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!

ICANN Likely Finally To Approve .xxx For Porn Sites

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the type-one-and-type-two-errors dept.

The Internet 266

shmG writes with this from the International Business Times: "The company that oversees Web addresses is expected to give the go-ahead on Friday for the creation of a .xxx suffix for websites with pornographic content, company officials indicated on Thursday. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which oversees the Internet on behalf of the US government, has in the past resisted creating a .xxx generic domain name system akin to those for .com and .net."

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

I've got dibs (4, Funny)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683454)

on fu.xxx

Re:I've got dibs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32684168)

Good luck, most two/three letter combos will go almost instantly, probably before they are publicly available. Still, why not try for:

goats.xxx
whitehouse.xxx
co.xxx
ro.xxx
bp.xxx
xxx.xxx
apple.xxx
rms.xxx
slashdot.xxx

because .xxx is nothing like .sex (5, Informative)

oneiros27 (46144) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683482)

Doesn't anyone bother to read the RFCs? (probably not, they're too interested in trying to sell domains to make money)

Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex (4, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683752)

Well, the .xxx domain is probably pointless. The vast majority of adult sites aren't going to be moving so you still won't be able to easily filter based on that criteria. The doc you linked does mention a different idea that I could get behind though, establish a .kids which would be a semi-walled garden of child appropriate material. That allows the creating of a relatively safe space for children which would be relatively enforceable by knowledgeable parents without creating the privacy and legal concerns that everyone seems to have with a .xxx domain.

Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex (3, Informative)

audubon (577473) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683960)

The doc you linked does mention a different idea that I could get behind though, establish a .kids which would be a semi-walled garden of child appropriate material.

That's been tried, via an administered second-level domain, .kids.us [cms.kids.us]

From the link, It's the first and only "youth-friendly" Web space to be established by the United States government, and it features advanced technical, policy and operational mechanisms that keep young people informed, entertained and protected online.

Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32684100)

I thought .kids.us was were 4chan went for loli...

Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex (2, Funny)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684214)

I hear pedobear.kids.us has been a great success.

    Oh....

Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex (2, Funny)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684026)

When .xxx becomes available, I am going to start a U-rated picture colouring website on that tld.

Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex (3, Informative)

yeshuawatso (1774190) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684218)

If anyone is too lazy to Google U-Rated, it's the UK equivalent of US Rated G. For a second, I was asking myself "What the hell is a U rating?" Google is your friend.

Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex (1)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684202)

Yeah, just because it's an RFC doesn't make it accurate.

The legal/philosophical issues are debatable; the author does a fair job of making his opinion on the matter clear, but I can't say I found it all that compelling.

When the author tries to lay out technical issues, though, it just gets laughable:

He mentions that there are thousands of languages and questions which one to use in choosing the label... well, how about the same one from which the other TLD abbreviations are taken? Do you think .com is meaningful in German, Russian, Chinese, countless Indian dialects, etc.?

Pointing out that the protocol won't fully enforce the rule is not actually pointing out a technical hurdle. In the spirit of his "postal mail" analogy - It's illegal to commit fraud via U.S. mail, but the mailboxes don't stop you from doing it.

Other people could point non-.xxx names at a .xxx site; true, but so what? If you have any sort of legal force behind use of the .xxx domain, you word it around the act of making explicit material available through a non-.xxx name; and then the person who pointed a non-.xxx name at the porn is liable, not the porn site's operator.

And on and on with a parade of attempts to make something this guy doesn't want to see happen sound implausible. BFD

Obvious... (5, Funny)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683488)

ICANN HAZ PORN?

Re:Obvious... (1)

Gertlex (722812) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683880)

That trumps the "Why ICANN no haz .XXX?"

Re:Obvious... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32683990)

ICANN HAZ PORN?

you spelled PRON wrong.

Finally (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32683490)

Hopefully, this is a sign that our policies are not dictated by the "Think of the children" crowd.

Re:Finally (2, Insightful)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683764)

Hopefully, this is a sign that our policies are not dictated by the "Think of the children" crowd.

