×

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!

India To Ban .xxx Domain

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the isn't-that-the-whole-point dept.

Censorship 257

An anonymous reader writes "The Indian government have said they will introduce measures to block the newly approved .xxx domain from the country. The Economic Times reports that 'India along with many other countries from the Middle East and Indonesia opposed the grant of the domain in the first place, and we would proceed to block the whole domain, as it goes against the IT Act and Indian laws.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

257 comments

Ehh (0)

ae1294 (1547521) | about 3 years ago | (#35617830)

That was really fast!

Re:Ehh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618008)

Yes, but it is an interesting approach to preventing discrimination by maintaining the status quo. You can read more on my blog here [blog.com].

Re:Ehh (5, Funny)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 3 years ago | (#35618034)

Banning the entire .xxx TLD; I didn't see that one coming.

Re:Ehh (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | about 3 years ago | (#35618082)

Isn't this the same culture that wrote the Kama Sutra?

That's a hell of a turnaround.

Re:Ehh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618298)

If you think Kama Sutra is porn, you don't know Kama Sutra.

Re:Ehh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618700)

Kama Sutra is not porn, but it show openess of that culture. The beatiful culture that made this book was destroyed and buried by islamisation [wikipedia.org]. Everyone must wear black, women but be covered head to toes and no one is allowed to drawn animals or plants.

Ya sure, there is always less faithful individual that will be use to masquarade what the cult is really is. They may not extremist, but it is only because they are following a soft religious leader. That leader can change, and the follower will go where ever the new leader go. All religous peoples are dangerous because they can turn extremist anytime. Personal drama or endoctrinment can change them any time.

Let not forgot the history lesson of all the country that have fallen under islam.

Re:Ehh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618612)

Yes, many culture were very open and free in the past. But that all changed after the islamisation. The large area from middle east to india use to be a mix of various peaceful cultures. Buddhism was eradicated from the middle eat in less the a century by muslims. The Taliban recently destroyed one of the last vestige of buddhist culture in the region [wikipedia.org]. The doctrine of "convert or die" worked very well for Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullh and his followers.

PS: I am not saying islam is the only one to blame, i am not troling anti-muslim crap. All violent cult cause this, including christianity. Actually all monotheist cult.. i doubt that a concidence. The believe of a single one true god must be the cause to exclusion of anyone believing anything different. If you are not one of them you are a blasphemer, a heretic or a infidel which is most of the time punishable by death.

Re:Ehh (2)

Dan541 (1032000) | about 3 years ago | (#35618378)

Yea, not like porn sites have any other TLD they can use.

Re:Ehh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618450)

Looks like the more backward countries don't want their porn on the xxx domain, and prefer it served on arbitrary domains instead.

Re:Ehh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618514)

Neither did I. Giving Amsterdam its own TLD may have been a bit... generous, but to ban it in response is really taking things too far.

Nobody saw that coming (5, Insightful)

guyminuslife (1349809) | about 3 years ago | (#35617836)

Excuse the pun.

This is exactly why we didn't want the .xxx domain name. It seems like it exists for the sole purpose of being censored.

Re:Nobody saw that coming (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35617910)

Yep, there you go, motherfuckers. To all of you douchebags that were bitching about the US not approving .xxx saying we are religious nuts, etc., well, this is why we didn't approve it for so long. What next? .gay? dot$INSERT_WHATEVER_YOU_DONT_LIKE? Hope you fucks are happy.

Umm... isn't this a good thing? (1)

lullabud (679893) | about 3 years ago | (#35618126)

No porn sites that exist currently use .xxx. Any who choose to use .xxx for marketing, SEO, etc. may do so, and they don't have to forfeit their current domains to do it. On top of that, any porn sites that choose to abide by any and all filtering that is desired by corporations or governments can now do so easily by only hosting on .xxx.

Nobody says you HAVE to host porn on .xxx. It's an *option*.

Options are good, right? I mean, it's not like we're losing redtube or whatever.

