Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pressure Mounts On ICANN To Approve .xxx Domain

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the mounts-get-it-hah-hah dept.

The Internet 372

An anonymous reader writes "An application for the.xxx domain was first submitted six years ago. ICANN approved the application in 2005, and entered into an agreement with ICM Registry regarding technical and commercial terms. However, ICANN reversed its decision in March 2007. An independent review panel was called to look into why ICANN had changed its mind, and concluded that the body had been under pressure from the US government. Now the registry that submitted that application, ICM Registry, is pushing for .xxx to be approved. The company has argued that the .xxx internet domain should be approved for porn site use, allowing parents and businesses to easily configure browsers or filters to automatically block sites that carry the domain."

cancel ×

372 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yay ignorance. (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32099786)

Can anyone tell me why someone wouldn't want the .xxx domain to happen? What possible downside is there to it?

Re:Yay ignorance. (3, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 4 years ago | (#32099816)

You don't have an excuse like 'oh I didn't know this was a porn site!' when caught. You can't just say you were searching Large fresh melons and accidentally found such a smutty site.

Re:Yay ignorance. (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32099834)

Oh yeah, that's definetly it.

Re:Yay ignorance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32099902)

Your idea might have made sense back in the day when people typed URLs into the address bar.
This is silly; Google took the place of DNS long ago.

Re:Yay ignorance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32099960)

Their sites will get blocked far too easily, causing them to lose the huge amount of traffic they get from those who are underaged or browse porn at work.

They don't care where the ad dollars come from, as long as they come.

Re:Yay ignorance. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32100028)

...as long as they come.

Indeed.

Re:Yay ignorance. (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100780)

Their sites will get blocked far too easily, causing them to lose the huge amount of traffic they get from those who are underaged or browse porn at work.

So long as there aren't any requirements that porn must use .xxx then this isn't a problem. Most porn sites will use both.

Re:Yay ignorance. (3, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32101122)

So long as there aren't any requirements that porn must use .xxx then this isn't a problem. Most porn sites will use both.

Which kind of invalidates the argument that we should approve .xxx because it will make filtering porn easier.....

Re:Yay ignorance. (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100488)

Or more legitimately, trying to go to the Python website, and finding out firsthand it's .org and not .com!

Re:Yay ignorance. (5, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32099888)

Because kneejerk Puritans would go crazy because it would look like someone was actually condoning porn, or at least recognizing its right to exist. We can't have that sort of thing, especially not in America where we practice our bizarre fetishes behind closed doors while condemning anyone who shares them. The only acceptable methods of sexual gratification are intercourse for the purpose of bearing children and the occasional leaked celebrity sex tape.

Re:Yay ignorance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32100044)

Call me a puritan, but most porn is exploitative of women, and this domain would not stop many of the porn sites from using the domains that they already have.

Really, just another excuse for Icann to whore themselves out some more.

Re:Yay ignorance. (1)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100130)

Of course it wouldn't stop them from using their existing domains. Basically it would mean ICANN gets to collect a bunch of money for more domain registrations from existing clients while not actually changing anything of any consequence. Given that, the question is why the hell won't they approve it? The only possible explanation I can come up with is that anything that smacks of salaciousness must be rejected so as to avoid offending the very loud and very influential Puritanical set.

Re:Yay ignorance. (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100680)

and this domain would not stop many of the porn sites from using the domains that they already have

Not under current rules, but once there's an official adult-site TLD, then they could consider phasing in rules regarding the use of other domains. Even something as simple as requiring a redirect from existing domains to the .xxx version before any content is visible would be a welcome change for parents who are trying to foster independence in their children while not letting them be exposed to every crazy thing under the sun.

If there's an easy way for me to allow my son to browse the net with little supervision, while minimizing the chances that he doesn't mistakenly happen upon 2g1c one day, I'd be thrilled.

Re:Yay ignorance. (5, Insightful)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#32101138)

Yes, let's all regulate things we don't personally approve of, I'm sure that will turn out to be a wonderful idea.

So what's next? All companies must use .com or .biz? All personal websites should be in .person? How about forcing national registrars to institute .xxx.cc and force all services with porn onto those domains?

This is a trick, the first part is to come up with a useless but at first glance harmless "protect the childrun!" action and once this is in place it is used for step two, which in this case would be to force porn onto .xxx.

Did I mention that my dangerous dissenting mind was let onto the Internet back as a 12 year-old back in the first half of the 90s? completely unsupervised and yet I, like all of my friends who shared this horrible fate, survived and came out of it just fine. Isn't it amazing, how lucky we must consider ourselves. After all, the Internet is just a cesspool of filth and naughty bits!

How about you either trust your children or You, their parent, take actions to supervise them, don't force all of the world to conform to your prudish standards just because you're too lazy to pay attention to your children.

