The interesting thing is, the item was a "Link to Playboy.com blog entry."
Since when does Playboy have a blog? (August 2006, apparently.)
I checked out the site, and it's mostly, even remarkably, Safe For Work. They link off to boob-y YouTube videos and such, but it looks like they're making a deliberate attempt to keep it clean, as evidenced by stuff like this in the source code:
It looks like they're using the blojsom platform (v. 2.3, so they're a little behind).
<!-- RIGHT ADS - ALL ADS IN ARTICLES SECTION SHOULD BE #2 NON-NUDE -->
Either they're viciously moderating comments, or they're just not getting any.
Media and publishing companies probably have a little more reason to blog than other types of companies (especially if they're pushing out monthlies), so it's not really a "look who has a blog now" story any more.
I just would have thought that Playboy would have had a more prominent place in the blogosphere, even if they're downplaying the boobies and going for a more standard "editorial plus behind the scenes" blog.
I guess it's a double-whammy: anything on playboy.com is probably still hard to defend when it comes to workplace filters ("I read Playboy for the blog articles"?), and if there aren't any nude pics, why visit?
I do note, though, that the SuicideGirls editorial blogs seem to be doing okay (I check out Wil Wheaton's entries from time to time), so maybe Playboy just isn't doing it "right."
A superficial look at both sites shows that SuicideGirls has community as a core offering (since they're not focused around a print magazine, they need to have a robust Web site, and the community aspects -- boards, social profiles, etc. -- go a long way in providing that) whereas Playboy does not (which explains why their site is primarily a big ad for their premium Web content.)
So it pretty much looks like the standard story of the big, entrenched company trying to move over to a new business model, but not getting the social media bits quite right. Only with more tits.