Re:Umm... isn't this a good thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618256)

Options are good, right?

Until the first country makes it mandatory for porn sites to migrate to .xxx and declares it illegal to host under a country or another TLD.

Re:Nobody saw that coming (5, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 years ago | (#35618016)

I haven't quite decided on whether it exists to be censored, or as some sort of unwholesome baptists/bootleggers coalition between those who want censorship to be easier and those who want smut to be yet more profitable(and some of that cash to go to them).

A given human-readable domain name in some TLD just has to be DNS-able back to an IP with something on it in order to be functional. There is no requirement that it be the only domain name that points back to that IP, or that it only point back to one IP. Given that, I'd expect that a fair slice of the .xxx names will simply be purchased by porn outfits who are already online under .com, .net, or others and will point back to exactly the same IPs and servers. Those will represent easy money for whoever runs .xxx; but blocking them will achieve very little, since they will just be a second alias pointing to something that is already pointed to by 'respectable' domains(or obscure TLDs that are super cheap, and who cares as long as our pagerank is good).

Anybody who is .xxx only will, indeed, be fairly easily censored; but that won't be too helpful to the powers-that-be unless someone manages to require all smut to show up only on .xxx(and how exactly would that be accomplished? Individual nations can restrict use of their own TLDs, or make operating porn servers criminal, or what have you; but nation X can't really tell smut.net in nation Y what TLDs it can or can't have domain names in...) Whether or not .xxx is largely a tool of people who just want another TLD to spin money from(not as bad as those "hey, let's let literally any string be a TLD!" nuisances; but in the same vein...), or whether there is a bloc of ignorant moralists who think that .xxx will magically force all the smut into that one area, where it can be blocked, or whether the moralist bloc is playing a long game, and the eventual plan is some sort of legislative shove is not yet clear to me...

Re:Nobody saw that coming (1)

guyminuslife (1349809) | about 3 years ago | (#35618218)

Well, certainly having a .xxx TLD would be a prerequisite for requiring adult sites to use it, but I'm not panicking about that...yet.

I would bet that the real reason the domain was created has nothing to do with either the pornographers or the moralist crusaders, and has everything to do with domain name registrars wanting a piece of action. I read somewhere about a week ago that over 200,000 .xxx domain names had already been purchased. That's a tidy bit of cash, especially if adult websites in the future feel the need to register both .com/.net/whatever AND .xxx.

On the other hand, I don't really see this as being conducive to anything.

Re:Nobody saw that coming (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about 3 years ago | (#35618350)

The thing is, it's not exactly possible to censor a TLD. About all you can do is mandate that ISPs block it on their DNS servers. You can't realistically prevent an entire country from running their own DNS servers, nor from using DNS servers outside the country, nor from using a VPN to tunnel DNS requests, etc. And if there's a market for it, somebody will sell access using just such a VPN.

Re:Nobody saw that coming (1)

NevarMore (248971) | about 3 years ago | (#35618402)

Well actually you can. It just takes a few more steps.

1. Get a list of all .xxx domains
2. Query the DNS for the IPs for those domains
3. Block IPs
4. Go pick up a whore in the red light district of Calcutta now that you've blocked internet porn

Re:Nobody saw that coming (2)

dgatwood (11270) | about 3 years ago | (#35618606)

Not without a lot of collateral damage, you can't. There's nothing stopping a single hosting server from serving Whitehouse.gov and Whitehouse.com on the same IP.

Re:Nobody saw that coming (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 years ago | (#35618424)

Having a distinct TLD, rather than just a series of domain names that you have to collect manually, or assemble by some keyword mechanism, or some other messy setup, doesn't make blocking any easier, it just makes identifying your targets easier.

It doesn't make your censorship mechanism any more sophisticated. ISP DNS server mandates are still the easiest and cheapest and least disruptive to constituencies who matter. Mandating that ISPs block attempts to reach 3rd party DNS servers isn't too much harder or more expensive; but is much more likely to make a mess of some number of 'legitimate' applications used by constituencies who matter. Selectively rewriting or blocking DNS lookups for specific TLDs is more difficult and expensive; but a bit less disruptive.

