PhoenixDown
-- Wants FIOS
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
clubs:   | It doesn't matter
Its not like the adult sites would stop using their .com domains.
--
Mass Transit Sucks! |
|
GoD of KaOs
Agent of KaOs
join:2001-01-29
Chatsworth, CA
| Yeah I would've thought the Federal Mafia and Watchdog groups would love to see these type of sites on one domain. It would be easier to keep and eye on some of these sites.
--
Sometimes I suffer from Advanced Delusionary Schizophrenia with Involuntary Narcissistic Rage..
|
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| .XXX expand porn on the internet??
You've GOT to be kidding me. The internet is all ready TEEMING with porn. A .XXX domain isn't going to change that.
From both perspectives, I don't see where the .XXX domain is all that big an issue. Unless all porn sites were forced to migrate to .XXX (not gonna happen), all this does is open up more URL's for porn sites that for the most part all ready exists.
While interesting news, I don't see where this has any kind of major impact for the average internet user.
--
FCC, PLEASE KILL THE MERGER BEFORE THE MERGER KILLS SATRAD! |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Show me the money!
I have news for Focus on the family, the multiple billions of dollars being spent on internet pornography does more than anything else to legitimize it. Requiring them to use one unified TLD might actually help their cause. Then, you can't reason with fanatics. I get the distinct impression that their mission is to remove such content from the web entirely.
--
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge
"The opposite of war isn't peace, it's creation." |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to PhoenixDown
Re: It doesn't matter
said by PhoenixDown  :Its not like the adult sites would stop using their .com domains. Then we would need legislation about redirecting since those same .com sites would merely redirect to .xxx sites.  |
|
CrazyFingers
join:2003-10-01
Columbia, MO
| Too bad
Because that would have completely solved forever the pressing problem of people looking at other people without any clothes on the intertubes. Parents would have been secure in the knowledge that their perfect little snowflake kids would never ever have to pollute their little eyes by looking at those horribly nasty sinful bits of flesh that happen to be growing from between everyone's legs or in the middle of some people's chests.
Why does ICANN hate our children so much?
Why does ICANN insist on making parents tear themselves away from American Idol and actually check on what their offspring are doing? Don't they realize that just because someone gets pregnant and pops out a kid or three, it's not the parent's responsibility to actually raise them?
ICANN needs to step up and accept their responsibility for everyone else's children soon, before we end up with an entire generation of parents that are forced to take an active role in their children's lives.
And no one wants that.
--
Burrow owl...burrow owl... |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
 ·Comcast
1 edit | reply to yock
Re: Show me the money!
said by yock :I have news for Focus on the family, the multiple billions of dollars being spent on internet pornography does more than anything else to legitimize it. Requiring them to use one unified TLD might actually help their cause. Then, you can't reason with fanatics. I get the distinct impression that their mission is to remove such content from the web entirely. Some even say that the Internet became so popular because of all the pornography. The mere fact that people could go online, in the privacy of their own home, and watch pornography and feel "anonymous" at the same type was why it's so popular.
But I'm more concerned that maybe it was these two U.S. based groups that forced ICANN to reject the .xxx TLD. It's stories like these that gets foreign countries upset that the U.S. has so much control over the Internet. So what if two U.S. based family groups got their panties in a twist. |
|
bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA
| Here is a thought
If porn sites were required to use the .xxx TLD and they were allowed to redirect their multiple .com addresses to a .xxx, wouldn't it be easier for people, businesses et al to block the .xxx TLD?
I know there are a lot of ways around it and who is considered porn and then there is the first amendment but they would be allowed their free speech, just regulated like they are now. Anyone required to have a 2257?? would be required to be on the .xxx TLD.
This should be an ICANN requirement.
--
Just my 2 cents...Flame Lightly... |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| I think a big part of the problem with an XXX domain is that porn laws vary from country to country (and even from locality to locality). Legal adult entertainment in one country might be totally illegal in another country. There's going to be no way that ICANN can very that every XXX domain-named website will be in compliance with local laws.
A more minor problem is that many non-adult entertainment oriented businesses are going to have to stake claims to XXX domains which are the same as their trademarks. You open up a whole new area of squatter/extortion problems with such domains.
A responsible parent can find any number of ways to ensure his/her child does not access inappropriate content online. Segregating legal porn sites is not something that ICANN, or any government at all, should be concerned with.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
MrBradTX
join:2001-05-23
Carrollton, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to bigjimc
said by bigjimc :If porn sites were required to use the .xxx TLD and they were allowed to redirect their multiple .com addresses to a .xxx, wouldn't it be easier for people, businesses et al to block the .xxx TLD? Required by whom? Enforced by whom? Monitored by whom? There are hundreds of different countries, wtih differing attitudes about adult content. US laws don't apply in France or China or Tuvalu. |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | reply to pnh102
Maybe you don't think there should be top level domains at all? Typing .com gets so redundant after a while... |
|
bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA
| reply to MrBradTX
As I said. ICANN. Monitored by anyone who wishes to report a porn site not using .xxx
As far as the hundreds of different countries. Duh....ICANN is international. That's why I said ICANN not the US or EU or any one nation.
The cost of monitoring would be covered by fees collected for a .xxx TLD The Fee should be $35 per year per name (with $25 to ICANN). That would generate enough additional revenue to pay for monitoring. People would submit .com porn to ICANN's Porn Monitoring Center and it could be checked. If a site is porn and not redirecting to .xxx then the .com should be shut down immediately. The 2257 statement (I guess that's what it is) is a good sign that tells people what is porn.
