adult sites on seperate server?

[gregw]

I know that GatorHost allows adult websites to be hosted and although I don't agree with that, I can deal with it.

I host mainly church and ministry related websites, and if the word ever got out that there were adult websites on the same server as the church website, there would be quite the concern. I know that they are "technically" seperate, but it would be the principle of the matter.

It would be nice to have certain hosting plans and servers that were completely "adult material" free. As resellers on THOSE specific plans, we would agree not to sell sites to clients wanting to host adult material...easy enough. I would even be willing to pay an additional $5-10 per month to have that privalege.

On a side note, the very first hosting company I was with got their internal DNS screwed up and for about 2 hours our sites pointed to the wrong websites....could you imagin what would have happened if one of my church sites pointed to an adult website for those 2 hours?

Just my suggestion!

Greg

[GatorJustin]

I can tell you that we will consider your suggestion, however my immediate reaction would be that such a policy would not work very well due to the reasons outlined below...

Let's say that we agreed to segregate all adult content sites. Would that be the end of it, or would we hear from someone else who is asking to not be hosted in the same room as any adult sites?

We could then build a seperate room, but what if someone didn't want to have their site hosted in the same building as any adult sites?

The only way around all of these issues would be to seek out a host which prohibits adult content, but even then there is no guarantee that their servers are free of such content, and I would wager that you would find at least *some* adult-oriented material on 95% of all servers.

And then there's other issues....

Would it be acceptable to host a catholic site on the same server as a muslim or jewish site? What about an atheist organization that did not want their site hosted on the same server as a site promoting any form of organized religion?

See how convoluted it could become?

Greg, we do understand and respect your desire to try and keep your site "pure" in a sense, but when you strip away everything but the core, all that remains is a series of 1's and 0's stored on a disc, and hopefully that cannot be offensive to anyone.

-Justin

[GatorBrent]

I understand your concern you should get a dedicated ip for your sites that you want to be completely away from. This would mean the only site on the ip is your site and it's almost as good as having your own server when it comes to lookups.

[gregw]

Justin & Brent,

Thanks for the well thought out reply. I really appreciate you taking the time to respond, and I agree with your points. I can see where there would could be a potential for future requests that aren't as black and white, though most hosts just draw the line on porn or no porn. The last host I was with was porn free and I had a huge amount of respect for that because I know he probably lost a lot of money because of that policy. I guess eventually I could go with a dedicated server, which would alleviate the concern all together. Your suggestion about a dedicated IP intrigues me and I may contact you about that in the near future. I don't make any money on my web hosting and we don't even advertise it...in fact, I lose money because of the amount of time I spend in tech support, but it does make a nice value-added service (purchase a site design and get free hosting for 12 months, for instance)

For now I just want to get my current sites over to you guys as seamlessly as possible...so far, so good!

Greg

If your religion is so strict that you want nothing to do with Adult content, far be it for anyone to convince you otherwise, but don't put down those of us that don't mind it by requesting that they seperate the servers.. that's just illogical.

[guppy124]

I second this request. All adult sites should be kept on seperate servers. If two sites are hosted on the same server, there is a chance of IP addresses being mixed up, and one URL could be directed to the other's site. So if your site is on the same server as an adult site, it could be possible that those sites could be swapped one day. (This happened to a friend of ours, it was very embarassing not to mention detrimental and damaging if you are hosting a children's site for example). I too propose that all adult sites be kept on seperate servers for that reason.

[GvilleRick]

I doubt that the policy stated over four years ago in this thread have likely changed and the advice given then still holds true today. If you are concerned about the issue there are options. You can purchase the dedicated IP, go with a dedicated server where you would have the final say in what is on your server, or choose a host that has a no-adult content policy (and quite possibly higher prices.) I ran a school and a church site on shared servers for quite a while with no problems. Ultimately I advised moving to a dedicated server for a variety of reasons other than the issue here.

[gwyneth]

IMO, GatorJustin put it beautifully in that old post.

Guppy124, your request seems inverted to me. Why should HG segregate any type of sites at the request of some? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

I'm not putting this very well. What I'm trying to say is that regardless of the content/focus of "their" sites and "your" sites, you didn't ask to be moved yourself. You want "them" moved.

My intent is not to comment on the merits/demerits of any type of content, or keeping it on separate servers. But the way you see the issue--move "them"--bothers me. IMO, if the benefits are for you, you should shoulder the burden (whether it be dedicated IP, dedicated server, other host with no-adult policy, etc.) rather than expecting "them" to.

[TheExoticFish]

Not to sound harsh but I find this completely ridiculous. Another site on the same server has nothing to do with yours and if you're that concerned about it then you need to pay for your own dedicated server.

[Mike S.]

Are separate servers enough? The holy data could become evil if it bumps into any porn as the two pass through the same pipes, throughout the same internet... or even when they hit the same end-user's hard drive.

[dwrunyon]

Originally Posted by Mike S.

Are separate servers enough? The holy data could become evil if it bumps into any porn as the two pass through the same pipes, throughout the same internet... or even when they hit the same end-user's hard drive.