To be honest, this could easily be made to be pro 'think of the children'. If suddenly it is designed that porn sites are to have the .xxx domain name then you can easily put on a very basic (even just OS Parental Controls) to just refuse to load .xxx domains. Its 'thinking of the children' as suddenly porn sites are easily identifiable and blockable since they all (in theory) be .xxx domains (like how most governments sites are expected to be .gov)

Re:Finally (4, Insightful)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683922)

Hopefully, this is a sign that our policies are not dictated by the "Think of the children" crowd.

To be honest, this could easily be made to be pro 'think of the children'. If suddenly it is designed that porn sites are to have the .xxx domain name then you can easily put on a very basic (even just OS Parental Controls) to just refuse to load .xxx domains. Its 'thinking of the children' as suddenly porn sites are easily identifiable and blockable since they all (in theory) be .xxx domains (like how most governments sites are expected to be .gov)

And I'd think that even the porn people would be on board with this. The kinds of people that want porn blocked in certain situations are the same kinds that are willing to pay for it in other, more private situations.

Re:Finally (1)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684052)

Your comment is consistent with most of what I saw growing up in the Catholic community in uptight O.C. California way back when. Religious conservatives are often a different breed from the Prohibitionists. The latter treat religion as a tool, the former honestly believe that an immature mind needs to be protected until the kid is old enough to understand the consequences of sin to their immortal soul.

Re:Finally (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684268)

And I'd think that even the porn people would be on board with this. The kinds of people that want porn blocked in certain situations are the same kinds that are willing to pay for it in other, more private situations.

Like bathroom stalls in airports?

i got dibs (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32683518)

on se.xxx
and sex.xxx

and goatse.xxx

So... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683520)

How long till slashdot.xxx is registered and what will it link me to?

In all seriousness though, Will this cause a massive surge of porn hosts buying domain names that exist in .com or .net for .xxx (like google.xxx) so that people curious if it exists will stumble upon their porn site?

Re:So... (5, Funny)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683622)

If google.xxx is what I think it would be, it could perhaps be the best website on the Internet.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32684102)

Ever.

Re:So... (3, Funny)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684356)

If google.xxx is what I think it would be, it could perhaps be the best website on the Internet.

I'm pretty sure that will be 'googal.xxx'.

Re:So... (2, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683638)

The owners of Slashdot.org would most likely serve a C&D on whomever registers slashdot.xxx for the clear trademark violation. TLD owners like .TV and .CC used to brag about the major companies registering all their trademarks with them... when really all those companies were doing was making sure nobody else used their brands the wrong way.

Re:So... (4, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683832)

Really you want a default null tld so Slashdot.org would just be slashdot. I don't care where a site is based, whether it's for profit or not. I want to just type:

slashdot
ubuntuforums
bbc

etc and not try and guess/remember whether they're: .com .net .org .co.uk .org.uk

etc etc. The distinction is meaningless to me.

Re:So... (3, Insightful)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683954)

Really you want a default null tld so Slashdot.org would just be slashdot. I don't care where a site is based, whether it's for profit or not. I want to just type:

slashdot
ubuntuforums
bbc

etc and not try and guess/remember whether they're: .com .net .org .co.uk .org.uk

etc etc. The distinction is meaningless to me.

The distinction doesn't exist solely to help you mentally organize sites. It exists because DNS reads from right to left, and it has to start somewhere. Otherwise there would be no way to organize them.

Re:So... (1)

vk2 (753291) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683970)

Really? Go Tell Barry - http://www.whitehouse.org/ [whitehouse.org] [NSFW Alert!!]

Really you want a default null tld so Slashdot.org would just be slashdot. I don't care where a site is based, whether it's for profit or not. I want to just type:

slashdot ubuntuforums bbc

etc and not try and guess/remember whether they're: .com .net .org .co.uk .org.uk

etc etc. The distinction is meaningless to me.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32683986)

Unless I am mistaken, the default functionality of Firefox's address bar is to take anything that isn't a URL, perform a Google search on it and immediately take you to the first page. This is pretty much what you're asking for as Google is pretty good at picking the correct page.

Slashdot brought me to slashdot.org
ubuntuforums took me to ubuntuforums.org
bbc took me to bbc.co.uk
whitehouse takes me to whitehouse.gov

Re:So... (2, Informative)

Knoeki (1149769) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684030)

You can do that in firefox. Type a site like that in the addressbar. It'll use the google "I'm feeling lucky" thing 9 out of 10 times. The other time it'll show you search results.

