Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Plans For .xxx Domain For p0rn Scrapped

Hemos posted more than 8 years ago | from the back-to-surfing-google-images dept.

361

William Robinson writes "ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) has once again scrapped the plan for a new internet "domain" .xxx for pornography. Supporters of the .xxx address suffix argued that it would have helped to protect children and others from accidental exposure to internet pornography, particularly if stronger filters were used to screen out explicit material from other internet domains. Pressure from conservative Christian groups in the US, which has a veto over the internet addressing system, led the organisation last year to put off introducing a new ".xxx" domain for pornography on the internet. That drew international complaints that the US exercised too much power over the internet and added to a European-backed movement to shift control of the online medium to an international group."

cancel ×

361 comments

US is right to control the Internet (-1, Flamebait)

heffrey (229704) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049814)

Didn't Al Gore invent it anyway?

Why the heck shouldn't the US control the interweb, after all, they control everything else important in the world.....

to answer a stupid comment (0, Offtopic)

xtracto (837672) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049840)

No!

Gringos does not control the south latin american immigration MUWAHAHAHAHAAH

USTED SERA ASIMILADO!

Once again, why? (2, Insightful)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049819)

I've not yet seen a reason to have the .xxx domain. I'm not opposed, per se, but I have a hard time understanding the point to it. It seems more like a fun hot button to oppose the US. If that's the case, cool, enjoy tilting at that particular windmill.

Re:Once again, why? (2, Insightful)

mopslik (688435) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049854)

I've not yet seen a reason to have the .xxx domain.

I guess the main argument is that it should be fairly trivial to filter out any domain ending in .xxx, as opposed to trying to determine is a particular .com domain is pornographic based on domain name, copy, images, etc.

But then, I guess it depends on whether you buy into the "existence = encouragement" argument put forth by some of the other groups.

Re:Once again, why? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049940)

Encouragement to move sites to a .xxx domain merely due to it's existence would be an ideal scenario.

Either way, it's a moot argument to make because, as you mention, it would be trivial to filter these sites out.

The only argument against .xxx I can think of is that it wouldn't really encourage porn sites to move at all. Just look at the .info and .biz domains; no serious site would be caught dead on .biz, and .info pretty much goes unused too.

Re:Once again, why? (1)

kwanbis (597419) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049967)

you could make it a requisite if you are in the porn business, to register only xxx domains.

Re:Once again, why? (2, Interesting)

Dr.MiNDKiLLER (928923) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050019)

Or, give every existing porn site a free .xxx with the same name as the .com they already have. Then encourage them to put their "You may only preceed if you are over x years old: ENTER, EXIT" at their .com address and everything else on .xxx .

Re:Once again, why? (0, Troll)

y86 (111726) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049912)

The premise for this is weak.

If we're going to do this .xxx for censorships sake than we should also do the following .MA .17+ .PG-13 .LittleKid

I'm really surprised about this, I would think that these right wing groups could force ISPS in their area not do deliver domains ending in XXX, but not every sex site would move, unless mandated. They could essentially stop the decimination of digital porno if the mandate worked, just like the way they stopped the flow of information in the 1700s by burning books.

Jesus loves a good book burn followed by a witch hunt!

Re:Once again, why? (0, Redundant)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049937)

filter all .xxx domains..... done.

Re:Once again, why? (5, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050224)

I've not yet seen a reason to have the .xxx domain. I'm not opposed, per se, but I have a hard time understanding the point to it.

Why do we have any TLDs? We can just shove everything into .com right? The point is to organize the internet into usable chunks both for content providers and consumers. Now I don't know about you, but I'd say porn makes up a significant chunk of the internet. Porn providers want consumers to easily be able to find them. They don't want young children to find them since kids generally don't have credit cards and if they do their parents look at the bills and likely will complain. They don't want people who don't like porn visiting them since it costs them bandwidth and is more likely to result in outrage/persecution of them.

Having an XXX domain gives porn purveyors a place to go where no one can complain they "accidentally" stumbled upon them. It will stop all of the "please think of the children" emotive pleas, since anyone concerned can just filter the XXX domain. This is the whole reason the domain system exists.

As to the reason some people oppose it. Certain religious wackos and the con-men who prey upon religious wackos like having an enemy. Most of them say that "porn is evil" and needs to be stopped. They aren't interested in letting everyone make up their own minds, or easily have a choice. Their concern is in telling each and every one of us what we can and can't do based upon their weird religious interpretations. As a result, they want to increase, not decrease outrage. This means they want children and other people who might accidentally access porn to do so as much as possible. They hope that by making it more difficult for people to find what they want, more difficult to avoid what they don't want, and more difficult to filter based upon easy categorization that they can outright ban porn in the entire world, rather than just let those who to see it do so and avoid it themselves.

Since a lot of these religious wackos and con-men are involved in the US government, which in holds ICANN's leash, they are using ICANN to push this agenda upon the world. That, understandably, makes much of the rest of the world less confident that the US will not use ICANN to push other agendas that conflict with global interests.