I suspect that this is a mixture of pandering to the clueless moralists and creating new niches for registrars to make money for comparatively little effort; but it does make assembling a target list somewhat easier(with the exception of the, likely extremely high, percentage of porn outfits who have a domain name in a second TLD...)

Re:Nobody saw that coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618100)

This is exactly why we didn't want the .xxx domain name.

We?

Re:Nobody saw that coming (5, Insightful)

mewsenews (251487) | about 3 years ago | (#35618106)

This is exactly why we didn't want the .xxx domain name. It seems like it exists for the sole purpose of being censored.

I would argue the exact opposite and say that this is why we DID want the TLD to exist.

Reputable smut dealers don't exactly try to hide what they're selling and will have no problem hosting their domains under the .xxx TLD.

Most people have no problem with the product in adult hands, but would like it to be as easy as possible to block traffic from .xxx domains to an elementary school library without some stupid third party whitelist or blacklist.

It works out for everybody except porn fans in puritanical countries, as TFA illustrates.

Re:Nobody saw that coming (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 3 years ago | (#35618182)

Yeah, and censorship is totally an acceptable price for sheltering poor defenseless brains of mush from things they aren't ready for! Now, on with more TLDs!

Seriously, your kid can find pretty deviant and repulsive stuff at their local library. Let's not go around making censorship easier to facilitate all in the name of nerfing the world for little tykes.

Oh, and by the way, who gets to be the devine arbiter of what is classified as what on the internet? Maybe we can follow the lead of the MPAA and assign the task to a dozen middle aged morons and two religious representatives?

Re:Nobody saw that coming (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 3 years ago | (#35618220)

Reputable smut dealers don't exactly try to hide what they're selling and will have no problem hosting their domains under the .xxx TLD.

They do, because they want to sell to "porn fans in puritanical countries."

India has 1.15 billion people, it's not exactly a small market even for a foreign porn producer.

Re:Nobody saw that coming (1)

Archwyrm (670653) | about 3 years ago | (#35618334)

I suspect that there is a big market in the Middle East as well. One night I turned on the satellite TV during a recent trip to Europe and at a certain late hour many channels start advertising porn for mobile phones and sex hotlines. There was an absolute ton of channels in Arabic advertising this stuff. There must be a market if so many satellite TV channels can stay in business with this stuff.

I would imagine that India is the same. Only opposed to porn in public no doubt. Behind closed doors on the other hand, the smut is rampant and whack shacks abound.

Re:Nobody saw that coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618386)

"It works out for everybody except porn fans in puritanical countries, as TFA illustrates."

Sure, if you leave out the fact that it won't work anywhere else, either. Reputable porn dealers might move to .xxx, but the huge number of porn dealers who post link spam, comment spam, etc. absolutely will not willingly move their sites to a TLD like this that routinely gets blocked, whether by governments, nannyware, corporate firewalls, "family-friendly" ISPs, or whatever.

So why did they not support it? (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | about 3 years ago | (#35618202)

It seems like it exists for the sole purpose of being censored.

Exactly...which is why you have to wonder at what the Indian government was thinking when the article also states that "India along with many other countries from the Middle East and Indonesia opposed the grant of the domain in the first place". Shouldn't they have been campaigning for it since it makes it easier to ban?

Re:So why did they not support it? (2)

jrumney (197329) | about 3 years ago | (#35618546)

Perhaps they opposed the introduction of the domain because the politicians like their porn as much as any other red blooded male (perhaps even more due to the repressed society in which they live), and now they have no excuse not to block it.

Re:Nobody saw that coming (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | about 3 years ago | (#35618244)

We all knew that it would be banned. We also all know that it will be very profitable to give access to the people who want access to it.

So, who's going to start the first VPN service targeted to .xxx surfers in India...

Re:Nobody saw that coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618326)

No, it exists for the sole purpose of selling domain name registrations.

