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 Meeting Puts Off XXX Domain Again

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the porn-still-easy-to-find dept.

157

An anonymous reader wrote to mention an International Herald story about a recent ICANN meeting on the proposed .XXX domain. Australia, the U.S., and the EU have moved to block the idea, with most commentators surmising this will prevent the concept from ever moving forward. From the article: "Some people maintain that a triple-x domain name, and the ability to enforce rules to qualify for it, would rein in an out-of-control Internet phenomenon. In registering, a company could have to abide by ratings agency standards, require proof of age for entrants, maybe even pay for Internet filtering research. The company pushing the idea, ICM Registry, also argues that dot-xxx would be good for customers of pornography sites, assuring them of certain business benchmarks, like being free of adware or computer viruses."

cancel ×

157 comments

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

free of adware or viruses? (3, Insightful)

spacemanspiff18 (883238) | more than 8 years ago | (#15029875)

How are they going to guarantee that? And if that's their plan, why don't they implement it for .com as well?

Re:free of adware or viruses? (1)

kryten_nl (863119) | more than 8 years ago | (#15029920)

How are they going to guarantee that?

Theyre not, it's just a nicer package if they try to sell that. When everybody's finally approved of the .xxx domain a study will show that it won't be technically/economically feasible for the next five years.

[/crystall_ball]

Maybe, just maybe (5, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030066)

Because the .com TLD is the repository of all crud. It's open to everybody.

If the TLD isn't .com, the registrars should guarantee that it means something. For example, the .edu domain is restricted, and the registrar (a compnay caled Educase) is responsible for guaranteeing that it doesn't get full of spammers and scammers. Some country code domains are usefully geographically limited. By contrast, the .biz domain is stupid, because there's nothing in it that wouldn't be better off in .com unless you're trying to fool somebody with your scuzzy "CapitalOne.biz" domain.

People trust .edu domains because Educase backs them with their reputation. If the rep fails, the .edu domain owners will be pissed off, because they're paying for exclusivity.

So maybe, just maybe, these guys will be vigilant about kicking out the registrations of people with .xxx domains who host malware. The guys keeping them honest will be the .xxx domain owners themselves, who are selling a legal but sleazy project where some degree of trust is needed. (In the real world would you trust a porn purveyor with your credit card?)

That "guaranteed free of malware" would involve a lot of vigilance on their part, and in return the .xxx domain owners would get people less wary of visiting their sites. They'd pay through the nose for that. They can't guarantee it completely, but if they investigate reports seriously and shut down domains spewing malware they might just get some trust. I'd be willing to give them a shot. It's a valid reason to establish a new domain, unlike most of the other new TLDs, which are just pork for domain registrars.

Re:Maybe, just maybe (1)

Irish_Samurai (224931) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030157)

(In the real world would you trust a porn purveyor with your credit card?)

Considering they were the driving force behind secure online CC transactions and secure account information practices, sure.

Re:Maybe, just maybe (1)

xiphoris (839465) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030339)

In the real world would you trust a porn purveyor with your credit card?

Now, I'm not some kind of porn fiend, but I dislike your implication that people who sell porn are more likely to do something unethical to your credit card. I don't see any reason to be prejudiced against "porn purveyors". Because you might personally find their business in bad taste does not make the people in the business immoral or unethical.

Besides, there are plenty of brick-and-mortar stores that sell porn. That's where the majority of the business was, until the Internet came along (or did you think that porn started with the Internet?).

I know this is Slashdot, and people like to blame accountants (the people who *count* the money, not choose how to make it) for the business decisions of the CEOs, porn makers for the moral corruption of humanity... but let's please be realistic.

Re:Maybe, just maybe (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030526)

Now, I'm not some kind of porn fiend, but I dislike your implication that people who sell porn are more likely to do something unethical to your credit card.

Well I am one, and due to the consolidation of payment processors, Porn is safer than technogadgets - you generally deal with 2 or 3 companies total for whichever sites you go to, and they have pretty decent online tools, so it's not like you'll get burned, whereas every joe blow computer shop does their own payments and the goods are easier to screw up (site login vs. hardware).

Re:Maybe, just maybe (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030507)

(In the real world would you trust a porn purveyor with your credit card?)

Given that I'm not liable for the cost of fraudulent transactions made against my card, and further given that I have no reason to believe that any given "porn purveyor" is any less trustworthy than any other business, yes of course I would.

don't see the downside.. (4, Interesting)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 8 years ago | (#15029888)

porn sites garenteed to be safe and malware free? I'm sure most male (and probably most female too) would love the prospect of the ability to get porn *legally* without the risk of infecting their PC. Vetting the domains could stop underage people both visiting and appearing in .xxx sites too. Of course no politition wants to actively promote porn so they'll stamp on it to promote 'christian values'

Re:don't see the downside.. (1)

jacksonj04 (800021) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030032)

It won't actively promote porn, it will provide an easily-filterable place to keep it all.

Re:don't see the downside.. (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030102)

Right, but in the minds of politicians and their Christian constituents, tolerating == promoting.

Re:don't see the downside.. (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030236)

Will the .xxx domain also be numerically segregated? Or will people be able to access such sites by using a numerical address such as 69.69.69.69? In the latter case, how does one filter?