Re:Yay ignorance. (3, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100918)

most porn is exploitative of women

No, rape is exploitative to women. Women being presented in an "only an object" light, however, is not. While it can be viewed as a form of prostitution, marrying rich men is legal as well, yet nobody complains about that.

Supply and Demand. Make your own porn with more romance and love stories in it, and see how it sells.

Re:Yay ignorance. (4, Interesting)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100086)

Perhaps the Puritans (and pedophile priests) are on to something here... maybe sex really is a lot more fun if you feel guilty about it, and have to keep it a secret! There is something very attractive about taboo behavior, particularly to adolescents.

Re:Yay ignorance. (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100834)

Oh, it's just simply evolution of memes. Raising babies was always very resource demanding, and it's not such long time since we have cheap contraception. So the taboo is related to population control. (And not having "illegitimate" children; because in a low tech society it's very hard to track the father)

Re:Yay ignorance. (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32101036)

There are 3 main costs associated with sex: 1) The probability of pregnancy, 2) The probability of contracting an STD, and 3) The emotional harm caused by later rejection. Those costs have not changed significantly. As far as "illegitimate" children, some matriarchcal socities have been structured so that it doesn't really matter who the father of a child is; illegitimacy only matters in patriarchal societys (some have argued that this is an advantage of patriarchal societies; you can still have a line of succession even if the males are infertile. A 9 month pregnancy is hard to fake, but whenever a Queen gets pregnant, it is always assumed the Kimg is the actual father.)

Re:Yay ignorance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32100410)

Because kneejerk Puritans would go crazy because it would look like someone was actually condoning porn, or at least recognizing its right to exist...

I would think they would welcome this. Then they can start pressuring ISP's to block access to .xxx sites entirely. For the children, of course.

Re:Yay ignorance. (4, Insightful)

MWoody (222806) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100610)

How did your post hit +5? You've missed the point ENTIRELY. The reason the domain is a bad idea is because once you've set off a designation for "porn," the next logical steps for the puritanical minority are clear:

  - demand that ALL sites with pornographic content be stored under the XXX domain. "The pornographic industry can either self-regulate using the tools we've given them or the government will have to step in and do it FOR them. You don't want that, do you?"
  - demand that all work/government/public/houses-with-children computers hard-filter out XXX. "After all, it's explicitly for porn! What, do you want your kids reading porn? This just makes sense!"
  - demand that any site with nudity be classified as "pornographic." Art, medical textbooks, pictures of the diagrams included with the space probe, whatever. "Adults on their own time can access these materials just fine. It's not hard to get around these things on a personal computer. If you need to see them at work, ask for a special exception."
  - bad language and violence are moved into the designation. "We have an opportunity here to create a kid-safe Internet. We're not censoring these things, of course; we're just classifying them!"
  - multiple heavily-conservative foreign nations ban the XXX domain entirely. "We don't feel this sort of content is appropriate for the mental well-being of our constituents. In the name of their safety, the People will block the people from viewing them."
  - major websites begin to heavily censor their content to avoid being banned in entire countries and inaccessible from most terminals. "It's just a few pages cut. When we're only accessible to 10% of the computers out there, our ad revenue no longer supports the site."
  - any and all content that in any way offends anyone or doesn't immediately appeal to the international lowest common denominator of "good taste" is relegated to a tiny, much-maligned red light district of the Internet.

The XXX domain is scary because it's essentially the beginning of an attempt to make the Internet look like broadcast television, only worse.

Re:Yay ignorance. (1)

Nalez (556446) | more than 4 years ago | (#32101034)

So my question is, would the ad that just showed up on slashdot [googlesyndication.com] as I went in to this story be porn? It had an attractive lady in some attractive attire.

Re:Yay ignorance. (4, Informative)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32101088)

That's one hell of a slippery slope you're sliding down there. In any case, as far as who pressured ICANN to reject the domain and why, you're just flat-out wrong:

After the second .xxx proposal was approved in 2005, the Family Research Council (FRC) mobilized its forces in an all-out crusade. Claiming that the creation of a .xxx TLD would allow pornographers to "expand their evil empires on the Internet," the FRC urged its supporters to express opposition to the proposal. The Department of Commerce alone received nearly 6,000 letters expressing concern on the subject. The Department of Commerce eventually requested that ICANN spend more time considering the implications of the proposal before reaching a conclusion.

(source [arstechnica.com] )

While the porn industry also opposed it for other reasons, the ones that actually caused ICANN to reverse it were the Puritanical minority.

Re:Yay ignorance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32100816)

Kill the kneejerk Puritans!

Re:Yay ignorance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32099920)

Why would existing sites want to migrate their domains?
Should a video about mammography be forced into this TLD?
Who, decides what material must go in this TLD because it is "indecent"?