Re:Nobody saw that coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618508)

What? The Conservative agenda in the West doesn't get a warm reception in the East?

I'm shocked that cultural differences, ideologies, and law aren't compatible across international boundaries!

Excellent play (5, Insightful)

NFN_NLN (633283) | about 3 years ago | (#35617884)

Excellent move by the Indians.

Nobody wants there porn censored out, not even the Indians (except a few crazy religious zealots). By declaring they will censor it immediately this will surely kill the .xxx domain AND ensure they can get their porn the good ol'fashioned way as they've already been doing.

Re:Excellent play (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618044)

The religious zealots are also the ones consuming. You can look at the consumption rate in Utah for example. (It is much higher)

http://techliberation.com/2009/03/02/conservatives-porn-and-community-standards/

Re:Excellent play (3, Insightful)

binary paladin (684759) | about 3 years ago | (#35618194)

Their prescription drug abuse tops the charts. Who needs to loosen up with a beer when you can get Vicodin for a hangnail. Remember, if your doctor okays it, so does your god!

Re:Excellent play (2)

oliverthered (187439) | about 3 years ago | (#35618200)

all that really says is conservatives think they should pay for sex, liberals may well, being liberal and all, get the stuff for free.... possibly off some other liberal hippy chicks.

or a million and one other reasons (e.g. liberals put out easier than conservatives so there are more people in conservative places who ain't getting any)

But there is one thing that should be noted.... people tell you about themselves... so if they think that only dirty perverts watch porn, they must have gotten that idea from somewhere and have some idea what a dirty pervert is. Given Theory of Mind and other models... chances are it's cos they are dirty perverts.

Re:Excellent play (1)

Gohtar (1829140) | about 3 years ago | (#35618228)

From the article you posted: "in an age of nationally distributed hotel pornography, there was little difference between the consumption habits of hotel guests in Salt Lake City or Las Vegas." I am not sure where he got that Utah residents have higher subscription rates than any other state. But that quote is the data set he used. Even if it were true, I would think that the rate would be high not because the state is filled with hypocritical religious zealots, but because of the lack of any other source of porn in the state. The porn seekers have only the internet to turn to. Seriously, check some of the laws. I think the .xxx tld is great. From a business standpoint it is nice to be able to block a tld that you know you do not want in the work place. I am not a porn viewer, but I still believe that for an ISP or government to block the tld is wrong.

Re:Excellent play (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 3 years ago | (#35618742)

Nobody wants there porn censored out, not even the Indians (except a few crazy religious zealots).

So far as I know, India is pretty conservative (at least as far as societal norms go). I mean, we're talking about a country where homosexuality is a criminal offense punished by a few years in prison.

Well, now I'm torn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35617888)

Censorship is always a step back, but .xxx is such a stupid idea.

Re:Well, now I'm torn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35617932)

...now I'm torn...

Pull yourself together man!

paying attention, very affordable, very important (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35617896)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY2DKzastu8&NR=1&feature=fvwp

thanks gen. clarke. never thought we'd be saluting anyone.

clearly not just a war of words, media hypenosys etc...-- wee key (diaper) leaks group, perishability & play-dates pending world disarmament

xxx? some sites about religious training?

So... (0)

The O Rly Factor (1977536) | about 3 years ago | (#35617906)

Isn't this EXACTLY what we said would happen?

Re:So... (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#35618462)

One it's India, so unless you were saying that India would ban it it's not exactly what some people said. Secondly, I doubt very much that this really changes much because all reputable porn purveyors already voluntarily have themselves added to various blocking programs anyways. There's also the issue of the .xxx TLD not being compulsory, if that happens, then I think we need to really worry, at this point it's just optional.

Plus there are ways in which it could be useful for all parties involved, I just know better than to expect that level of discourse and negotiation.

Why are they against the domain? (3, Insightful)

Kaz Kylheku (1484) | about 3 years ago | (#35617912)

Why are they against porn being collected into a domain that they can easily block?