Re:don't see the downside.. (1)

Petrushka (815171) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030504)

Your comment led me to try the IP 69.69.69.69 just to see what's there. Alas, there doesn't seem to be a server there.

Re:don't see the downside.. (1)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030070)

If I see your name on the Slashdot stories that put the XXX domain in an unfavorable light (where posters were saying that it's right-wing Christian nonsense to try to limit otherwise legal Internet activity, and how the US government was promoting censorship) I'm going not going to be able to concentrate on the outrageously distasteful pornography I'm looking at, I'll be laughing so hard.

Re:don't see the downside.. (2, Informative)

_pi-away (308135) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030176)

OK, I'll tell you the downside then.

porn sites garenteed to be safe and malware free? I'm sure most male (and probably most female too) would love the prospect of the ability to get porn *legally* without the risk of infecting their PC.

Not really feasible. They can't enforce that for .coms now can they? Besides, even if it is free of adware/malware, it may still not be legal, who knows if they actually have the distribution rights to whatever random piece of porn they are distributing.

Vetting the domains could stop underage people both visiting and appearing in .xxx sites too.

Appearing? How would this have any effect on that? But I digress, visiting. OK, so how do we verify the age? Most places now want a credit card number, and call me paranoid, but there's no way in hell I'm giving out my CC or even my name to some random porn site. How about a central site that is trusted and verifies who I am, then verifies with the site without giving out who I am. Great on the surface, except it still means that you have no anonymity in your surfing, its just one agency that knows everything instead of many singular sites that just know about them. I understand wanting to verify the age, but if you can't do that without stepping on anonymity then forget it.

Of course no politition wants to actively promote porn so they'll stamp on it to promote 'christian values'

Actually just the opposite. The politicans want this, if they can force all the porn into one TLD then it becomes trivial to block it. Your "christian values" will be pure and unbesmirched as long as you block ".xxx". That is in fact the point of this entire discussion, and why it keeps being proposed.

The real problem here is what should be forced into this domain. Hardcore gang bang site, sure. How about an education site about how to have a better sex life with your wife? hmm. How about a photographer who usually does landscape/architecture pictures but also a few artistic nudes, or maybe just topless? How about an artist who sketches nudes? How about a blog which usually has nothing to do with sex, but occassionaly mentions some encounter? Now what if the blogger is homosexual, same standard? It all comes back to the age old art/porn discussion which is unenforcable, especially in a global forum where the standards on this vary so much.

Re:don't see the downside.. (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030183)

I'm sure most male (and probably most female too) would love the prospect of the ability to get porn *legally* without the risk of infecting their PC.

I surf to Sublime Directory's Big Board [sublimedirectory.com] , and using Firefox, have no problems... As much "free" porn as your plate can hold...

damnit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15029901)

the decision on xxx domain is taking looong time, just like they never reach orgasm in xxx movies till bazillion years.

Re:damnit (1)

JoeBar (546577) | more than 8 years ago | (#15029925)

Worst. Similie. Evar!

the real reason.. (5, Insightful)

Tepshen (851674) | more than 8 years ago | (#15029902)

That they keep putting this off is because of the embarassment it would cause when .xxx sites outnumber all .com .net .biz and .org sites put together.

Re:the real reason.. (1)

dotpavan (829804) | more than 8 years ago | (#15029933)

That they keep putting this off is because of the embarassment it would cause when .xxx sites outnumber all .com .net .biz and .org sites put together.

That might not be true because unless they make it madatory that all adult websites shift to xxx domain, none would shift. They have well established presence in the com world, and the capturing of xxx would be just another domain buying where xxx page would eventually redirect to the .com site.

If they did make it a rule to send adult business to .xxx, it would take a long time because they would resist by asking for more time for a smoooooth transition.

Re:the real reason.. (1)

mooredynasty (897972) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030687)

Whether it's embarrassing or not isn't the point. There are plenty of good reasons to make top-level domains purpose driven, as in the case of .edu. Having a normalized domain structure makes sense, arguing over potential side effects doesn't.

why? (1)

soloes (415223) | more than 8 years ago | (#15029904)

Why are these countries opposed to something that would allow contgrol over what most of the conservatives in those countries claim to hate?
I would like to find a link to the responses by the countries blocking it if anybody has those in more detail.

Re:why? (1)

mozumder (178398) | more than 8 years ago | (#15029995)

Because the thought of even having an .XXX domain somehow causes them to think they're enabling it, so they try to sweep it under the rug. The initial shock of "XXX" freaks them out too much for them to cause them to think rationally about it.

Unfortunately, this is one of those things that requires maturity, something porn-hating people don't have.

Re:why? (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030082)

Unfortunately, this is one of those things that requires maturity, something porn-hating people don't have.



s/hating/fearing/;
I've found plenty of people who are anti-porn that are rational about it. It's the one's who are afraid of it that are not rational in their arguments.
-nB

Re:why? (4, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030030)

I'm personally glad its being blocked. Once its created, its a short step from being able to register a .xxx to being forced to use .xxx for "obscene speech". Once you have that, you have an issue with free speech rights being trampled as the government tries to regulate what it obscene or not.