Re:So... (4, Informative)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684358)

Have you tried just typing those words into your browser?

In mine (FF3.5) it take me straight through to the site using (I think...) Googles 'I feel lucky' feature. This way, typing in a keyword has a good chance of taking you to the site you want. If people could register single keyword domains like that, I reckon it would cause a net decrease in convenience as more and more single keywords take you directly through to someone's site.

With email, it's usually copy/paste for me, or just entering the first part of an address I've used before. I guess it could be useful, but probably not useful enough to warrant the 'search by keyword taking you to someones site' issue above.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32683994)

When has slashdot published pornographic material? How is this source confusion?

I don't see the TM issue... Dilution? ehh...

Re:So... (2, Insightful)

jopsen (885607) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684148)

Hmm...
I suppose we should buy up .xxx domains matching our current domains and/or name and make them redirect...
That might be pretty fun too... Or maybe just really creepy... Can't decide which it is...

Open the floodgates.... (4, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683528)

With the new rules letting any company/group create a TLD if they've got the money and infrastructure, it's only a matter of time before we'll be going to Sprite.coca-cola and BigMac.McD.... so why not give the sex operators a red light district that's easily blockable. Sure, it won't block 100% of porn, but it's one rule that can block 100% porn with no false positives.

Re:Open the floodgates.... (3, Insightful)

compro01 (777531) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683690)

but it's one rule that can block 100% porn with no false positives.

Only if you make the assumption that your definition of porn matches their definition of porn.

Re:Open the floodgates.... (2, Insightful)

soundguy (415780) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683814)

Exactly. Who gets to define "porn"? Larry Flint? Fred Phelps? The Pope?

Re:Open the floodgates.... (2, Interesting)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683890)

Exactly. Who gets to define "porn"? Larry Flint? Fred Phelps? The Pope?

Probably the same group that gets to decide what is a .org or a .net or a .com is. All these comparisons to "burger.McD" really don't hold water. Porn is not only the *reason* that internet access is affordable (early adopters paid the high access rates to pave the way) but it is still a large portion of the traffic on the net, including much of the bittorrent traffic.

I wouldn't get too excited, most porn sites won't switch to a .xxx site anytime soon, as they know that all Nanny Software (c) will be filtering out everything *.xxx anyway.

Re:Open the floodgates.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32683894)

Um, no, that isn't an issue. Like the op said, it won't block 100% of porn by most definitions.

But the point is, if only porn websites (that is, those that define themselves as porn) buy a .xxx domain, then you can be pretty sure that blocking .xxx would block porn and little else.

I mean, defining the edge cases of obscenity is tough, but this is hardly an edge case - they're websites claiming to peddle porn! What more do you want?

Re:Open the floodgates.... (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683898)

The people buying the domain names under .xxx. If you aren't a porn site don't buy a .xxx domain name (since having one implies you are a porn site.) If you are, you can chose to buy a .xxx or not. If you do you're easily blockable, which is an advantage for public appearance (you are under .xxx, anyone who wants to block their kids' access can do so easily) and prevents some external entity from being needed to classify sites as porn-related/non-porn related. It also makes porn easier to find, just search to only show domains ending in .xxx. That's a benefit to income, since searching google like that is easy & makes finding your porn site easier.

Re:Open the floodgates.... (2, Insightful)

compro01 (777531) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684018)

Do you figure that trademark holders aren't going to buy up their .xxx domains?

Do you also figure that the US Congress isn't going to try shepherding sites into the new TLD?

Re:Open the floodgates.... (2, Funny)

value_added (719364) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683956)

Exactly. Who gets to define "porn"? Larry Flint? Fred Phelps? The Pope?

I believe it's defined in the context of "community standards", and then, presumably using a "I know it when I see it" test.

Re:Open the floodgates.... (2, Insightful)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683850)

There is really only one definition of sexual pornography. Any media intended to arouse one sexually.

Re:Open the floodgates.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32683952)

So, then, if I was, say, for example, willing to testify in a court of law that, oh, by way of for instance, that it was my firm intention that this very post, say, was intended to arouse prevaricaphiles, such as, hypothetically, myself, then, by your definition, Slashdot would need to be forced into the .xxx domain the moment I posted it.

Re:Open the floodgates.... (2, Informative)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684338)

First of all, it's not my definition. It's the dictionary definition.

