The very premise of this article is flawed. I don't buy it. Censorship of sex didn't kill the internet it killed the popularity of sex on the internet. I am sor

The very premise of this article is flawed. I don't buy it. Censorship of sex didn't kill the internet it killed the popularity of sex on the internet. I am sorry the internet is not only for sex exploration or arousal. It serves many other useful ends besides healthy or unhealthy sexual proclivities. Decisions made by Google & Co to me are purely business decisions. Think about it, if you wanted to be the most popular search engine how do you reconcile that with getting blocked in schools, libraries, and homes. Call it cultural influence if you like but I personally won't be at all surprised tomorrow if Google made a switch to serve up search results with live hot steamy sex from two strangers on the side because that's the kind of user they are after. I, on the other hand, will block their services. If the author's argument is that censorship of any form is a threat to the vision of the internet, we can have a meaningful discussion about that. The problem described in the article is easily solved: The author should start an adult search engine, adult blog (insert your favorite adult content here) and serve up whatever explicit content tickles her fancies but these types of arguments are frankly trite and lacking much depth.