Re:why? (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030249)

to being forced to use .xxx for "obscene speech"

Oh puh-leeze. You sound just like the left-wing extremists in my country, who are scared at anything that MIGHT POSSIBLY ONE DAY be used in conjunction with the REMOTE POSSIBILITY of an ADDITIONAL LAW to MAYBE (if we roll 3d20) sell the whole country (I'm talking about allowing private investment in energy generation). Those people and their doomsaying are what keeps my country (Mexico) in the stone age.

Re:why? (2, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030348)

Seeing as we have right wing religious zealots controlling Congress and the White House, I don't think its a stretch at all. Look at the laws that have already been struck down by the Supremes this past decade, such CIPA. Look at the other restrictions to freedom passed by Bush. Its not a remote possibility, its a damn near certainty that it *would* be passed, in some form (how onerous a form would get passed would be the question- the republicans might push a weak test version out first to test the waters). And with the additions of Alito and Roberts, both hardcore conservatives and Alito particularly being pro-government power, its very possible that they wouldn't be struck down this time.

Re:why? (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030537)

Once you have that, you have an issue with free speech rights being trampled as the government tries to regulate what it obscene or not.

Clearly, Obscenity is a statue of a naked women giving birth [nme.com] .

Re:why? (1)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030036)

Because moving all sites of that type to a specific domain would validate it as an internet entity. Most of these places hate it so much they'd rather not even recognize that it exists, let alone say it's as important as a...

commerce site
network site
organization site
government site
educational site
or
bizness site

that would be giving the porn industry TOO MUCH CREDIT.

Re:why? (2, Informative)

Aspirator (862748) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030094)

The whole issue has been considered, filed, reconsidered, trashed,
untrashed, contemplated and cogitated for some while.

There is a relevant RFC with very cogent arguments as to why it is a bad idea.

http://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc.php?rfc=3675 [rfc-archive.org]

Re:why? (1)

soloes (415223) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030191)

thanks for the info. that makes it clear as I guess it can be.
I dont know where i stand on the issue myself, but sure thin the conservatives would be for it.

Re:why? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15030126)

Because it doesn't really address anybody's concerns. Let's say .xxx sites have to be actual bona-fide porn sites to qualify. Great. That absolutely does not stop porn sites from continuing to use .com, .org, or whatever, now, does it? And since porn sites can elect to use .xxx or .com as they see fit, you can't protect the children and innocent library patrons by simply blocking .xxx domains, can you? Unless, of course, you decide to mandate the use of the .xxx top level for porn. But now you have to define porn. You are going to run headlong into a morass of free speech issues, etc. It won't happen.

The only reason we continue hearing about .xxx domains is because politicians like to get easy votes from people who don't really understand the issues.

Keep it simple stupid (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 8 years ago | (#15029905)

It seems like all these extra rules and details are just going to get in the way of the point of having a .xxx TLD, namely that "pron goes here".

Re:Keep it simple stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15030501)

>namely that "pron goes here".

Care to enlighten us? Define porn so we can put it 'there'.

hmmm. (0, Offtopic)

flamesrock (802165) | more than 8 years ago | (#15029906)

ICANN is going to be getting a FURIOUS letter from Jerry Taylor!!

The invisible foot of Government (4, Insightful)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 8 years ago | (#15029908)

"The company pushing the idea, ICM Registry, also argues that dot-xxx would be good for customers of pornography sites, assuring them of certain business benchmarks, like being free of adware or computer viruses."

The fact is, laws passed for the "common good" invariably end up harming those they were notionally intended to help and in fact end up greatly benefiting a very small group of people.

In this case, the average punter will see his prices rise, to pay for all the regulation the porn sites would bear, the number and variety of porn sites would decrease because of their extra costs and ICM Registry would do very well out of it *indeed*.

Re:The invisible foot of Government (1)

jimbostyx (964836) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030671)

The fact is, laws passed for the "common good" invariably end up harming those they were notionally intended to help and in fact end up greatly benefiting a very small group of people.
So that's a fact is it? I thought the point of laws is that they were for the common good. What about murder, rape and antitrust (hehe) laws?

Tagging (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15029913)

I have tagged this story with the tag "boobies" and I hope you do too.

slashdot.xxx?! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15029919)

I can't wait. This is the most AdWare-latent site I think I've ever visited.

Fuck you, you dirty cocksucking Jews!

I didn't mean it, I love you all. Yes, even the Jews! (I do hate those fucking towel heads though.)

Love you guys! Peace out.

Americans are all sick degenerate perverts. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15029938)

No wonder the rest of the world (not just the Muslims) hates them all.


I cannot believe that America is so pro-porn. All the research shows how it leads to violence against women.


I thought America was the land of the free, but it seems women are not free from offensive pornography! Americans need to understand that there are limits to freedom of speech, and that those limits should apply to pornography which is an invidious evil.

Re:Americans are all sick degenerate perverts. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15029986)

I cannot believe that America is so pro-porn. All the research shows how it leads to violence against women.

