There are various levels of immorality on the Internet that people with no shame have exploited for their own ends:
- Spam: The broadcast of messages for a purely commercial purpose
- Porn: Exploiting our animal desires by peddling pictures of naked women
- Plagiarism: The appropriation of someone else’s artistic work as your own without permission
- Tabloidism: The exploitation of catastrophic events to draw attention to yourself
Well now we have all the above rolled into one:
Someone has taken a YouTube Dawson College shooting tribute video (one of those lame wire-service-still-photos-combined-with-sad-song montages) and re-uploaded it with an ad for a porn site at the bottom.
The reason? The original video had “college” and “girl” in its description.
Why don’t porn spammers have better quality control?
Fake outrage is always fun to look at. Political operatives look at anything done by the opposition, put it through as many filters as possible and seek the flimsiest excuse to call something outrageous.
Then they draw up a press release, send it to the media, and hope it sticks.
Of course, in today’s media, rewriting press releases as news is fast, easy and therefore commonplace. So a lot of them start sticking, even if they don’t pass the smell test.
- Guy makes political statement with profanity, for the sole purpose of getting noticed by the media? OUTRAGE!
- Political ad has random letters for half a second spell out “PTORN” over two lines, which looks a bit like “PORN”? OUTRAGE!
- Police keeping an eye on your protest? OUTRAGE!:
“…helicopters, shining bright lights, flew at a very low altitude, at the level of treetops, where the camp was being held. This act demonstrates but one strategy to discourage the direct opposition put into place against the SPP summit.”
When they start finding real people who are actually outraged about these things without the cattle-prod prompting of political campaign directors, they can start thinking that it’s newsworthy.
There are a lot of interesting pornographic websites out there (don’t ask me how I know this): porn involving pregnant women, porn involving books, glasses and all sorts of other inanimate objects you wouldn’t consider sexual.
Now a Quebec entrepreneur is filling the gap of smoking porn. It’s not actually porn, since the girls aren’t naked or anything. They’re just smoking suggestively. And you have to pay to see it.
Dominic Arpin asks the obvious question: What are they smoking? And how smoke-deprived do you have to be to pay to watch other people smoke?