Secondly, if the owners of the site (not one of thousands of contributors) intended its' contents to be sexually arousing, then yes. It's all about the intent of the creator/publisher. So Flickr can have little kids in bathing suits frolicking in a pool and it's nothing. But if they had a section called 'preteen hotties get wet'' then it's meets the 'porn' standard.

It gets a little tricky though when the creator or publishers' intentions are not very clear (nudists sites for example)

Re:Open the floodgates.... (1)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683900)

That's not the point. If I have a site that I consider to be porn, and I want it to be treated like porn, I'll put it on .xxx. I wouldn't put a site on .xxx unless I want it to be considered porn.

I seriously doubt we're going to have any web site *forced* to be put on .xxx even if the owner doesn't consider it to be porn.

Re:Open the floodgates.... (2, Insightful)

compro01 (777531) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684126)

I seriously doubt we're going to have any web site *forced* to be put on .xxx even if the owner doesn't consider it to be porn.

I have considerably less doubt about that eventuality.

Re:Open the floodgates.... (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684086)

Well, okay... 100% of those who chose to self-identify as porn.

It doesn't matter (1)

c++0xFF (1758032) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684216)

If you're going to block .xxx, you probably have a very broad definition of porn.

A company, for instance, will want to block anything that could result in a lawsuit. That means blocking anything that someone might find tasteless.

Schools, with their "think of the children" mentality, have a similar attitude. They'll block anything that might not be appropriate for children. Bonus: medical sites probably won't fall under .xxx, so learning about breast cancer is still fine.

The very conservative/religious shudder at anything that shows more skin than a snow suit. Blocking .xxx is perfect for them.

If you don't fall under one of these categories, you probably won't be blocking .xxx anyway, so why does it matter who makes the definition?

As pointed out elsewhere, .com and friends will still have porn, so it's not as if the SI swimsuit edition will be forced onto .xxx -- it's all voluntary anyway. The people wanting to be on .xxx are the ones trying to promote their website as being pornographic. If you're blocking .xxx, your definition will definitely include almost every single site that gets blocked, guaranteed.

Re:Open the floodgates.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32684274)

"so why not give the sex operators a red light district that's easily blockable. Sure, it won't block 100% of porn, but it's one rule that can block 100% porn with no false positives."

That makes perfect sense ... until you realize that a lot of porn sites probably don't *want* to be blocked. At work, you obviously can't block a top level domain like .com because there are too many legitimate sites, but you can easily block all of .xxx. Why would a porn site want to make it easy for their customers to be blocked (be they legitimately accessing the material or not)? What makes perfect sense from an "I want to block it" administrative perspective might not make any sense from a "I don't want anyone to block my stuff" commercial sense. It would be like volunteering for lower traffic.

I get the feeling that after all these years of hassle this new internet "red-light district" is going to be set up, but hardly anyone is going to set up shop there or want to visit it. "You can build it, but that doesn't mean they will come."

Yes, yes, I know. The jokes write themselves.

XXX domain as a tool for censorship (4, Insightful)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683548)

I hope this doesn't encourage would-be censors to restrict the kinds of content allowed in non-xxx domains. Not all content fits neatly into an XXX designation, and even if it did it is simply not right to restrict XXX content to XXX domains. Having an XXX domain has always struck me as either pointless (insofar as XXX content might continue to be hosted on non-XXX domains) or otherwise a really bad idea (insofar as no XXX content may be allowed outside of XXX domains).

Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship (1)

PhrstBrn (751463) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683706)

I hope this doesn't encourage would-be censors to restrict the kinds of content allowed in non-xxx domains. Not all content fits neatly into an XXX designation, and even if it did it is simply not right to restrict XXX content to XXX domains. Having an XXX domain has always struck me as either pointless (insofar as XXX content might continue to be hosted on non-XXX domains) or otherwise a really bad idea (insofar as no XXX content may be allowed outside of XXX domains).

Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship (1)

PhrstBrn (751463) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683738)

Yep, /. cut off my post. There was something there after the quote, but it's not anymore. Strangely enough, it was in the preview. I don't care enough to re-type it out.

Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683828)

The blockquote tag is a bit tempermental. It doesn't always behave like you'd think it should behave.

Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32683768)

I hope this doesn't encourage would-be censors to restrict the kinds of content allowed in non-xxx domains. Not all content fits neatly into an XXX designation, and even if it did it is simply not right to restrict XXX content to XXX domains. Having an XXX domain has always struck me as either pointless (insofar as XXX content might continue to be hosted on non-XXX domains) or otherwise a really bad idea (insofar as no XXX content may be allowed outside of XXX domains).

Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683870)

Since retroactive bans are generally looked down upon, sane countries wouldn't try to ban porn from non .xxx domains. Insane countries, like Iran or maybe even China, might give it a shot, but here's the thing:

No government controls the Internet. America has the most influence, undoubtedly, but even they can't mandate something like that.

Really, the most any government will do is block access to the entire .xxx TLD. Since those that would do so probably are already, the only real effect would be making certain porn sites more obviously pornographic. A URL like, say, aerisdies.com doesn't look like a pornsite. It looks like a Final Fantasy fansite, probably focused on a certain character's death. If you visit it, however, you see that it's a pretty large collection of anime porn.

That's the only goal. Making porn a bit more obvious. It makes it easier to block, but it also makes it a bit more available. If you were just browsing randomly and saw a URL, you might go "Hey, an .xxx site. I could use some porn about now. *click*". That's all it will do. Make porn stand out as porn.

Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684080)

That's all it will do. Make porn stand out as porn.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends what trademark holders do/are allowed to do. What do you figure will be at, say, coca-cola.xxx or mcdonalds.xxx?

Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684128)

I'm disturbed by how easily you remember anime porn sites, yet still bookmarking it...

Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684364)

I used to be part of that community, and every month or so, someone would show up on the forums, asking how to patch FFVII to keep Aeris alive past Disc 1. For some reason that popped into my head when writing that comment. I don't even know if the site's still up.

RFC 3675 (noted above) (2, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683944)

The simple biggest problem is that the US is not the only country in the world that uses the WWW, and there is widespread cultural variety in acceptable standards. It's significant that the British BT company supports these TLDs, because BT is a backward, insular corporation - if it hadn't had competition from cable, the UK would still be on dial up. Any proposal supported by BT is automatically a bad idea.

It's also worth pointing out that "sex" and "xxx" probably only have meaning in American English - in British English, XXX certainly used to mean "beer".

Re:RFC 3675 (noted above) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32684184)

It's also worth pointing out that "sex" and "xxx" probably only have meaning in American English - in British English, XXX certainly used to mean "beer"

One of the end goals of the internet is the replacement of both British and Yankee English with a new language called American.

Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship (1)

Ankle (633399) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684180)

solution: all tlds must be porn sites
simple - everyone's happy

FINALLY (4, Funny)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683566)

Finally there will be porn on the internet.

Took them long enough!

Re:FINALLY (4, Funny)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683792)

Finally there will be porn on the internet.

Took them long enough!

Wow... mom was right, you will go blind if you play with it...

If I operated a porn site... (1)

TheRedDuke (1734262) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683626)

I wouldn't want a .xxx suffix - it would make it even easier for firewalls and parental controls to filter/block my site's content. If anything, I'd register it as a supplement to my .com or .net URL.

Joking? Satire? (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683770)

I wouldn't want a .xxx suffix - it would make it even easier for firewalls and parental controls to filter/block my site's content. If anything, I'd register it as a supplement to my .com or .net URL.

Wait. Are you joking? Satire? At this time of day my satire and joke meter doesn't work.

If you're not.... Why can't you or anyone else respect the wishes of someone who wants to block that kind of content from their machine?

This idea for a .xxx domain is a brilliant idea! Folks who don't want it can easily block it and it will also make the "think of the children" argument moot when folks start crying "Let's regulate the internet and remove the porn!" We can point out that the "internet" has come up with its own solution and there's no need for any regulation on that point. The marketplace solved the problem on its own.

Re:Joking? Satire? (4, Interesting)

jkauzlar (596349) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683878)

Step 1) Introduce tld .xxx

Step 2) Pass law that says, any site with porn must be in .xxx tld

Step 3) Block .xxx domain

Step 4) Totalitarianism

Re:Joking? Satire? (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684036)

You jumped from government powers to individual choice and back to government. Why?