Because that creates a policy on what porn is (-1, Troll)

slushslash4 (2026374) | about 3 years ago | (#35618024)

The only practical use of this TLD is to force porn sites to use it. But who will decide what is and what isn't porn? This blog [blog.com] has a good story on this

Re:Because that creates a policy on what porn is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618050)

Oh. That was deep.

Re:Why are they against the domain? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 3 years ago | (#35618048)

I just got done telling my wife that I was not totally against it, from a private user stance, from the stance of our corporate / government overloads mismanaging it, well thats why

lets say your living life just fine and some "group" pops up and outright pressures your local branch ISP to block all *.nrd sites, you might be a little miffed

Re:Why are they against the domain? (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | about 3 years ago | (#35618882)

right... and... uhh... an ISP as a company would probably not block it for everyone but rather offer it as an account option for the customer.

Re:Why are they against the domain? (2)

tacarat (696339) | about 3 years ago | (#35618070)

Exactly. If you lived in those countries, porn access wasn't allowed anyhow (pretty much unenforceable, though). It won't change anything. Porn sites will keep their .com/net/sheep TLD names and have a .xxx one. Countries or networks with filters in place will still have circumvention by whatever means are needed. The politicians and folks in power can now make empty boasts about cleaning up the internet and the rest of us can still enjoy the things from the pre-.xxx world like nothing happened.

Wake me up when the US Bible belt states try to ban access to a certain classic that has a part where two daughters get their father drunk specifically so they can have sex with him.

Re:Why are they against the domain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618302)

a certain classic that has a part where two daughters get their father drunk specifically so they can have sex with him

SAUCE NAO!

It's almost like (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35617914)

they created a this domain for these purposes...come guys, if you're going to censor us, at least phase it in. Don't go blocking domains a week after they're approved, let it wait a little bit.

Not first! (-1, Troll)

slushslash3 (2026358) | about 3 years ago | (#35617920)

UK appears to ban [blog.com] it as well

Now Who's.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35617956)

.. going to be blocked from visiting my new website, giantrumbottlecalled.xxx?

Makes me wonder (5, Insightful)

Nikker (749551) | about 3 years ago | (#35617974)

Kinda makes you wonder though, if so many people are against pornography that they had made it law, why would they need the law since none of them would look at it anyway?

Laws are for the lawless. (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 3 years ago | (#35618142)

Laws exist for the lawbreakers. If you make something illegal people will assume you don't do it because it's illegal.

Re:Makes me wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618206)

Because these kind of folks are the type that want to control what other people do. I have nothing at all against their beliefs - but dammit, let those beliefs just apply to them. It is this insatiable need they have to push their form of morality on others that defines them for me as anti-social bigots.

Re:Makes me wonder (5, Insightful)

Wingnut64 (446382) | about 3 years ago | (#35618308)

Slashdot comment pulled from my quotes file:

Social conservatives keep demanding laws to regulate everyone because their usual tools of ostracism and shame are only effective within their own communities.

Re:Makes me wonder (5, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 3 years ago | (#35618398)

Because religion puts you up to being a busybody. As individuals I mind my business and you mind yours as long as it doesn't have too ill effects on each other. But if you're seeing this as a sin and an offense against god, then it's not just my choice and your choice but a Right and a Wrong choice.

To religious nuts it's like trying to say that a cancer cell isn't better or worse than other cells, just different. They want a society that encourages people to make the Right choice and discourages them from making the Wrong choice. They want to push their way of life, their moral systems and their belief on you. They want to cleanse society of sin and taint and if you like your sinning ways that's a problem that needs solving, not a choice to be respected.

As for why pornography? Because lust is such a basic feeling in people, I doubt there's any religious man who isn't at least feeling somewhat guilty for having naughty thoughts. That's the hook that makes people work for religion, they give you guilt then let you work towards forgiveness. Religion is a bit like evolution, it doesn't care how it survives it's only about numbers - births and converts.

