now guide the senators when they consider ways of controlling the pollution of computer communications and how to preserve one of our greatest resources: the minds of our children and the future and moral strength of our nation. Amen."

RIMM'S NUMBERS

Number of "descriptive listings" collected by Rimm for study: 917,410

Estimated percentage of duplicate images: 36

Of 1000 adult bulletin boards contacted by Rimm, percentage that had gone out of business: 50

Percentage of images on five Internet sex groups that Rimm found originated on private bulletin boards: 71

Percentage of images downloaded from the five sex newsgroups by Rimm that were damaged and could not be viewed: 13

BEST NEW INTERNET JARGON

rimm (v.): To publish sensational and unsubstantiated facts without the benefit of a peer review and with the sole intent of demonizing the Net. Example: The data on which Senator Exon based his bill rimm.

rimmed (adj.): Fundamentally flawed, botched. Example: Jack did a rimmed job analyzing the average production of widgets.

Reprinted from Playboy, November 1995 Copyright © 1995 Playboy Enterprises, Inc. No part of this article may be produced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means--electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise--without the written permission of the copyright owner.