To to back that up with some actual facts?
I thought America was the land of the free, but it seems women are not free from offensive pornography! Americans need to understand that there are limits to freedom of speech, and that those limits should apply to pornography which is an invidious evil.
George Bush you should not be posting here without the correct facts..

Re:Americans are all sick degenerate perverts. (2, Insightful)

42Penguins (861511) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030075)

"I cannot believe that America is so pro-porn. All the research shows how it leads to violence against women."
Links to all this research, please?

"Americans are all sick degenerate perverts."
Also, making a generalization about roughly 300 million people is not very nice. It's like saying that all Chinese (or Indian) people wear funny shoes. There are people in every group that wear funny shoes, just as there are "sick degenerate perverts" everywhere, but that doesn't make everyone one of them.

Re:Americans are all sick degenerate perverts. (1)

Echnin (607099) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030218)

Don't feed the troll... it's just a merkin trying to make non-merkins look stupid.

Re:Americans are all sick degenerate perverts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15030240)

Here's a link [dianarussell.com] to some research and here's another [moralityinmedia.org] . The evidence of the research is clear. There is a causal link between men using pornography and then commiting rape.

Re:Americans are all sick degenerate perverts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15030811)

Perhaps he should have asked for unbiased studies and research? It is hard to trust something from "Morality Media" and something from a person who has 'dedicated her life to stopping violence against women'.

Re:Americans are all sick degenerate perverts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15030259)

"I thought America was the land of the free, but it seems women are not free from offensive pornography!"

This way of thinking is one of the biggest problems with people in America. You have all kinds of nifty rights under the Constitution. You definitely don't have the right to not be offended.

And...if you don't want people to have to look at "offensive pornography," why not fight for .xxx so that you can just block it and not have to worry about it anymore?

Re:Americans are all sick degenerate perverts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15030488)

Slashdot is boring. I'm gonna go view some more pornography. I'm so degenerate. *fapfapfapfap*

Re:Americans are all sick degenerate perverts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15030650)

All the research shows how it leads to violence against women.



This, from the types of people who stone women to death and own them like property.

Pithy (0, Troll)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#15029980)

Cowards!

There are no true Americans. (0, Offtopic)

infoterror (909229) | more than 8 years ago | (#15029983)

The American Indians were here first, and the invaders killed them.

As I'm sure you know, Rob Malda is 1/8 Cherokee and I am sure he resents people calling the invaders "Americans" - especially on his own web site.

Great Idea (0)

rea1l1 (903073) | more than 8 years ago | (#15029997)

We should require that all porn based sites be required to only use .xxx domains. Think how easy it would be to block them... http://.xxx/ [.xxx] All the search engines would be clean again.

Re:Great Idea (2, Insightful)

MagicDude (727944) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030086)

What about sites like the Online Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition [cnn.com] or the Online Victoria's Secret Catalogue [victoriassecret.com] go? They're not porn, but they're definately in that grey area. Most people would consider them fine for a regular .com, but you gotta figure that there'll be a vocal minority of people who'll be like "All boobies must be XXX, won't somebody PLEASE think of the children? I'm old and stodgy, get off my lawn, blah blah blah" .XXX is something that is a good idea, but there's definately some areas that need to be hashed out still.

Re:Great Idea (1)

AeroIllini (726211) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030306)

What about sites like the Online Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition or the Online Victoria's Secret Catalogue go? They're not porn, but they're definately in that grey area.

The creation of a .xxx TLD is a good idea, but not because of censorship.

If we tried to force all pornographic sites to move to .xxx names, then we would by necessity need to define "porn" to decide who has to move, and that is a difficult task at best, and it wouldn't guarantee that suddenly .com is free of porn.

However, internet porn is a very popular vector for the delivery of spyware, malware, and phishing attacks, because of its popularity and taboo nature in our society. If the company that registers .xxx domain names can guarantee that the sites who buy .xxx domain names are reputable and free of [spy|ad|mal|phish]ware, then people would probably be willing to pay a premium for access to that site. (If I recall correctly, .edu does this type of thing already.) It would not take the malware out of porn sites, but it will take reputable porn sites away from the disreputable ones. Ask yourself, would you be more willing to give your credit card to a .com site or a .biz site? What about a .edu? If that same level of trust was created for the .xxx domain, everyone benefits: the reputable porn sites get a good name, the customers get a better porn-browsing experience, and the registrars get to make money.

If we really wanted to make censorship easy, let's create a .kid TLD, which is porn-free. Block everything but .kid and let your kids run wild and free without seeing a single filthy, traumatizing boobie.

Oh good grief... (2, Interesting)

inphinity (681284) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030007)

"...maybe even pay for Internet filtering research."

Since when does porn have to be regulated like the tobacco industry? It's not like these sites are ruining lives by giving people cancer.

And what's to stop me from making amazingsexvideos.COM and not paying fo the fees? I doubt that not having a .xxx TLD will decrease the amount of traffic I see...

Re:Oh good grief... (1)

TheFlyingGoat (161967) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030125)

Porn IS regulated just as much as the tobacco industry right now. You have to be a certain age to be in porn films or photos, you have to be a certain age to go into adult bookstores, you can't view porn in a public place where other people can see what you're looking at, etc.