Re:Yay ignorance. (1)

yakatz (1176317) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100054)

The problem is that nothing can be "forced" into any TLD.
While there are some TLDs, such as EDU and COOP which are restricted to particular uses, general use TLDs such as COM will not (and can not) turn anyone away.
List of TLDs with notes about restrictions [wikipedia.org]

Re:Yay ignorance. (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100768)

They should restrict .xxx to porn sites. but not porn sites to .xxx.

They've got .coop for cooperatives (who aren't limited to .coop) so why not .xxx for porn sites (and not limit them to .xxx either ).

FWIW, I don't think the ICANN does a good job.

Re:Yay ignorance. (2, Insightful)

buback (144189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32099936)

unless the government forces porn sites to use .xxx, it won't make much difference. Sure, a porn site might get a .xxx domain, but they'll also get the .com because they sure as hell don't want to prevent 95% of their customers from viewing their site.

Re:Yay ignorance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32099990)

Wich government?

Re:Yay ignorance. (1)

buback (144189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100198)

Well it's have to be all of them to make it work, and that's not going to happen. There's just too much money to be made.

Re:Yay ignorance. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32100726)

unless the government forces porn sites to use .xxx, it won't make much difference.

W[h]ich government?

Yours. The issue isn't about porn sites as much as it is about what your government defines as porn. Worst case scenario, the law might be written so you can't say "fuck the President" or post Pedobear shops without having an .xxx domain. And the government will enforce it and take you to court, or license the power to do so to for-profit third parties the way the RIAA does. And .xxx domains will be regulated so you have to pay extra $$$ to have one and jump through bureaucratic hoops to get to them such as mandatory registration as a porn viewer. And viewing some other country's porn that is hosted outside of an .xxx domain will be illegal, as will be having open routes to it or attempting to access it through a proxy. If it sounds outrageous, I did say "worst case scenario" but an .xxx domain opens up the possibility of this all happening.

And it will happen to some degree. How can pornography opponents accept pornography to be all over the internet when there is one established place for pornography? And when that is solved, how can pornography opponents accept that pornography is easily accessible when so much of it is concentrated in one place? And what is going to be shunted into the .xxx ghetto? I've seen stuff on BoingBoing that would be considered X-rated pornography by the loose standards of the 1970s.

All the talk about the Internet enabling unbreakable freedom dates back to the time when the government did not regulate what went on on the Internet. It is not coincidental that most spam, warez, and kiddie porn traces back to places where the government does not regulate what goes on on the Internet. Do it in the West and you go to jail. The government has been very effective at suppressing things on the internet. Porn will not be any different.

Re:Yay ignorance. (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100388)

And to make it even more complex if this comes in I plan to buy a .xxx domain and host nothing but non-pornographic political material.

Re:Yay ignorance. (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100650)

That's so inconsiderate, it makes it harder to search for pornographic political material. Think of the people who would want to do Google searches of the form: site:xxx intern

Same for other niche xxx interests :).

So I can understand technical reasons for the TLD xxx (not from the porn blocking POV which is silly, but from the porn finding POV ;) ).

In contrast I don't see good technical reasons for .biz and .info. But the ICANN still approved those.

Re:Yay ignorance. (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100716)

Isn't 'xxx' what they put on bottles of moonshine in cartoons? I wonder how quickly 'moonshine.xxx' will be registered.

Re:Yay ignorance. (1)

Fast Thick Pants (1081517) | more than 4 years ago | (#32099974)

Playing devil's advocate, one could envision an evolution into a system where websites are required to maintain certain censorship standards in order to publish on common TLDs. Slashdot, for instance, doesn't censor, so it would have to have stick up an "I am over 18" splash page on slashdot.org that would link to slashdot.xxx, or slashdot.pg13, or whatever.

Re:Yay ignorance. (1, Troll)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100192)

These guys are definitely the devil's advocates; but http://www.cp80.org/ [cp80.org] is a creepy pressure group, largely composed of slimy mormons(some of them with SCO ties...), advocating a very similar scheme. Everything on port 80 would have to be PG, with material that makes republican jesus cry relegated to other ports for easy blocking.

Re:Yay ignorance. (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100434)

Slashdot, for instance, doesn't censor

Unless, of course, they get threatened with lawsuit [slashdot.org] by a big scary religion/business.

Re:Yay ignorance. (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100132)

The reasoning I heard at the time was that they didn't want to create a "red light district on the internet".

Yeah, it didn't make any sense to me either.

Re:Yay ignorance. (2, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100204)

A red light district on the internet is like a paddling pool in the ocean.

Re:Yay ignorance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32100558)

plus forcing all the pr0n sites onto .xxx will turn .com into a ghost town. In addition, .xxx will be where all the inovation occurs

Re:Yay ignorance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32100244)

I thought that as craigslist and 4chan.

Opens the door to censorship (4, Insightful)

l2718 (514756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100194)

Can anyone tell me why someone wouldn't want the .xxx domain to happen? What possible downside is there to it?