Just because your employer blocks .xxx, it doesn't mean your government will do so. Or if it does, may I recommend you emmigrate to a country with freedom of speech.

Re:Joking? Satire? (1)

jkauzlar (596349) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684292)

Step 1 is not so bad, but step 2 is where the problem begins. From there, it's only a matter of time before step 3 happens, because few politicians will go on the record as supporting porn.

Furthermore, step 3 might not be blocking the websites (which would be in direct violation of the first amendment), but requiring that anyone accessing them obtain a gov't issued license enforced by ISPs, etc.

And replace .xxx with any type of content and that type of content can be effectively banned using the same process.

Re:Joking? Satire? (2, Interesting)

stoicfaux (466273) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684124)

You missed a step. Politicians start to define what companies must use a .xxx domain. In the US I can easily see some politician putting forth a bill requiring that gay dating sites, abortion information sites, and sex education sites must use the .xxx domain.

Soon followed by lawsuits against ISPs for not blocking the .xxx domain.

And just so they don't fall out of the spotlight, the RIAA/MPAA require that any site that sells music or movies is required to use a .validIP suffix. Any music or movies downloaded or made available on a non .validIP site will automatically be assumed to be willfully engaging in copyright violations.

Re:Joking? Satire? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684092)

The problem is that there are thousands upon thousands of porn sites that do not have, and may never have .xxx domain names. A dns filter for .xxx domain names will not block them. This is not a solution. It is a publicity stunt. If you want a solution, then you'll need to enforce a policy of requiring a standardized adult content meta tag, and get all jurisdictions to comply.

Re:Joking? Satire? (1)

johanw (1001493) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684242)

[quote]Why can't you or anyone else respect the wishes of someone who wants to block that kind of content from their machine?[/quote] As long as I can be sure that the blocking software is installed by the same person using that machine, OK with me. But I somehow have the impression that most of this software is run by people to censor the net for others, and that is not something I would cooperate with.

Re:If I operated a porn site... (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683798)

Parental controls filtering your site isn't a bad thing. Kinda seeing your site is bad press, and the reality is most kids don't have the money to spend on porn anyways so they're likely to get theirs from the free sources. Many sites used to (and I'm assuming still do) put intentional meta tags on their site to be filtered by parental filters like CyberSitter and NetNanny.

Just personally, I don't really have a problem with the .xxx domain idea. Having a designated place for porn is a non-issue for me, as long as there's no one trying to say what can and can't go on the .xxx domain.

Compare to strip clubs - I really don't care if city ordinances require them to be out in the boonies - people who want to go there typically are willing to travel to where they are, as long as there is SOME place they're allowed to be, and most importantly, that the people who obviously aren't interested in attending such locations keep their noses out of what goes on there.

Re:If I operated a porn site... (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684046)

Compare to strip clubs - I really don't care if city ordinances require them to be out in the boonies - people who want to go there typically are willing to travel to where they are, as long as there is SOME place they're allowed to be, and most importantly, that the people who obviously aren't interested in attending such locations keep their noses out of what goes on there/

This!

It's all irrelevant (4, Insightful)

PhrstBrn (751463) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683666)

Nobody will use it. Using .xxx will allow every administrator to just wildcard block the .xxx domain, and I doubt its in the adult industry's best interest to use it.

It's almost baffling that the "oh, think of the children" crowd doesn't want this. I would think it would be of their interest to "force" (which I doubt could ever happen) adult companies to use the .xxx domains to allow this "dirty content" to be easily censored, and create a "red light district" of the internet, which you could just easily block with a simple wildcard filter. Fortunately, most of the censors are idiots and would rather put their head in the sand than acknowledge it exists and there is no way to get rid of it, since there will always be demand.

Either way, whatever ICANN approves or disapproves the usage of .xxx domains, it won't make a difference either way. The internet will be full of porn, everybody who wants it will be able to get it, and .xxx will continue to be unused, whether it's available or not.

Re:It's all irrelevant (1)

jkauzlar (596349) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683808)

+10 insightful

Re:It's all irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32683848)

The problem is that the "think of the children" crowd would prefer if most *science* sites moved to .xxx, as we can't have little Johnny reading about evolution! Next thing you know, he'll be a fascist communist socialist Nazi atheist Mooslem just like the President!