The issue isn't that pornography will ruin the lives of those people that look at it; it's that the Internet allows minors to access porn very easily.

I think this is actually a good idea, but determining rules for what should belong in the .xxx domain and what should belong elsewhere will get to be very tricky. I also doubt it will help prevent spyware or adware, since it would require strict oversight to achieve that.

What it would be excellent for is allowing educational access to topics that are often prevented by filters (breast exams, breast enlargements, safe sex info, etc). By filtering strictly on the domain instead of the content, stuff that should get through wouldn't be blocked anymore.

As for paying for it all, just set the price for each .xxx domain at $100. That's chump change for 99% of the porn sites out there and would pay for any regulation that needs to occur.

Re:Oh good grief... (1)

Amonimous Coward (778781) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030195)

> Porn IS regulated just as much as the tobacco industry right now. [...] you can't view porn in a public place where other people can see what you're looking at, etc.

Fuck ! My company has a smoking room and not a porn room ! I demand one !

Re:Oh good grief... (2, Funny)

VinB (936538) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030146)

...It's not like these sites are ruining lives by giving people cancer.
No, but my Mom keeps telling me that I'll go blind.

Re:Oh good grief... (1)

caffeination (947825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030192)

what's to stop me from making amazingsexvideos.COM

This is. [whois.sc] Apart from that, nothing. More importantly, there's nothing stopping you from making amazingkiddiesexvideos.com. It's an opt-in business standards label, but they're trying to market it as a measure against child porn, for the sake of the save-the-puppies angle in the news.

This has nothing to do with morality or filtering technology or anything. "Some people" means ICM Registry, who aside from pushing the idea itself, plan to be the ones in charge of charging "$10 (U.S.) annually from every .xxx domain registered" (http://www.icmregistry.com/ [icmregistry.com] ).

The sick thing about this is the audacious misrepresentation. The notion that it is going to have any effect on child porn is insulting, and the fact that "Child and family safety groups" is unbelievable. It's a consumer rights idea, nothing more.

The fact is, nobody can let on that they care about the rights of consumers who are paying for sinful, immoral porn. But, it's such a huge, tantalising pie that it was only a matter of time before someone found a way to get a piece. Touting the "OMG SCARY INTERNET" angle will still get you most anything, if you're a corporation...

Meanwhile, the child pornographers will continue to run their .com sites, and the authorities will continue to bust them the same ways as before.

.xxx delayed is xxx denied... (0, Redundant)

Hamster Lover (558288) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030016)

Quite honestly, I am tired of waiting for the .xxx TLD. Without the .xxx TLD where else am I going to obtain my adult entertainment?

Re:.xxx delayed is xxx denied... (1)

inphinity (681284) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030080)

You could always do what I do...
Turn off Google's image filter and search for seemingly benign things...

"Safe for Work" [google.com] [Ironically, not at all safe for work...]

Why are we following? (2, Interesting)

Kaellenn (540133) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030020)

Why is it that slashdot is so obsessed with this issue (I'd track down the links, but I see a post on this topic at least every 2 weeks so its not like you have to look far to find them).

Honestly, NO ONE seems to think this is a good idea. Governments don't want it because they think it'll somehow legitimize it. The XXX industry doesn't want it because they think they'll get pushed off into some dark corner of the web and shunned easily by ISPs. HOW and WHY does this issue keep coming up--none of the truly interested parties are in favor of it!

Re:Why are we following? (1)

Corbu Mulak (931063) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030041)

ICANN wants it so they can make more money. offtopic: "It's been 16 seconds since you hit 'reply'." BULLSHIT I haven't replied since yesterday!

Re:Why are we following? (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030132)

Why is it that slashdot is so obsessed with this issue (I'd track down the links, but I see a post on this topic at least every 2 weeks so its not like you have to look far to find them).

Why is CNN so obsessed with George W. Bush? I'd track down the links, but I see a story on this topic at least every 2 days so it's not like you have to look far to find them.

Re:Why are we following? (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030196)

Honestly, NO ONE seems to think this is a good idea.

No one but us, unfortunately. As a programmer, I've tried to do some improvised web filters, and it's a ROYAL PAIN IN THE BACK. Blocking .xxx sites would be a walk in the park compared with all that content-based filtering madness.

Re:Why are we following? (1)

sigzero (914876) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030519)

You are a moron then. The porn companies would only proliferate into the .xxx domain and would not leave the others. You are sadly mistaken if you think it would happen any other way.

Re:Why are we following? (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030585)

As a programmer, I've tried to do some improvised web filters, and it's a ROYAL PAIN IN THE BACK. Blocking .xxx sites would be a walk in the park compared with all that content-based filtering madness.

What makes you think all porn will be in .xxx? Some people get offended by any naked breasts, so you'll have to possibly block anything about breast cancer or nude beaches, and there's also the matter of erotic literature - is it porn because it describes sex? Porn isn't cut and dried at all.

Re:Why are we following? (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030623)

What makes you think all porn will be in .xxx?

Usually the most perverted and twisted porn sites are the ones making most money. I doubt sites with pictures of naked breasts will make any money compared to the more "modern" ones.

old .com names? (5, Funny)

theStig (960440) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030029)

Does that mean I can then secure whitehouse.com to peddle my lucrative house painting business?