Because the next thing you know there will be government rules requiring certain content to only be located at .xxx, depending on the whims of the reigning censor-in-chief. Also, because companies will register this in addition to their .com address rather than instead of it (would NBC give up NBC.com if we have NBC.tv ?)

Re:Opens the door to censorship (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100552)

I imagine they would be required to have a redirect so the final landing page would be .xxx. It would make it a lot easier for parents to filter porn home or public libraries to filter it in the kiddie book section. But, like others have already said, who gets to decide on what gets the XXX? What about those nudism advocacy sites that are loaded with naked people? What about viewing Flickr with the 'family filter' disabled?

Re:Yay ignorance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32100454)

Well, first of all it's pointless. Do you honestly believe that all porn sites are suddenly going to switch over to the .xxx domain? Do you honestly believe that porn sites WANT to voluntarily restrict access to their content? I realize I'm making a generalization here, but when talking about porn site owners, we're not exactly talking about your honest, salt-of-the-earth people here. These people, after all, invented SPAM (or at the very least made it into a daily global nuisance). Besides, there's an easy way around filtering out the .xxx domain at the firewall or browser level. It's called URL shortening, and it's why I never click on bit.ly links any more.

Re:Yay ignorance. (2, Informative)

EvanED (569694) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100964)

Besides, there's an easy way around filtering out the .xxx domain at the firewall or browser level. It's called URL shortening, and it's why I never click on bit.ly links any more.

By my understanding, tinyurl/bit.ly/etc.-style URL shorteners wouldn't do anything to stop .xxx from working. They just send back an HTTP redirect, and then your browser reissues the request (which would then be picked up by the filter).

Re:Yay ignorance. (2, Insightful)

denbesten (63853) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100592)

> Can anyone tell me why someone wouldn't want the .xxx domain to happen? What possible downside is there to it?

Presuming your question is genuine....

A TLD enforces a single global definition, but the definition of pornography is very much a local thing. For example, in some portions of the world (e.g. France), bare breasts are acceptable on the beach and in other portions of the world (e.g. Saudi Arabia), an uncovered face can be a crime. In the end, it is impossible to get global consensus.

This is why commercial filtering systems include more granular descriptions, such as "incidental nudity" and "provocative attire".

Re:Yay ignorance. (2, Insightful)

cgenman (325138) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100656)

1. To a very traditional mind, an XXX domain name implies that it is OK to see pictures of boobies. It is implicit approval of the fad of this whole sex thing.

2. To a less traditional mind, it is the first step along the line of censoring the boobies out of the internet. Immediately upon creation, all of the XXX domain names will be censored from basically every company on the planet. Home networks will probably remain uncensored at first, but who knows what parental moral outrage and very, very old executives will pressure Comcast, etc to do.

3. By implication, there is the messy realm of regulation. Is it freeform, with any websites going on .xxx for any reason? Does .com then become non-porn? Does violence and drugs become XXX?

4. It is potentially pointless. To the website operators, xxx domain names were set to cost 10x as much as normal .com names, and the only advantage was that they're easier to filter out. You might get people randomly appending .xxx to common words in an attempt to find dirty bits, but chances are people will just keep searching through google.

Personally, I still think it's worth doing. But I can understand why people wouldn't want to bother. The new wave of alternative TLD's have basically been failures. 6 years in, and everyone is still a .com. Add in the controversial aspects, and it becomes less attractive.

Re:Yay ignorance. (3, Insightful)

Schnapple (262314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100724)

If I remember right from the last Slashdot discussion we had on this:

1. Some organizations (mostly religious ones) don't want porn to exist at all. They pray (literally) for the day when it is legislated out of existence. a .xxx domain would legitimize it further than it already is.

2. Many porn sites already have a large vested interest in their .com domains. They don't want to have to move to .xxx domains.

3. The porn industry doesn't want some quick/easy way to block them. Sure, you as a parent would like to just block www.*.xxx and be done with it but what if your ISP decides to do the same? Then you can't look at this no matter what. To say nothing of the false sense of security (i.e., just blocking www.*.xxx doesn't really block all porn)

4. How would it be enforced? Anyone can have a .xxx domain? Does it have to be a porn site? Would porn sites have to move to .xxx domains instead of .com domains?

5. Who decides what is porn? An example was given of a stunt to raise awareness for breast cancer or something wherein a thousand women got naked and laid down to pose in a large shape. The photo was carried on a lot of news sites, including Yahoo. Would it be considered porn? It's not video footage of people having sex but it is a photo of a thousand naked women. If it is considered porn, would Yahoo have to host it on www.yahoo.xxx instead of www.yahoo.com? And wouldn't Yahoo get into a shitstorm by even registering www.yahoo.xxx in the first place?

Basically when both the porn industry and the religious movements are agreeing on something, you know it's messed up. Yeah, on its surface it's not a bad idea, it's just one not thought through very well.