Re:It's all irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32683902)

I know this is going to sound weird around here. But sometimes I do not care to look at porn.

Right now many sites use 'ambiguous' names to lure me with tame sounding name. Putting it into the xxx domain tells me 'not what I am looking for' OR if i am looking for porn 'thats what I am looking for'.

I like boobies as much as the next guy but when I am looking for the tech specs on some mother board I do not want the distraction.

Just throwing everything into .com is not working. The meaning of .com is being abused.

It is not that I cant cope with it. It is just freeking annoying is all. Segmenting it a bit cant hurt at this point. I am just worried how segmented people will make it... :(

Re:It's all irrelevant (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684160)

Porn isn't commercial now? Seems like it's a pretty well-funded industry to my amateur eye... I agree that having a .xxx TLD will be nice, but I can't really see that .com is being abused in any way.

Re:It's all irrelevant (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684248)

Of course, coca-cola.xxx is not ambiguous at all.

Or do you think trademark holders won't buy up those domains to cover their bases?

Re:It's all irrelevant (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684094)

It's almost baffling that the "oh, think of the children" crowd doesn't want this. I would think it would be of their interest to "force" (which I doubt could ever happen) adult companies to use the .xxx domains to allow this "dirty content" to be easily censored, and create a "red light district" of the internet, which you could just easily block with a simple wildcard filter. Fortunately, most of the censors are idiots and would rather put their head in the sand than acknowledge it exists and there is no way to get rid of it, since there will always be demand.

What baffles me is how some of you tend to think the internet is controlled by a single filter. Can you not imagine a kids computer in the living room with '.xxx' blocked and one in the bedroom without such limitations?

OF COURSE there will always be demand. But segregation of this type allows for something the customer very much wants in the way of limits via age, appropriate setting, etc.

Why did this take so long? (1)

tomzyk (158497) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683846)

So, why have they been rejecting it for so long?

If the religious fanatics say "sex is immoral", well, it's not like there's gonna be any MORE pr0n online. It's just giving them a different web address to use.

And by using .xxx it will make censoring it on your home computer(s) a LOT easier for parents who don't want their kids looking for any of it.

Or has it always been big corporations that have been opposing it, so that no one buys up coca-cola.xxx or something?

Re:Why did this take so long? (1)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683920)

Or has it always been big corporations that have been opposing it, so that no one buys up coca-cola.xxx or something?

Rule 34 in the making right there... [xkcd.com]

Re:Why did this take so long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32683964)

So, why have they been rejecting it for so long?

It's been rejected so long because the only problem it solves is domain registrars' low revenue.

Re:Why did this take so long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32684110)

To sum it up, you're going to have a heck of a time enforcing it with all of the jurisdictions throughout the world. There is no way you're going to get all the porn sites over to .xxx, especially because they won't want to.

Secondly, the definition of porn varies wildly. My standards of porn are much less strict of somewhere like the Middle East which probably considers 80% of the internet porn.

Re:Why did this take so long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32684144)

The problem lies in defining porn. In some countries, Maxim Magazine counts as porn. What about in England, where TheSun (a 'news' magazine) includes topless women on their popular Page 3 segment? Do all these magazines get forced onto .xxx? If not, then .xxx is useless for any country where these are porn.

Even in the USA, our Supreme Court was unable to fully define pornography in a congruent way. For all intents and purposes, our definition is still "I'll know it when I see it."

What is more likely to happen is that each country will try to force all their undesirable content onto .xxx "for easy filtering." Which, in all truth will be utterly useless because each country has different laws, but worse will allow progress down the slipper slope of filtering for more and more countries.

In the best case, this new domain will allow people to find porn easier. In the worst case, it will stifle the economic growth potential of the entire internet and even lead to a chilling in the progress of human tolerance.

Still want it?

A Brave New Era (2, Insightful)

Favonius Cornelius (1691688) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683866)

This is the best improvement of the internets I've heard in years. Hunting for porn should be greatly enhanced if it's address is centralized! I wonder if those military guys who invented internets ever realized what would become of their tech.

Worst. Idea. Evar. (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683912)

This will not work. at least, not the way they think it will.

What is the reason for a .xxx domain. Ostensibly, to allow people to filter out 'porn'. Simply block the domain. A lofty goal, but it can't work this way.