What they should do: (4, Insightful)

Quaoar (614366) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030051)

Is not FORCE people to use .xxx. Just make it a choice. Then whoever is offended by porn can simply block out .xxx, and they can at least block out a good portion of the porn sites out there. The reputable sites (Playboy, etc) will probably switch, so you'll at least clean up the internet a LITTLE bit. I think doing this would be better than nothing.

Re:What they should do: (1)

emilv (847905) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030372)

No, they won't switch. They will buy this one too, so they will have both the .com and .xxx domain.

Re:What they should do: (2, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030427)

> Is not FORCE people to use .xxx.

No these scam artists won't have to force people into .xxx, the lawyers will do that part for them free of charge. That is why .xxx is a terrible idea, once it exists porn outside of it will find itself liable for every kiddie who wanders in 'by accident' and every backwoods community who finds its 'community standards' violated. Then once all of the porn is safely contained in .xxx every company will block it and every ISP will offer to block it. Then a few years later all the ISPs will block it by default and only open it up by request, this after Congress passes yet another law 'to protect the children.'

And of course the definition of what is 'porn' will change until eventually anything that isn't 'child safe' will be forced to relocate to escape the lawyers. So no, .xxx is not a good idea.

Re:What they should do: (1)

Petrushka (815171) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030467)

It's my impression that the very countries who are trying to block the .xxx TLD are precisely the same people as the ones who would prefer it to be compulsory. This is obviously unrealistic, which is why I have very little sympathy for the delayers.

The ones who think the .xxx TLD is a good idea, however, seem to me to be doing so because there's a market for it -- and that line of reasoning doesn't have very much to do with compulsion.

wont really solve anything (5, Insightful)

spazoidspam (708589) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030058)

adding a XXX domain wont solve anything. Its like having a town where everyone HAS to carry a gun. It doesnt address the problem of guns being everywhere else in the world.

a better solution is to create a domain that only has child-friendly material on it. Like creating a town with NO guns allowed.

Parents could choose to only allow their kids to visit this domain and be assured they wont stumble across pictures that they might not want them to see.


I don't think I would have my children live in censorland, but at least the parents afraid of letting their children see the real world would have a place to hide it from them.

Re:wont really solve anything (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030188)

Or, organizations could be created that "certify" sites to different ratings. Get the W3C or somebody on board to create a standard way for people to identify what the rating of a site is. Then, parents (or whoever) can lock the settings on their computers to only allow certain sites.

Things like this already exist in some forms. The ESRB has a ratings service for online game sites. There are organizations and companies that provide services for parents to block porn, and many porn sites voluntarily tell these services that they are "adult" sites, as well as provide links to them.

Re:wont really solve anything (1)

misfit815 (875442) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030311)

We have that domain already - it's called setting your firewall to "deny by default". Flip the switch, add in a couple dozen initial DNS names, and off you go.

.kids AND .xxx might make sense ... (1)

rewinn (647614) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030527)

.kids = gauranteed to be kid-friendly (whatever THAT means)

.xxx = gauranteed to be porn-friendly (whatever THAT means)

.com = no garauntees

The only problem is figuring out who backs the garauntees but I suppose that's why you have registration fees

Re:wont really solve anything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15030560)

> Like creating a town with NO guns allowed.

Most towns already have laws that prohibit guns. Guess the criminals that still tote the guns around missed the memo.

Re:wont really solve anything (1)

Peter La Casse (3992) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030608)

adding a XXX domain wont solve anything.

Sure it would: an entire tld would be unambiguously associated with pornography, which benefits several groups. People who publish pornography want the marketing and public relations benefits and people who want to block pornography can block the entire tld without having any false positives. The existence of a number of guaranteed-to-be-porn sites will make it easier for writers of censorware to train their filters. Even those who think that pornographers should be hunted down have something to gain: a list of pornographers and their contact info.

The only real problems with .xxx are that some people might think that it's technologically feasible to force all porn sites to use it and that some people might foolishly assume that any non-.xxx site is not pornographic.

From the mouths of babes (3, Insightful)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030089)

When asked, my 6-year-old daughter strongly endorsed the idea of a separate space on the Internet for pornography.

Of course, that's not quite how I put it to her. I said some people wanted a place on the Web where only adults could go.

"And a place where only kids could go, like pbskids.org?" she asked, leaping to a conclusion I hadn't considered. "That's a great idea."


My question is why are there so many people who refuse to consider the much more logical course of creating ".safe" domains? It just makes much more sense then trying to force or coerce objectionable material into a single domain and would be much more effective for those who want to censor.

Re:From the mouths of babes (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030219)

Yeah, but what's considered .safe? What's considered .porn? If any "morality" legislation is imposed, many groups who consider themselves morally superior will just need to be in on the process. Will a .safe encyclopedia provide articles on evolution or homosexuality? Will these articles be biased? Would a site like somethingawful.com be labeled .porn?