Re:Yay ignorance. (4, Informative)

Nuskrad (740518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100810)

Can anyone tell me why someone wouldn't want the .xxx domain to happen? What possible downside is there to it?

RFC 3675 [ietf.org] covers it pretty well

Re:Yay ignorance. (1)

Schadrach (1042952) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100822)

Define pornography in a way that includes everything anyone would consider porn, but doesn't include anything that anyone wouldn't consider porn. Now that you realize how blatantly impossible that really is, consider it for a worldwide audience and not just US.

If you make use of it voluntary, then what function does it actually perform beyond opening additional namespace beyond what is already available in .com, .biz, .info, etc?

If you make use of it mandatory, who's definition of porn do we use? Are you ready to take anything the most puritan person in the world considers pornographic and force it off the rest of the 'net into .xxx?

A ".kids" domain would be a better choice, where you are voluntarily naming your content as child-safe, as there's unlikely to be a push to force you into that category above and beyond your own desire to be there.

Re:Yay ignorance. (2, Interesting)

Entropius (188861) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100940)

Because typically TLD's are reserved for descriptions of the status of the hosting entity, not the content. .uk tells me a site is in Britain. .org tells me they're a nonprofit.

Heh (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32099800)

Mounts.

ICANN is nothing but a scam (2, Interesting)

winkydink (650484) | more than 4 years ago | (#32099814)

Constantly creating new domains to force brand owners to pony up more money for new TLD's thereby lining the pockets of ICANN's stakeholders (registries and registrars) and further funding their own existence.

Dated rating system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32099830)

What we really need is a .nc17nc17nc17 toplevel domain.

What about softcore sites? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32099890)

When will they certify .R18 or .x ?

This is stupid. (2, Interesting)

CondeZer0 (158969) | more than 4 years ago | (#32099924)

> The company has argued that the .xxx internet domain should be approved for porn site use, allowing parents and businesses to easily configure browsers or filters to automatically block sites that carry the domain."

This is a ridiculous idea, there are mountains of porn all over the web, and specially if it is known they are going to be filtered .xxx domains will constitute an insignificant percentage of the porn online, and I'm certain all of it will be available outside the .xxx namespace.

Yet one more aspect of the domain system that turns out to be a scam, what a surprise!

And ICANN are the first to be a bunch of corrupt incompetent idiots.

The net needs badly an alternative DNS root that is run competently and honestly.

Re:This is stupid. (1)

mconeone (765767) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100088)

Why is this ridiculous? Just because they aren't blocking every porn site doesn't mean it isn't a simple way to block a bunch of them at once.

An analogy: "why have marijuana-sniffing dogs in airports since it can be grown in the US?"

Re:This is stupid. (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100180)

I'm thinking that a filter would do a reverse DNS lookup on every connection.

Re:This is stupid. (1)

amorsen (7485) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100710)

I'm thinking that a filter would do a reverse DNS lookup on every connection.

You have WAY too much faith in reverse lookup. Reverse lookup on the open Internet is a way to say "Yes, I really want to run a mail server on this IP, so please don't block my mail". Apart from that it's used to make troubleshooting with traceroute slightly easier, but all the juicy stuff is in txt records or stored in whois anyway.

Re:This is stupid. (2, Informative)

buback (144189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100362)

You obviously have NO idea how big the marijuana black market is in the US. It's not like having dogs at the airport is stopping the people who want weed from getting it.

Your analogy is actually pretty apt. Having a .xxx TLD would be as effective at preventing porn viewing as drug dogs at the airport are at stemming the flow of marijuana.

Re:This is stupid. (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 4 years ago | (#32101120)

Less effective.

To make weed you have to grow it.

To make porn you just have to take your damn clothes off.

Your analogy doesn't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32100788)

Porn, unlike pot or any other type of physical contraband, is essentially infinite in supply. Blocking "a bunch" of it is effectively the same as not blocking any at all. Block 99% of porn sites, and the other 1% is just as easy to reach, which means that it will enjoy increased consumption during the (very short) time it takes the 99% to circumvent that block. Success vs. failure is binary here.

Re:This is stupid. (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100860)

Why is this ridiculous? Just because they aren't blocking every porn site doesn't mean it isn't a simple way to block a bunch of them at once.

...where by "a bunch" you mean "none". What webmaster in their right mind is going to make their whole site that trivially simple to block? You seem to be under the impression that the porn industry is run by naive morons.

Re:This is stupid. (1)

mtinsley (1283400) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100904)

The only sites that will be blocked are the ones created as a result of the new TLD. Meanwhile domain registrars will clean house on the millions of porn sites that want a .xxx domain in addition to their existing domains. Not to mention the non-porn sites that just want to protect their brand.

Re:This is stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32100160)

Good idea! It can be run by a new government setup to run competently and honestly. At least until they become corrupt again.