1. Would a site be 'required' to register in that domain? Well, redtube.com wouldn't go away, they simply add redtube.xxx
2. One mans porn is another mans vacation pics.
3. Who would be the internet police? Fred Phelps? a Sharia imam? Owner of a Barcelona gay bar? Who decides?
4. Is this required? If I have some beach pics that include a girl in a tiny bikini, does that count? In that case, every photo sharing website counts.
5. There is always Rule 34 [urbandictionary.com] .

Re:Worst. Idea. Evar. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32684058)

I hope you mean "one man's vacation pics are another man's porn" and not the other way :) I hope your vacation pics might not be easily mistaken for porn

I propose... (1)

Randwulf (997659) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684062)

I propose a .safe or .kids domain that are porn free and child safe. Let the rest of the Internet do whatever it wants.

Religous Right (4, Insightful)

nuckfuts (690967) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683982)

Members of the American religious right also oppose its creation on moral grounds.

I respect freedom of opinion, but this attitude is plain fucking stupid. As if pornography will become more/less prevalent if the .xxx tld is approved/denied.

This is the same brand of ignorance that believes teens will have more sex if educated about it, or that prostitution should be outlawed instead of regulated.

As a species, we wouldn't still be here if sex wasn't a big deal to us, but the range of cultural attitudes today is astounding. There's Amsterdam, where one can window shop for sexual services. There are ultra-religious societies where women must be covered from head-to-toe since, presumably, their men could not control themselves in the presence of exposed female flesh. There are countries where women have their genitals mutilated to prevent the enjoyment of sex. And there is America, where murder and violence are standard fare for entertainment, but God help us all if a nipple pops out!

Re:Religous Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32684272)

These are people who also disapprove of gays while being taken care of by rent boys, who dislike sodomy but will happily get a blowjob, or maybe use anal as a way to avoid one more damn kid for themselves while they sing "every sperm is sacred" in real life. All of them fear what they don't understand, for a majority of them, this thing they hate is themselves: they don't want to see a .xxx for the very reason that they don't want their web history to be so damn obvious.

Consensual meets Censorial? (1)

MelodicMotives (724089) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684020)

What's going to stop them from continuing to flood the other TLD's and just redirect them to .xxx? WhiteHouse.com pointing to WhiteHouse.xxx seems to accomplish nothing. So the concern then is, of course, that soon you won't be able to exist as a porn operation in .com, and then it's a quick jump to lightswitch-style censorship of the entire .xxx TLD.

.xxx is the wrong choice (0)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684022)

Surely the correct TLD for porn would be ''.cum'' :-)

They are saving the really sick shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32684024)

For the .xxxx domain.

What's the point? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684032)

They've already stated they are going to start selling gTLDs themselves. Soon there will be no meaning - and more importantly no accountability - for the majority of all registrations. Anyone who is really looking to make money on something explicit will just wait for the crop of new gTLDs under which domains will be sold by people who are not held responsible in any way, shape, or form, by anyone, anywhere.

Most likely ICANN is setting up .xxx only to make a little more money off of it this way in comparison to what they would make by selling the .xxx gTLD in its entirety.

Not quite aptly named (3, Funny)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684050)

I always thought that if business sites were .com, then porn sites should be .cum

Remember people (1)

Cur8or (1220818) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684082)

The internet is more than a global pornography network!

New TLDs like printing money (5, Insightful)

peterofoz (1038508) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684108)

It seems to me that creating a new TLD is like printing money. Anyone with a brand to protect will be coerced into buying up their {brand}.{TLD} to park it and prevent abuse. Consider for example: www.disney.xxx or www.ford.xxx Creating this won't eliminate porn on the other TLDs and centralized censorship is generally a bad idea.

xxx was the second choice (1)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684284)

Their first choice was .cum, but they decided not to go with it.

The opposite is a better idea. Lets see .kid (0, Redundant)

Zaphod-AVA (471116) | more than 4 years ago | (#32684316)

Seriously, we don't try and kid proof the world, we make playgrounds. Create a .kid domain and control the content there. That way making an internet connection that is safe for children becomes relatively easy.

Re:The opposite is a better idea. Lets see .kid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32684350)

No, that pretty much has the same problem. Who gets to decide what is "kid-friendly" enough to go in .kids and what isn't?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?