Re: Time/Newsweek Cyberporn Stories [ close to final mailing --

[David Farber <farber@central.cis.upenn.edu>]

Date: Wed, 05 Jul 1995 12:08:05 -0500 (CDT)
From: hoffman@colette.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu (Donna Hoffman)


Here's an example of the sort of problems that can ensue when bad research
moves into mainstream media as fact:




 Sen.Grassley, in official record:


 "...I want to emphasize that this is Carnegie Mellon University. This is
 not a study done by some religious organization..."
 "Mr. President, I want to repeat that: 83.5 percent of the 900,000 images
 reviewed -- these are all on the Internet -- are pornographic, according to
 the Carnegie Mellon study."






In the first place, this is a study done by an undergrad in EE, not an expert
in the subject matter.  It is misleading to position the study as a "Carnegie
Mellon study."  In the second place, the 83.5% number does not refer to
the 900,000 "images" reviewed, but to files from 17 alt.binaries
groups.  In the third place, 900,000 images were never examined. LISTINGS of
those images were counted and a much smaller number of listings (not
images) were actually analyzed.  In the fourth place, NONE of those image files
were on the Net - ALL were from adult BBSs.  In the fifth place, since most
the listings from adult BBSs were never examined for
content, it is unknown how many would be considered
pornographic by various definitions.




But maybe the Senator never read the study, only the TIME report of the
study.