Re:This is stupid. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100568)

Except there are a lot of Legit Adult Entertainment companies as well who would welcome this. They want the business but they don't want the legal hassle for operations. If you site can be blocked easily then it just may be good as you don't get hassled for trying to attract kids to your site. As there are easy ways for parents to block it.

Re:This is stupid. (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32101102)

ya but if you're a legitimate porn company you don't want your product showing up legally from you on school computers or in a place that will get your customers fired. If someone has to pirate your product to view it on school/library/work computers that's fine - you aren't going to get in trouble over it (it's not our fault he was looking at our stuff without our permission basically).

Sure, lots of other sites will still make it available, but if you're a legitimate porn seller I would expect you to want to be supporting filtering as best you can. If people really don't want to (or shouldn't) be seeing your content right now, then you don't want them to. If I were a big porn company I'd be sitting on the existing .com .country .whatever domain and just having a redirect to the .xxx site. Then no nutcase in south caronlina can say 'CondeZer0 is trying to corrupt our youth by making his porn onto our school computers!', because if he does your reply is 'block all .xxx and you wont' see it'.

Not as effective as you would think (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32099950)

The company has argued that the .xxx internet domain should be approved for porn site use, allowing parents and businesses to easily configure browsers or filters to automatically block sites that carry the domain. Right... 'cause children and employees obviously aren't capable of typing in an IP address that doesn't need to do a DNS lookup!

Re:Not as effective as you would think (1)

bami (1376931) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100392)

That would fail hard in the case of virtual servers or one host serving multiple domains relying on the host portion of the header of a http request.

Re:Not as effective as you would think (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100836)

Valid point, this would fail with name based virtual hosting [wikipedia.org] , but not IP based virtual hosting. I'm sure a lot of porn sites are using virtual hosting, but how many porn sites are actually using name based virtual hosting?

Re:Not as effective as you would think (1)

miggyb (1537903) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100902)

I don't know why you're being sarcastic, I've never seen anyone type an ip address into the browser for anything other than troubleshooting. Hell, if you have a netgear router, you can even type out routerlogin.net [routerlogin.net] if you don't want to memorize "192.168.1.1". I'm not saying people won't figure it out if they need their fix, but even something like web-based proxies are vastly unused by high school students trying to get around filters.

What Would This Change? (1)

blcamp (211756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32099966)

Nothing. Not one damn thing.

What good does filtering out .xxx sites do for sites that reside under every other TLD on the 'net?

How about the ones that purposely evade filters? Drop malware payloads? Engage in a host of other nefarious behaviors?

This is a useless exercise in time-wasting par excellence.

Re:What Would This Change? (3, Insightful)

mconeone (765767) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100190)

Agreed. But you have technically-ignorant people from both sides of the argument thinking it will do something. It would be nice if both sides were informed that:

1. It could never be mandatory, and if it was made so it would be unenforceable
2. If it wasn't mandatory, few if any sites would actually register to avoid being TLD-blocked.

Re:What Would This Change? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100510)

By the same argument, TLD's themselves are simply a waste of 4 characters in every URL. I would rather just open up TLD's for registration by anybody. The domain name for "slashdot" is then "slashdot", not "slashdot.org". The ".org" serves no purpose. My personal domain name is a .net, and I'm not an ISP.

Headline (3, Funny)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100030)

Was it really necessary to use the words pressure and mount in this headline? The subject matter is provocative enough on its own!

going the wrong way... again (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32100058)

The internet was create by ADULTS for ADULTS. The better solution is to create a ".kids" domain that has the content restriction that everything on it be "kid friendly." That would allow the same ease of use to configure content blockers for children - only allow the ".kids" domain.

Re:going the wrong way... again (1)

eyrieowl (881195) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100590)

Now that's actually a more intelligent proposal. Trying to ensure all "objectionable" material is only located on .xxx is a fool's errand. .kids would be much easier to police....

Re:going the wrong way... again (1)

zehaeva (1136559) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100974)

So rather than put all the adults into one place and make it easier for adults to find adult stuff you want to put all the kids stuff in one place for adults^H^H^H^H^H^Hkids to find kids stuff?

*ahem* I can see this going badly ..

Re:going the wrong way... again (1)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100606)

That is not such a bad idea, a porn site found on a .kids website could be prosecuted thus making it a safe playpen.

Re:going the wrong way... again (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32101098)

The internet was create by ADULTS for ADULTS. The better solution is to create a ".kids" domain that has the content restriction that everything on it be "kid friendly." That would allow the same ease of use to configure content blockers for children - only allow the ".kids" domain.

Already been proposed [wikipedia.org]

it's because we "bring freedom and democracy" (3, Insightful)

Shompol (1690084) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100072)

under pressure from the US government....

Problem is.. (2, Insightful)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100098)

One person's pr0n is another person's art.