Exactly what I was thankin... they are also goin to start havin to have a firewall and AV on each packet.

[striddy]

Originally Posted by guppy124

All adult sites should be kept on seperate servers. If two sites are hosted on the same server, there is a chance of IP addresses being mixed up, and one URL could be directed to the other's site. So if your site is on the same server as an adult site, it could be possible that those sites could be swapped one day.

HG doesn't have any knowledge of what content is hosted on their servers until the content is uploaded. Unless the TOS changes I can't see your suggestion happening.

Originally Posted by TheExoticFish

Not to sound harsh but I find this completely ridiculous. Another site on the same server has nothing to do with yours and if you're that concerned about it then you need to pay for your own dedicated server.

@ Mr. Fish - It's guppy124's first post. Perhaps a little more tolerance of new forum members questions would be in order.

[WEG0508]

If I am following this string correctly?

Originl post date & replies: 08-19-2004, 12:36 PM. Gracefully laid to rest by HG support.

Exhumed: 03-01-2006, 10:10 PM

Re-Exhumed: 12-06-2008, 03:29 PM

Boredom? Obsession?, Necrophilia? What the hey!!! ... one more for the post count?

[phototristan]

You could switch to another hosting company that doesn't allow adult sites. BlueHost and WestHost come to mind. They are located in Utah and the law in Utah doesn't allow for any adult sites/nudity.

I'm with Hostgator because they don't practice this kind of censorship, which I find hypocritical because the above companies do allow you to post photos of a violent murder (for example), but not of the natural human form. Go figure.

[txitcs]

At minimum get a VPS.

And don't leave your house, cause theres a lot worse than porn outside in the real world.

[TheExoticFish]

LoL really.

[TheExoticFish]

Originally Posted by striddy

@ Mr. Fish - It's guppy124's first post. Perhaps a little more tolerance of new forum members questions would be in order.

FYI, my comment wasn't directed towards him...

[mp3]

Originally Posted by gwyneth

IMO, GatorJustin put it beautifully in that old post.

Guppy124, your request seems inverted to me. Why should HG segregate any type of sites at the request of some? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

I'm not putting this very well. What I'm trying to say is that regardless of the content/focus of "their" sites and "your" sites, you didn't ask to be moved yourself. You want "them" moved.

My intent is not to comment on the merits/demerits of any type of content, or keeping it on separate servers. But the way you see the issue--move "them"--bothers me. IMO, if the benefits are for you, you should shoulder the burden (whether it be dedicated IP, dedicated server, other host with no-adult policy, etc.) rather than expecting "them" to.

Having read your posts for some time, I have more respect for you than many of the posters in this thread (both based on your knowledge and maturity).

However, I think you are wrong about the request being to segregate the adult sites, it was the other way around:

It would be nice to have certain hosting plans and servers that were completely "adult material" free. As resellers on THOSE specific plans, we would agree not to sell sites to clients wanting to host adult material...easy enough. I would even be willing to pay an additional $5-10 per month to have that privalege.

When considering it that way. It might not be too difficult to setup a <group only/specific policy> server, especially if you set some sort of minimum number of customer requests to get such a server.

As for the other comments, it is easy enough to find what other sites are hosted on the same IP. Adult material is something strictly controlled and (at least somewhat) taboo in most societies. The damage that it could do to either of these posters' businesses is significant, and their request itself is not unreasonable (although it could lead to a snowball effect). Perhaps posters such as txitcs and Mike S. could think about the financial implications for these customers before insulting them.

[GvilleRick]

As for the other comments, it is easy enough to find what other sites are hosted on the same IP. Adult material is something strictly controlled and (at least somewhat) taboo in most societies. The damage that it could do to either of these posters' businesses is significant, and their request itself is not unreasonable (although it could lead to a snowball effect). Perhaps posters such as txitcs and Mike S. could think about the financial implications for these customers before insulting them.

I agree that the financial implications can be substantial but there are other options available. HostGator is a budget host which most of us agree offers great service for the prices they charge. Where it would well be possible to offer such a service and charge more for it that means more overhead for HG in managing the users, policing the servers, etc. There are companies that do have a no adult content policy and HG offers the options of having a dedicated IP or moving to a dedicated server.

[gwyneth]

Originally Posted by mp3

However, I think you are wrong about the request being to segregate the adult sites, it was the other way around:



It would be nice to have certain hosting plans and servers that were completely "adult material" free. As resellers on THOSE specific plans, we would agree not to sell sites to clients wanting to host adult material...easy enough. I would even be willing to pay an additional $5-10 per month to have that privalege.

[/quote]

That was the original poster who phrased it that way, not guppy124, who resurrected the thread. S/he said:

Originally Posted by guppy124

I second this request. All adult sites should be kept on seperate servers. If two sites are hosted on the same server, there is a chance of IP addresses being mixed up, and one URL could be directed to the other's site. So if your site is on the same server as an adult site, it could be possible that those sites could be swapped one day. (This happened to a friend of ours, it was very embarassing not to mention detrimental and damaging if you are hosting a children's site for example). I too propose that all adult sites be kept on seperate servers for that reason.