Re:From the mouths of babes (1)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030739)


Yeah, but what's considered .safe? What's considered .porn? If any "morality" legislation is imposed, many groups who consider themselves morally superior will just need to be in on the process. Will a .safe encyclopedia provide articles on evolution or homosexuality? Will these articles be biased? Would a site like somethingawful.com be labeled .porn?


No, all I'm saying is let the people who want censorship censor themselves.

Re:From the mouths of babes (2, Insightful)

taustin (171655) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030302)

My question is why are there so many people who refuse to consider the much more logical course of creating ".safe" domains?

Because a ".safe" domain is about controlling one's own behavior. A ".xxx" domain is about controlling other people's behavior.

And some people simply can't live with not being able to control other people's behavior.

Re:From the mouths of babes (1)

Petrushka (815171) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030482)

A ".xxx" domain is about controlling other people's behavior.

Sorry, I don't get that. Who are you saying is trying to control whom?

Certain business benchmarks, like being free of... (1)

D4C5CE (578304) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030139)

adware or computer viruses
...or even (heaven forfend!) clothing!

Other TLD's (1)

Ranger (1783) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030213)

It won't stop at .xxx. Then they'll want .sex and .cum. With four letter like .info then they could ask for .fuck, .anal, .oral, .shit, .dvda, and probably .wank. But let's not stop there with just four letters why not .boobies, .masturbation, .cunnilingus, .blow-job, .fisting, .hot-karl, or even .filthy-sanchez. Yes, the possibilities are endless.

Re:Other TLD's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15030347)


Other TLD's (Score:2)
by Ranger (1783) on Thursday March 30, @05:25PM (#15030213)

It won't stop at .xxx. Then they'll want .sex and .cum. With four letter like .info then they could ask for .fuck, .anal, .oral, .shit, .dvda, and probably .wank. But let's not stop there with just four letters why not .boobies, .masturbation, .cunnilingus, .blow-job, .fisting, .hot-karl, or even .filthy-sanchez. Yes, the possibilities are endless.


Don't forget .orgy

Re:Other TLD's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15030794)

And then the internet starts working like a big, massive and useless newsgroup server.

Here's an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15030216)

I'm guessing it's the XXX sigma that is causing the fuss. I say they change it to .AAA. Can't see that offending anyone. Okay you piss off one road service company but I can live with that.

If only.... (1)

lexxyz (939985) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030396)

If only I could delay blowing my load as long as they have managed to delay this conference.

If only...

.XXX proves a major point about the Right (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030460)

I am for the regulation of pornography because I don't want kids to be able to access it. There need to be reasonable regulations in place to allow only adults to have straight forward access to it, and the .xxx domain would represent a critical move in the direction of protecting the average kid from easy access to porn. From a libertarian POV, porn must be regulated because children are not part of the equation as they are not "consenting adults." If they want to become adults, then they need to become emancipated which would naturally carry the added responsibilities and no excuse making that comes with being a legal adult.

Most countries where pornography is legal would probably support forcing all bonafide porn sites to use .xxx. They'd have no reason not to. There could even be a 1 year period in which .com domains for porn sites get automatically redirected to the .xxx domain legally.

That said, I am ashamed sometimes by how unwilling social conservatives are to compromise. They act like compromise is the last word, that all compromises are set in stone with divine fire and that their opposition has immediately won if they don't get What They Want, When They Want It. All or nothing, so fine, most people give them nothing.

Most of them are too stupid to be effective leaders. Anyone who is unwilling to shop around and elect leaders who can piece together what they want in politics deserves what they get. It's the reason why I couldn't care less about the problems plaguing a lot of poor areas in the cities. They vote lock step Democrat each year, and so their vote is taken for granted. Hell, the Democrats could do everything but burn a cross and scream "WHITE POWER!!!" in the middle of DC and they'd still get their 3 electoral college votes in 2008.

That's the same problem that social conservatives have. The Republicans take them for granted. They get elected by promising them what they cannot deliver, and in doing so get a free ticket to a lot of great benefits. When was the last time the Republicans made a **credible** attack on abortion? I'm anti-abortion, and I voted Libertarian because Badnarik said that he'd not support a candidate that could actually read Roe v. Wade in the very plain text of the U.S. Constitution. He didn't trust such a nominee because he'd be some statist bastard that'd say that the interstate commerce clause gives the federal govenrment the right to regulate the height of the plants in your home. Yet I get told I'm wasting my vote for going Libertarian by those "hard-headed realists" who voted for Bush in part on the abortion issue.

But, whatever. The social conservatives get to play martyr. Woe is fucking us. We can't affect the culture because we're a bunch of idiots who cannot stomach thinking outside the box. They pushed Bush to shitcan this proposal the first time because it might lend legitimacy to the porn industry. Oh really, then all I can say is that if porn was really in need of legitimacy, "God's Own Party" wouldn't be inviting the likes of Mary Carey to fund raisers. *Sigh* Those that have eyes to see, let them see. Those that have ears to hear, let them hear. Those that have brains to think, let them think...

Re:.XXX proves a major point about the Right (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030598)

I am for the regulation of pornography because I don't want kids to be able to access it.

Okay, but first you have to get everyone to agree on what porn is. That'll only take 10 years and spark a few isolated armed conflicts.