They seem to have forgotten(or are ignoring)... (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100118)

The lesson of Port 80 and firewalls. If the "feature" of .xxx is easy filtering, internet smut peddlers are going to be deeply apathetic about adopting it. What rational person makes their product harder for their customers to get to?

At best, if the prices are low enough, smut peddlers with high quality .coms and .nets will be forced to pick up .xxxs to match, to protect themselves from squatters, and peddlers with lousy URLs will pick up .xxxs in the hopes of grabbing some extra traffic. For the most part, though, porn sellers have no particular incentive to make themselves trivial to block.(They do have an incentive, except for the real bottom feeders, to not be perceived as resisting blocking software, or threatening innnocent children, because that could inspire a real backlash; but adults sneaking past imperfect filters are just fine by them.)

Its analogous to the number of oddball applications and protocols that have moved toward port 80, by default or as a common option, because that port is generally minimally restricted compared to the more special-purpose ports.

Re:They seem to have forgotten(or are ignoring)... (2, Insightful)

value_added (719364) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100538)

internet smut peddlers

Has a nice ring, that one. Good luck with it.

Me, I prefer

    Purveyors of Fine Adult Entertainment ...
        For the Gentleman with Discriminating Tastes

The only smut I see being peddled is in the grocery checkout aisle. I'm told people enjoy reading it, and don't have a problem with the kids seeing it.

Retarded bible belt morons (5, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100172)

I love America, I really do ... but god ... we can make complete asses of ourselves sometimes ... I mean on a whole new level ...

The porn industry is saying:
HEY! We want to make it REALLY easy for you to classify us so we don't bother you. We're giving you an instant 'adults only' part of the URL so you don't have to even think twice about it! We'll make it easy for you to avoid us and then we won't have to deal with your complaints and you won't have to deal with our sites! Everyone wins! We'll just stay over here in our corner and not bother anyone who doesn't come looking for us specifically!

America says:
No, we're rather make it hard to block you from our children who will be emotionally scared for life if they see tits and ass.

Porn Industry:
Emotionally scared? WTF, the first thing most babies see is their moms asshole, the second thing his her tits for breakfast ...

America:
Thats different ...

Porn Industry: ...

America:
You're in contempt of court!

Porn Industry:
Oh fuck off, we'll just keep doing what we do and you idiots can continue to deal with it in an incredibly retarded way while we keep making a fortune off of you because you have some sort of retarded cultural thing that makes sex dirty and somehow different than every other normal type of social interaction.

My question to my country:

WHEN THE FUCK ARE WE GOING TO STOP TREATING SEX AS SPECIAL?

Its just sex for fucks sake. Everyone does it and our species has relied on it for longer than our species has actually existed! (Chick and the egg) Stop treating it as different. Stop teaching women to be so emotionally tied to their vaginas, its nothing more than a convenient hole for fucks sake. Stop treating the penis as though its the key to a mans life, it can be replaced with a $15 battery powered chunk of silicon that is more effective for every purpose except urination. (Vibrator for sexual pleasure, turkey baster to transfering sperm).

Stop freaking make sex so taboo. Stop with this 'sex crimes' crap, thats as dumb as 'hate crimes'. STOP TREATING SEX AS SOMETHING TABOO AND IT WILL STOP BEING TABOO.

Re:Retarded bible belt morons (2, Informative)

bami (1376931) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100438)

You should try going to Europe.

We got (uncovered) tits in billboard ads!

Re:Retarded bible belt morons (2, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100524)

Stop treating women like sex objects.

Incidentally, your basic argument, on the "bible belt moron" side is one that I have never, ever heard in my life. And I am someone who considers sex to be something that should be in marriage, and someone who thinks that the porn industry is immoral and highly degrading; first degrading to women, who are turned into sex objects simply to be used for pleasure, and secondly degrading to society, who turn sex into the end-goal of life.

Re:Retarded bible belt morons (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100572)

Stop freaking make sex so taboo. Right on! Anything that happens between a priest and an altar boy in the privacy of their own confessional should be their own business, and nobody else's!

Stop teaching women to be so emotionally tied to their vaginas I'm not sure this is learned behavior... many have suggested that women are inherently wired that way.

Stop treating the penis as though its the key to a mans life, it can be replaced with a... turkey baster to transfering sperm. When that turkey baster can actually produce sperm, I concede that you are on to something here. In the meantime, I prefer not to think of penises or vaginas in isolation, but rather as part of a larger system. For some reason, my wife prefers that larger system to a vibrator... go figure.

a $15 battery powered chunk of silicon that is more effective for every purpose except urination. Only if you have a really tiny penis. Do you prefer a fleshlight to a real woman?

Re:Retarded bible belt morons (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 4 years ago | (#32101090)

Do you prefer a fleshlight to a real woman?

It does talk less......