Ill fated from the begining. (4, Insightful)

Hellboy0101 (680494) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049823)

I always wondered what made anyone think that this would be a success in the first place. Registering your pr0n site as a .com, etc would always be the preffered method, since you site would have a better chance of getting around filters. Just another instance of non-technical people trying to make technical decisions.

Re:Ill fated from the begining. (4, Insightful)

G-Licious! (822746) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049931)

Do porn sites actually make any profit out of that, though? Children that are blocked by the filters wouldn't have paid anyways. Other people that are blocked by filters are usually at places you wouldn't normally get off anyways (work, library, etc.)

On top of that, even if there is no filter in place, I don't think they'd get many ad clicks either in any of those situations. But maybe they don't get paid per click at all?

Re:Ill fated from the begining. (5, Insightful)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049933)

Because you're exactly right, it makes for a good rallying point for the non-technical or at least the non-clueful. It SOUNDS good right? "All porn in .xxx!", and then saying some conservative christian group stood against it makes it sound like some reactionary American group is holding up progress. Americans are the only Christians of course, we all know Christ was born in Cleveland and the Pope lives in Albequerque.

In fact it's a dumb idea and that's why it's not going anywhere.

Well I did hear... (1, Flamebait)

DaedalusLogic (449896) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050295)

Re:Ill fated from the begining. (2, Funny)

scatteredbomb (963789) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050319)

omg, i live like two hours away from the pope. hell yes!!

Re:Ill fated from the begining. (5, Insightful)

Kamel Jockey (409856) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049958)

Registering your pr0n site as a .com, etc would always be the preffered method, since you site would have a better chance of getting around filters.

Most adult websites though do not want to bypass Internet content filters that parents set up for their children. Many voluntarily list themselves with filtering companies expressly for the purpose of trying to keep porn away from those who should not be seeing it. Of course, they don't do this out of moral reasons but rather to save themselves. Anyone who complains about "too much porn" on the Internet can be directed to use the latest available filtering technology to their heart's content with no government involvement needed.

Re:Ill fated from the begining. (2, Insightful)

sud_crow (697708) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049987)

Actually i disagree. If this is implemented correctly, then they should force all *legal* porn sites to use an .xxx domain, and thus, allowing filters to work where is the need for such things, but if you want to avoid filters, then you are either one of this options:
1) a minor,
2) an adult on a protected (as in not yours) pc or public place,
3) someone not willing to pay.

Neither of this options fall into the target of legal, credit card or cash based (as in not-publicity-based) porn sites.
So, in my opinion, the actual porn sites would be in the .xxx domain, and wouldnt want to be in .com (always assuming they actually force porn sites to go to .xxx domains trough fines or something like that, as we all know .com is the most popular domain for everything).
I just think that if i had a porn site, i wouldnt care for people with filters, if they have a filter, im quite sure they cant pay the content.

Re:Ill fated from the begining. (3, Insightful)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049993)

Getting around filters... suddenly that porn outlet is the target of an investigation into selling porn to underage... which is the whole point. It's like the red light district... it makes it easier for patrons to find and harder for underage would be patrons to access without drawing attention to themselves, either from their parents or the authorities (which would only get involved if the business were actually soliciting to minors).

Morality nazis just don't want to appear to be giving their support to something that legitimizes pornography. SO instead we have porn abolition, which is much the same as alcohol abolition in that the suppliers still sell their product and people still buy, but there is no regulation of quality and no means of officially monitoring or regulating product access to minors.

I'd like to be able to block ads from .xxx and emails from .xxx and if i wanted to see some fat titties I'd like to go to google and do a search on .xxx and not see this: fat titties [drinksmixer.com] .

Trolling Post (3, Insightful)

Serapth (643581) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049826)

Are you all ready for the barrage of thousands of comments about how much fundamentalist Christians suck. This obviously leads to conversations about how evil the Bush administration is. Naturally this will lead to a number of non-Americans saying how the States has too much power and is too conceited. And finally, this will be followed up by comments from Americans claiming to be the core of the world anyways so the rest of the world can go stuff it.
BR> Paint by numbers, brought to you by Slashdot.

Re:Trolling Post (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15049852)

Fundamentalist Christians suck.

Re:Trolling Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15050016)

Testify brother!

Re:Trolling Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15050023)

totally. and the worst thing is, they are supported by the bush administration.

Re:Trolling Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15050089)

"totally. and the worst thing is, they are supported by the bush administration."

Well, the administration couldn't do as much evil if America wasn't so powerful and conceited.

Cognitive Dissonance (3, Insightful)

sgant (178166) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049894)

A psychological phenomenon that refers to the bad feeling one gets when a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation from someone else. Religion usually falls in this framework when two people who are on opposite positions begin discussing and get further and further away from true understanding one another.

This doesn't fall under religion exclusively either, almost any aspects of life can become deeply held beliefs that we don't want to let go of when something new comes along to upset the apple-cart.

Re:Trolling Post (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050097)

Thanks for the great timesaver, I shall now proceed to the next story.

Typical of those conceited americans... ;)

Doesn't everyone know that *Usenet* is for pron anyway ? What do they learn at school nowadays ?