Re:Makes me wonder (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#35618500)

Religion doesn't put people up to that, they do it on their own. Islam, Christianity and Buddhism in particular do not allow for that sort of behavior as a route to the goal. It's something which the ignorant amongst them do, and if you actually study up on the theological aspect it's really clear that such individuals are not in keeping with the religion.

Re:Makes me wonder (1)

Burning1 (204959) | about 3 years ago | (#35618428)

Laws are about making sure other people don't do the stuff you want to do yourself... E.g. tax evasion laws. If there is no incentive to do something to begin with, there is no need for a law.

Yeah, it would really suck if... (1)

seanbruckman (637280) | about 3 years ago | (#35618030)

All above-board porn sites migrated to the tld for legitimacy and it was incredibly easy to block the lot from any computer. No pun intended.

Re:Yeah, it would really suck if... (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#35618520)

It's already easy to block the above board porn sites as they're already listed on the major web filter lists. They do it because it's not in their interest to have to deal with the additional charge backs that would occur, not to mention the extra regulatory attention that it would provide. If the industry voluntarily places itself on a filter list, that's that much less reason for congress to step in and mandate it.

this is perfect. (1)

Punto (100573) | about 3 years ago | (#35618064)

The people in India and the middle east have their governments, and those governments want to block porn. Now they have a simple way to do it. Why would they not want that? Were they really successful in blocking .com porn sites? And the sites that don't want to deal with that will go to .xxx. It's a perfectly civilized solution.

The whole xxx thing is a joke (1)

cfalcon (779563) | about 3 years ago | (#35618136)

How will these domains be distributed? What constitutes porn? Obviously google.xxx and ford.xxx and microsoft.xxx will be bought up quickly just to prevent a squatter from photoshopping Bill Gates humping a goat as a whole domain, but what about, say, the rest of us?

I would like an XXX domain for the hell of it, and I wouldn't put any porn on it. I'm just some random guy- I'm sure plenty of people would feel that way.

Re:The whole xxx thing is a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618160)

I would like an XXX domain for the hell of it, and I wouldn't put any porn on it. I'm just some random guy- I'm sure plenty of people would feel that way.

This is an interesting question, actually. Could you be accused of violating someone's TOS for *not* putting porn on a domain of yours?

Re:The whole xxx thing is a joke (2)

Seumas (6865) | about 3 years ago | (#35618234)

This is why I disagree with idiots who go around touting the whole "PROTECT THE CHILDREN!" bullshit with the intention of nerfing everything in the world at the expense of free expression and consumption by adults and in favor of someone's children. Nobody is forcing parents not to parent. Nobody is forcing parents not to censors their children's content. There's too much risk and corruption in allowing some organized body of people (think the MPAA creeps, here, which are composed mostly of people in their 50s or later with children in their 20s or later, plus a protestant and a baptist minister who don't vote, but offer their thoughts to the censors who vote in secret and offer no guidance on what is or isn't obscene, but they know it when they see it) to classify content for people.

If the consequence is that your precious little snot-producing dimwit may or may not come across a pair of tits or a couple of dicks at some point in his life and completely lose his shit over it, then so be it. I don't see any purpose for making exceptions or allowances here. The potential price of going down that road is too steep.

Re:The whole xxx thing is a joke (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#35618542)

Part of the issue is that the registrar for the .xxx TLD has neither the mandate nor the resources to ensure that the sites registered are legal sites. Meaning that the various sites feature consenting adults doing whatever freaky stuff the site features. If having a .xxx site provided some assurance that the materials were legal that might be a competitive advantage, at least in places where sex laws are serious business.

As it is the .XXX TLD is basically just a .com TLD for porn.

Re:The whole xxx thing is a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618930)

I'm sick of that "protect the children" garbage. I don't even care about the children. Why? Because they'll be fine. Most of them won't go insane from seeing people having sex, playing a video game, or watching a movie. A grand majority of them won't even be affected, as far as I've seen. Keeping them in a little bubble is pure idiocy in my opinion.