And that is who I was addressing. S/he neither suggested self-segregation nor offered to shoulder an additional cost, but seems to want "them" moved.

@TheExoticFish--if you weren't directing your comment towards guppy124, to whom were you talking? Surely not the original poster from 2004? IMO, your post wasn't as harsh as David thought, but unless you were addressing it to guppy124 it makes absolutely no sense.

[Mike S.]

Originally Posted by mp3

Perhaps posters such as txitcs and Mike S. could think about the financial implications for these customers before insulting them.

If there were any financial impacts to worry about, they'd be paying to be on their own server. That's the only way to guarantee that you're at least 1 hard drive away from a porn site... though your server could be crammed between two servers full of porn.

If saying "You can't put _____ on a shared server" worked, hosts wouldn't need abuse departments.

Besides, I'm not really too worried about "insulting" someone that's having a hard time tricking his customers into thinking he's not supporting a porn-friendly host. I think if god forgives his followers for neat little stunts like murder, adultery, etc... that he'll probably let them slide if they host their website in the same building as a porn site.

[gwyneth]

Originally Posted by mp3

The damage that it could do to either of these posters' businesses is significant, and their request itself is not unreasonable (although it could lead to a snowball effect). Perhaps posters such as txitcs and Mike S. could think about the financial implications for these customers before insulting them.

Originally Posted by Mike S.

If there were any financial impacts to worry about, they'd be paying to be on their own server. That's the only way to guarantee that you're at least 1 hard drive away from a porn site... though your server could be crammed between two servers full of porn.

mp3, it would be one thing if those businesses had been satisfied here before HG moved in sites they find objectionable. But, IMO, it's a completely different issue when the HG policy existed before they bought hosting.

What guppy124 seeks is the equivalent of going into a restaurant that serves alcohol, ordering dinner, and THEN demanding that liquor operations cease because the diner finds booze offensive. As with the adult hosting issue, if someone doesn't like it, s/he shouldn't walk in and expect both the operation and its customers--more senior than the diner--to comply. Can you imagine how the other restaurant customers would react at being asked, mid-meal, to go find somewhere else to eat?

IMO, Mike is correct. If there were financial implications, they would have invested in their own server.

But let's take a different approach. How reasonable do you think the converse would be? Suppose someone was a happy customer of a non-adult content hosting firm, and suddenly several new customers running x-sites moved in and said, "Those non-adult folks have got to be segregated. Move them to their own server."

Your first impulse is probably: that's ridiculous. Yes, it would be--but not because "they are offensive" and "we are not". But because "they", in either case, were here before the objectors chose to move in.

People have complete freedom to choose not to buy from companies with whose practices and policies they disagree. But it's very different to say, "I like doing business with you. But I don't like the people who've been buying from you longer than I have. Move 'em."

[malcarada]

I have adult sites on Hostgator shared hosting and I want to request that all religious sites are moved to a separate server so that my surfers are never exposed to such thing.

I find them offensive and insulting towards porn surfers and adult webmasters alike.

[mp3]

Originally Posted by gwyneth

mp3, it would be one thing if those businesses had been satisfied here before HG moved in sites they find objectionable. But, IMO, it's a completely different issue when the HG policy existed before they bought hosting.

What guppy124 seeks is the equivalent of going into a restaurant that serves alcohol, ordering dinner, and THEN demanding that liquor operations cease because the diner finds booze offensive. As with the adult hosting issue, if someone doesn't like it, s/he shouldn't walk in and expect both the operation and its customers--more senior than the diner--to comply. Can you imagine how the other restaurant customers would react at being asked, mid-meal, to go find somewhere else to eat?

guppy124's request was somewhat backwards, but as noted above, my post was addressed at the initial request.
The initial request was that another "room" be provided at the "restaurant". While the second request was certainly that the other customers be moved into the new "room". Again, the initial request was the proper way to go about it, but neither requested that the adult sites be removed ("liquor operations cease[ing]).

Originally Posted by gwyneth

IMO, Mike is correct. If there were financial implications, they would have invested in their own server.

Or after cost-benefit analysis they decided that a dedicated server was too expensive, that while other companies might offer this service, they liked HG, and that the best option was to request this service.
:shrug:

Originally Posted by gwyneth

But let's take a different approach. How reasonable do you think the converse would be? Suppose someone was a happy customer of a non-adult content hosting firm, and suddenly several new customers running x-sites moved in and said, "Those non-adult folks have got to be segregated. Move them to their own server."

This scenario is not parallel because HG is not a non-religious content hosting company.

Originally Posted by gwyneth

People have complete freedom to choose not to buy from companies with whose practices and policies they disagree. But it's very different to say, "I like doing business with you. But I don't like the people who've been buying from you longer than I have. Move 'em."

I only recall seeing suggestions in the two requests - nothing imperative.



I suppose that's enough from me though, considering this is a service I do not particularly need.

[whatrevolution]

I am suddenly even more inspired to host porn web-logs and hardcore premium content services than I was before. I'm in your server, enjoying our Constitution.