<![CDATA[Yahoo is less prudish than Google - Valleywag Comments]]> <![CDATA[Yahoo is less prudish than Google - Valleywag Comments]]> <![CDATA[Yahoo is less prudish than Google]]> Ah, the good ol' days when Yahoo was actively working on adult-content portals... sniff, sniff. Some of the useful people were actually still there, then.

ripopgome

]]> <![CDATA[Yahoo is less prudish than Google]]> they can "viral it" through a "separate and unrelated" entity.

But that would require some craftiness.

Fidel on the Roof

]]> <![CDATA[Yahoo is less prudish than Google]]> Narducci may be unconcerned about porn on yahoo videos, but someone at yahoo thinks it's a no-no. Here's what the guidelines for posting videos on yahoo says:
"Keep it clean- People of all ages visit Yahoo! Video. Do not upload pornography, nudity, or extreme violence."

And later in the guidelines:
"Videos depicting nudity, pornography, sex, graphic violence, dead bodies, serious bodily injury or death, threats, or animal abuse are not allowed."

So is this a case of total indifference, hypocrisy, or incompetence?

ClickHere

]]> <![CDATA[Yahoo is less prudish than Google]]> From careers.yahoo.com.

Community:
We share an infectious sense of mission to make an impact on society and empower consumers in ways never before possible. We are committed to serving both the Internet community and our own communities.

wink!

HiQCode

]]> <![CDATA[Yahoo is less prudish than Google]]> I don't see a way to monetize this. They can't openly advertise porn subscriptions, so all this could possibly do is boost pageviews--which has never been their problem. I can only imagine that more users makes Narducci look better.

Dweezil

]]> <![CDATA[Yahoo is less prudish than Google]]> Jackson West is a good porn name.

Mr. E.

]]>