There will be a few who "aren't ready" for this, but there aren't many of them, they were already likely 'insane', and the parents can just be parents and tell them that it isn't real and that they shouldn't take life advice from it. You know, educate them about the facts, not mindlessly censor everything like a paranoid imbecile.

Re:The whole xxx thing is a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618364)

It's quite interesting that freetards think that Bill Gates is still in charge of "M$".

That didn't take long (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618148)

And nobody saw that coming.

[har]

OLD, missing info (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618156)

Old. This was posted on the India times website around last Thursday I used it for my Lit & Films class. The post is missing the part that it is Illegal in India to provide adult material but there are no laws for viewing the material or having it.

source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/India-to-oppose-xxx-domain/articleshow/7778783.cms

Who would have thought. (2)

pclminion (145572) | about 3 years ago | (#35618198)

A sovereign nation taking steps to enforce their own moral and legal standards. What is the world coming to?

Re:Who would have thought. (3, Insightful)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | about 3 years ago | (#35618264)

Nations aren't supposed to enforce moral standards.

Re:Who would have thought. (3, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#35618560)

The US bars and prosecutes people for cannibalism when it comes up, but in the past their have been societies that engaged in it from time to time as a part of the culture. I'm not sure if any still exist, but that's definitely a moral call and one that has the full force of law.

The relevant question is at what point it becomes reasonable for a government to regulate it or ban it or has to just deal with people having other morals.

Re:Who would have thought. (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | about 3 years ago | (#35618720)

Those societies? Yes... I've heard of them. Actually, they supposedly don't partake of cannibalism anymore, but certain marker diseases were discovered among them that are only transmitted by the consumption of human flesh. (Or so I've heard.)

But no, the objection to cannibalism is purely on moral grounds, as you said.

Re:Who would have thought. (1)

Alex Belits (437) | about 3 years ago | (#35618834)

Why not?

In most of the world people expect some degree of uniformity in public behavior and expectations. Americans do it, too, they just usually believe that their (often outright disgusting, and not in a sexual way) behavior is universally acceptable.

Combat Zone / Red Light District (1)

retroworks (652802) | about 3 years ago | (#35618358)

This is just like Boston 1970s politicians protesting the Combat Zone. They'll finally build Park Plaza on top of the red light district, and the money will go to Providence... or .PROV

For the money (1)

kegon (766647) | about 3 years ago | (#35618410)

There's no point getting irate about freedom of speech. The whole point of domain names is to make money. The only reason .xxx was introduced was to "offer a new product", i.e. another TLD that could be subdivided and sold. Who would have thought it, people would pay money for the equivalent of a memorable telephone number.

Paul Mockapetris, inventor of DNS, said that "The DNS was built to be simple and predictable" [nic.aero] so why is it handled by an organisational committee who make political decisions ? If it was only about ease of use then .xxx would have been decided years ago. And why do you have to pay more than a nominal admin fee to have your details entered into the DNS database ? It's all about money.

Ah, India. (1)

toriver (11308) | about 3 years ago | (#35618446)

A country so prude you can get a year in jail for kissing in public, yet so corrupt the police blatantly ignore child brothels in Kolkata.

FIX UR CNTRY. Then worry about internet domains. Kthxbye.

Well, at least ... (1)

PPH (736903) | about 3 years ago | (#35618458)

... jobs developing apps and administrating .xxx sites won't be outsourced to Bangalore.

That's half the point of .xxx (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35618652)

You want to block pornographic websites, (whyever you would is beyond me), and all you have to do is filter out the .xxx tld.

Once the transition takes place, you know a lot of schools and companies are going to be doing it. If they are so intent on banning pornography, why are they protesting something that will make the job a LOT easier?

wait.... (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | about 3 years ago | (#35618818)

Isn't that the entire point of wanting the .xxx domain? Then laws can be passed to require pornographic sites to use those domains and anyone who does not want pornography on their internet connection can block them easily?

Good job India... you're using it for the reason it was proposed!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...