Re:.XXX proves a major point about the Right (1)

AusIV (950840) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030658)

Why just a one year period where .com domains can redirect? Why not just require that content be hosted on the .xxx domains. Then they could redirect forever without concerns of their customers not being able to find their site, but even if www.somepornsite.com redirects automatically to www.somepornsite.xxx, computers that block .xxx domains won't get there. It provides blockability without inconveniencing the site owners beyond having to move their content to a .xxx domain.

I also argue that they ought to use subdomains (ie xxx.somepornsite.com) rather than TLDs, because again it provides blockablity without creating struggle for the best new domains and forcing webmasters to spend time and money moving to new domains.

The rest of what you say, I pretty much agree with. Except it was the crazy liberals who voted for Kerry who told me not to support Badnarik.

Is requiring age verification really a good idea? (1)

JPriest (547211) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030565)

Given how reputable I am sure the .xxx sites will be, is it really a good idea to _mandate_ that people submit to them their (or their parents) personal/credit credit card information. How many of them are going to say "free" and then find a loophole to bill you anyway? Who is going to pay the millions for the orginization that is going to sort through all those complaints?

Further more, it is one thing to have age restrictions for models on these sites, but is it really apropriate to tell people they must be at least 18 years of age to view porn? I don't believe I have met one single person in my life who has never seen _any_ porn prior to the age of 18.

Re: Why not change the port instead? (1)

leomaster (881739) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030573)

There are lots of valid concerns with trying to "force" all porn to a .xxx TLD. At best it would only partially help, and at worst it could open the door for some serious censorship issues. Why not ask for a voluntary port shift instead? Designate certain ports for certain types of content, such as explicit porn, adult content (i.e., sports illustrated), medical, etc. By doing this, we could in effect start defining nodal spaces for content types that could then be filtered or searched more effectively. This solution would also not try to "force" any providers into changing a brand name ("porn.com") but would allow concerned parent to disallow port 1069 for use as a search.

I'm not certain this would work technically, is there anyone out there who can help shoot it down?

I would love to be able to go to Google, type in a word like "breast" and not have a lot of porn sites come up, but instead be able to filter the search to just medical and medical related websites.

Everyone, repeat after me! (2, Informative)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030588)

RFC 3675 [ietf.org]

NRA and ICANN? (1)

crosstalk (78439) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030611)

Somehow the NRA feels that the US totally controls the internet and that the US should run ICANN. at least this is according to the latest NRA magazine, I am not sure how ICANN and the internet are leading to the eroding of the 2nd ammendment. I am a member but sometimes the leaps of logic that is made truly boogle the mind. I just want the us to keep their noses in their own business and each person to make the choice what their kids watch or do not look at. Yet another way that ICANN really isn't seperate. Technology decisions need to be removed from individual morality concerns. No one else needs to tell anyone else what they can't look at.

Mandatory? (1)

Tragek (772040) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030627)

Is this going to be a mandated move? IE: Will it be mandated that established porn sites move to their .XXX counterpart? Or, will this be voluntary? Also, what about borderline sites which serve multiple purposes, but do have pornographic content? If it's mandated, will this end up putting sites like that out of business?

.xxx will never happen (1)

SiliconEntity (448450) | more than 8 years ago | (#15030672)

It will never happen because the U.S. and Australian governments at least, among others, will never allow themselves to get into a situation where they appear to be endorsing porn. If they allow special technology to be built into the internet specifically for porn sites, conservatives will be up in arms. Creating a special domain for porn is simply not an option for these governments. Maybe in five or ten years things will be different, but at this time the U.S. is very religious and very conservative and will never endorse a porn-specific domain.

Think of the children! Ban religion first! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15030686)

It's the greater threat. More wars have been started over religious differences than just about anything else; from the Crusades, to modern day Jihads and fatwahs against the Americans.

Worse yet, three of the major religions, ( Christianity, Islam, and Judaism ) have Holy Scriptures that are stomach-churningly evil.

Islam is an obvious target; the sexism and rampant discrimination against women's rights is obvious. But the Bible also contains passages which not only condone but encourage human slavery, genocide, and the slaughter of innocent children, and both Christians and Jews share many of those passages of Holy Scripture.

No one bats an eye when the Bible is available online; but it's full of horrible, evil docrines that are simply unacceptable in modern society: (for example, a man's wife is an article of property, just like a cow or a donkey, according to the Tenth Commandment. Children are torn to pieces by a bear summoned by the will of God when they call Elijah "baldy". Women, men, and boys are slaughtered on the battlefields by the Will of God, but He orders the young girls are to be "taken" (presumably as concubines (ie. sex-slaves), but perhaps an actual mass child-rape is what was intended). In either case, it's beyond sickening.

I'd rather my sons and daughters, should I be fortunate enough to have any, grow up with a healthy appreciation for sexuality and it's place in their lives; and I'd rather they never even consider the notion that women should be kept as slaves, or children tortured, let alone tortured and raped, under any circumstances. Given the option, porn is a thousand times healthier than The Bible, The Koran, or the Torah.

Porn may indeed prove to be bad for children, or for society in general; but until you ban religion, you might as well lock the barn door after the stampede has torn the entire building down.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>