Re:Retarded bible belt morons (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32100770)

WHEN THE FUCK ARE WE GOING TO STOP TREATING SEX AS SPECIAL?

The moment a middle-aged lady is being anally fisted while receiving six simultaneous facial cumshots from African-Americans in a Calvin Klein commercial. Oh, you weren't talking about porn? Sorry.

Re:Retarded bible belt morons (4, Informative)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32101014)

The porn industry is saying

...nothing like what you think it's saying. Here's what the CEO of an Australian adult industry said in a letter to ICANN [sexparty.org.au] :

The Eros Association is the peak national organisation for the Australian Adult industry. We represent the majority of the Australian adult retail and on line industry and have done so since 1992.

I am writing to express our opposition to the introduction of the TLD XXX. I attended the ICANN meeting in Wellington in 2006 and met with ICANN and GAC delegates to explain our opposition to the proposal. At that time we submitted letters from major on line businesses that also opposed the introduction of the new TLD.

Our objections have not changed. There is no support from the Australian on line adult industry for the TLD XXX. I note that the ICM website states that they have support form the adult industry and free speech advocates. I am yet to find anyone.

While it's fun and easy to blame stupid, uptight Americans - and even gives you a smidgin of Slashdot karma - the reality is that the people who would hypothetically be using the .xxx TLD have no interest in it and are actively opposed to it.

Fear it? (3, Interesting)

Thyamine (531612) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100382)

A few people are saying that porn sites are going to be worried about being blocked. How much money do they make from the accidental viewings (ads potentially) vs people actively seeking out the sites and or signing up as members? It's not like I'm going to block .xxx at home and then be like 'WTF? Why can't I get to my porn?' The only people this would affect are those at jobs where it gets blocked (stop looking at work), or schools. At home do what you want. Block for your kids and not yourself.

The only problem I see is that plenty of malware providers/etc will continue to do their thing and promote their sites as able to avoid the .xxx filters, so come see us, and oops now you are infected. Legitimate porn sites aren't going to suffer. Members will still come to them and pay their monthly fees.

America.... FUCK YEAH (1)

drumcat (1659893) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100398)

Anyone using this .xxx domain is a complete retard. Why? Location, location, location. This is essentially taking a site from the shopping mall and moving it to the shady building that was once a Pizza Hut and now has aluminum foil on the windows. No one will go there in fear of malware or viruses (virii?). Everyone will block it. This is the Scarlet X.

Japan (1)

The Altruist (1448701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100608)

No, seriously. A .xxx domain will save our children from American porn that classifies itself as porn. In other countries where what American consider porn is classified as art, the .xxx filter has no jurisdiction. This is China all over again. We raise EPA standards to get rid of pollution-created companies. They move their factories to China. And we still consume the same products produced in smoke belching factories. Somehow, we feel like we've done a good thing.

No more TLDs! (4, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100862)

We have too many TLDs already. Additional TLDs are just a racket for registrars. As Abacus wrote to ICANN [icann.org] when they applied for ".biz", ".fam", ".cool", and a few other TLDs back in 2000, "The more TLDs we are allowed to operate, and the better quality of those TLDs, the greater the total sales will be."

".biz" ended up as the "bad neighborhood" TLD. When you see a ".biz" domain, you visualize a storefront in a half-empty strip mall with trash in the parking lot. We have two vacant TLDs, ".aero" and ".museum". ".aero" is basically a collection of redirects from airport codes to the actual site. See JFK.aero [jfk.aero] , etc., most of which were created by the promoters of .aero, not the airports.) The ".museum" TLD has so few domains that the entire list fits on one page. [index.museum] We have the redundant TLD, ".info". What was that for, anyway?

All those TLDs could be closed to new registrations and phased out with no great loss.

Porno belongs in ".com", with other commercial enterprises.

RFC 3514 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32100932)

.xxx domain is just an extension of the RFC 3514.

Why porn? (2, Insightful)

Entropius (188861) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100980)

Can somebody tell me why images of people having sex, or naked, unique among all categories of images, deserves a special classification?

Why shouldn't images of people eating, or military propaganda, or lions killing buffalo, or even birds having sex, get special treatment? What is it about porn that makes everyone care so damn much?

Maybe we can turn the tables (1)

dummondwhu (225225) | more than 4 years ago | (#32100998)

People can start squatting .xxx domains that are common misspellings of porn stuff. It would work like so:

Porn surfer: Ok, lemme check out www.clevelandsteemer.com. Hey, wait a sec.... this is a blog about crocheting. Ooo...doilies...

Phase 3: profit!

They should do it while they still can (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32101114)

Some of us recall that the idiots at ICANN decided some time ago that they will soon start selling TLDs themselves; at which point all management and responsibility goes out the window (what little remains of it anyways). If they don't establish .xxx and do something to manage it, someone else will (and that other person or group will make a lot more money out of it).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>