What could it hurt to require .xxx TLD? I guess it makes too much sense to implement it. So did seat belts. |
|
CrzyCrakr
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Edgewater, MD
| Moving to .xxx would make it easier on the child filters. Until they do that I don't buy that they are trying to protect the children. They complain that is all over the place and the same ones complain when you try to put it on a single domain for easy blocking. I am sure they would complain if someone came up with a technology that would show porn but you could only see it if you were like 18 or older. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by CrzyCrakr :Moving to .xxx would make it easier on the child filters. Until they do that I don't buy that they are trying to protect the children. They complain that is all over the place and the same ones complain when you try to put it on a single domain for easy blocking. I am sure they would complain if someone came up with a technology that would show porn but you could only see it if you were like 18 or older. Filters do an excelent job now if one isn't to retarded. Fact is no child is "accidently" typing in analsex.com. Besides if a child did want to see porn on a blocked .xxx all he would need to do is find out what the IP address is on that site and type that in. How's a filter going to block that? |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to bigjimc
said by bigjimc :If porn sites were required to use the .xxx TLD and they were allowed to redirect their multiple .com addresses to a .xxx, wouldn't it be easier for people, businesses et al to block the .xxx TLD? I know there are a lot of ways around it and who is considered porn and then there is the first amendment but they would be allowed their free speech, just regulated like they are now. Anyone required to have a 2257?? would be required to be on the .xxx TLD. This should be an ICANN requirement. The whole point is that ICANN doesn't want to be nor should they be in the content regulation business. Also by the way 2257 is an AMERICAN law. One that non-american sites do not have to abide by. So how that requirement works you need to explain. Over 50% of the porn comes from OUTSIDE the US. people need ot stop think everyhting on the net comes from America and can be ruled by American laws. |
|
Taget
join:2004-07-29
| Good...
..because it would end up being just another vanity domain like info which served little purpose other than to mostly let companies dual/triple/quadruple/quintuple register. While MAYBE providing a few short keywords to a few sites that can just as easily be on .com.
Here is my question. People talk about porn sites dual registering on .com. But what about .com companies dual registering on .xxx. Will disney be able to register www.disney.xxx? If not is there a minimum amount of pornography required? Would art sites be able to register on .xxx? How about non-nude magazimes like Maxim?
Would be funny if one day it passed and we ended up with a committee policing a required level of indecency.
"We're sorry. But we can't approve your site until you post some spread shots." |
|
tbaker397
join:2004-07-19
Berlin, PA
| Does ICANN and parents alike...
...Actually believe that the disclaimer on adult websites that says you MUST be 18 to enter STOP kids from entering porn sites. Are people really that naive? This would help parents control what they're perfect little angels are viewing on the computer, no doubt about it. I beleive there is NO surefire way to stop kids from looking at porn. Except maybe not having a computer; BUT this would help parents out. Just my 2 cents. |
|
eco
Premium
join:2001-11-28
Wilmington, DE
| reply to Rob
Re: Show me the money!
On the surface I'd probably agree with you, but I've been following this issue pretty closely and it seems that ICANN itself and the porn industry were the ones that really ended up getting it rejected. The porn industry didn't want it because it could end up creating an internet red light district or ghetto where the government forces content they don't like to register their domain and then filters can just block the whole TLD. ICANN didn't want it because of the same reason. They were afraid the government would force them into the content enforcement business, making sure porn sites only have .XXX domains, which is well beyond their current government mandate and what they have the capability to do right now. Not only that, but who decides what constitutes porn? There are US government websites about breastfeeding that have actual photographs of bare breasts. Would that be porn? You'd have to set up a whole censorship board, which eventually would get thrown out by the Supreme Court anyway. |
|
DeeplyShrouded
@comcast.net
| reply to tbaker397
Re: Does ICANN and parents alike...
The last thing we need is another domain.
How many kids click the Yes I'm 18 button to get into a site
anyway? There's no real verification, it's bullcrap.
I don't think porn is the problem to be honest.
The problem is the porn sites and scammers using email
to cheat people. You get crap in your email box you
don't want, didn't ask for, and have to deal with.
I think the problem is spam. Users don't have enough control
over their mailboxes. I get messages like "Hi" and it's
"hey visit www.yoursexsitehere. com oppsy delete space before
com". It's become a game of cat and mouse.
Since spammers and porn sites send out so many millions of
spam a day, here is an idea to reduce it.
1 email from an ip, server waits 1 second before sending it.
2 emails within specified time: server waits 2 seconds.
3 emails within specified time: server waits 3 seconds.
The spammer's email machine would grind to a halt in a
short matter of time. The only drawback to this is places
that send emails to a bunch of subscribers, like a
magazine or an organization like the ARRL.
Spammers say people want this crap, and the porn sites
keep churning it out. This year alone, I've reported
close to 200 yahoo email addresses that have sent spam
to my box. I have no answer, but a .xxx domain makes sense
in that one can block all email from the .xxx domain and
never have to deal with it. People that want it, get it.
People that don't don't. Simple all the way around.
--Deeply Shrouded & Quiet |
|
TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Wesley Chapel, FL
|  Reverse The Concept
Some guy on FARK posted a great idea on this.
»forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comment···=2706708
COMALite J
As I posted in another forum on this subject, why not reverse the concept? Instead of “.xxx” (or “.sex” etc.), why not “.kids”? Existing child-oriented domains on other TLDs can open redirects or mirrors on the .kids TLD, such as, oh, say, ToonDisney.kids, at little expense. Parents who want to keep their little darlings protected can simply block access to everything except .kids on the logins that they set up for their offspring. Anti-porn laws could be strictly enforced on this .TLD. All content on it must not only be kid-safe, but kid-oriented. Also, anyone convicted of any form of child abuse would be forever barred from even pinging a site on .kids, as that would count as a new offense.
Perhaps there could also be a “.teens” or “.youth” domain for older youth, with somewhat looser content restrictions, but a similar restriction against convicted abusers. |
|