It's just as well... (5, Interesting)

BakaHoushi (786009) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049830)

While I admit, in theory, it sounded like a great idea, helping to keep a lot of unwanted images out of my google searches, there were just too many holes in the idea and too many ways it could be abused for it to seriously work. Defining what constitutes as pr0n, whether it should be manadatory or merely encouraged, and the fact that not all pr0n sites are here in America.

Nothing else to see here, move along...

Re:It's just as well... (1)

onewing (754420) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049875)

I understand there are a lot of seedy, spyware filled porn sites out there, but there are a lot of legitimate big business sites out there as well. These sites could benefit from the domain (tons of good URL's available), and would be happy to be more easily filtered out by software (could be sold to people with children).

I agree that it likely wont stop ALL porn, and there will still be a lot on the .com domains, but I dont see that as a reason not to do something that will help at least a little bit.

Re:It's just as well... (2, Insightful)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049959)

What would work best is pressure to use a .xx domain and .com domain where the .com redirects to the .xxx. The porn companies have worked hard on their brandname and image. They arn't going to give up a .com without a fight, but a simple redirect would allow the .xxx filters to still work while retaining the .com

Re:It's just as well... (3, Insightful)

BakaHoushi (786009) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049997)

Well, the problem with that is, does this count for ONLY porn? If so, who decides "this is porn, and this is not?" In New York City or Las Vegas or another major city, what constitutes as pornography will likely be higher than, say, a rural community in the Bible Belt. Whose definition do we use? And if it's not just porn, and it's just "offensive" sites, well, that's even worse.

Of course, this is just if the switch from .com to .xxx is mandatory. If it's not, and it's only encouraged, that leads to another problem. Say, for instance, I have an art site with nude models. It's not porn. It's nothing worse than looking at, say, Michaelangelo's David. But now some little boy gets on the big, scary Internet and finds my site. His mom walks in and sees it and blows her top. I'm at fancypantsart.COM! How dare I peddle my smut on a .com when I should know full well I need to be on .xxx like the other filth-fests. A few angry calls later, and I might be pressured to move my domain.

It sounds good on paper, but it's ugly no matter how you look at it.

Re:It's just as well... (1)

Fastolfe (1470) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050011)

If .xxx ever comes to be, it will be looked upon like .biz: only for low-budget operations. Unless it's mandatory, porn sites will still prefer to be dot-coms.

Re:It's just as well... (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050318)

Unless it's mandatory, porn sites will still prefer to be dot-coms.

I disagree. If a .xxx domain existed, porn sites would move to it because it would make them easier to find and recognize. Also, it would make them easier to filter, which is something that right now most prefer, since it reduces their wasted bandwidth and complaints. Major porn sites, generally, register with filtering programs now to make them easier to filter. The only reason this would fail is if governments did make it mandatory and filters were put in place in an attempt to censor. I'm sure in some countries attempts would be made to "wipe-out" porn, by filtering .xxx banning porn entirely. Sites would then appear in other domains to cater to the market.

If you don't believe me, just think of the sites that would be available. Do you truly believe feet.xxx would not be registered within hours of the xxx domain going live? Having a .xxx domain is just extra advertising and continuing the already popular trend of making themselves easily filterable. I think people would slowly shift to it.

He who funds, controls (-1, Troll)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049834)

"That drew international complaints that the US exercised too much power over the internet"
br>I don't see the problem here. Who has financed the internet into what it has become today. Who developed the technology and who operates the largest backbone?

Re:He who funds, controls (5, Insightful)

nagora (177841) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049871)

I don't see the problem here. Who has financed the internet into what it has become today. Who developed the technology and who operates the largest backbone?

Who gives a fuck? The Internet in my country was funded by my tax, and my country's backbone is the important one for me.

This "Oh, we did the initial research so we own everything that ever originates from that point" argument is pathetic. Did America invent roads? No!? Well then, I think the rest of the world should be able to tax American cars. What about railroads? Another non-American invention. Tax please!

The light bulb is another non-American invention. I think for that one the rest of the world should just refuse to licence it and people like you can go and live in the dark age you so surely deserve.

TWW

Re:He who funds, controls (2, Informative)

zaguar (881743) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050154)

For those of you who thought that Edison invented the light bulb, as I did, think again. He did not.

Choice quote from Wikipedia article: Many of his inventions were not completely original, but improvements which allowed for mass production. For example, contrary to public perception, Edison did not invent the electric light bulb. Several designs had already been developed by earlier inventors including the patent he purchased from Henry Woodward and Mathew Evans, Moses G. Farmer,[2] Joseph Swan, James Bowman Lindsay, William Sawyer, Humphry Davy, and Heinrich Göbel. In 1878, Edison applied the term filament to the element of glowing wire carrying the current, although English inventor Joseph Swan used the term prior to this. Edison took the features of these earlier designs and set his workers to the task of creating longer-lasting bulbs. By 1879, he had produced a new concept: a high resistance lamp in a very high vacuum, which would burn for hundreds of hours. While the earlier inventors had produced electric lighting in laboratory conditions, Edison concentrated on commercial application and was able to sell the concept to homes and businesses by mass-producing relatively long-lasting light bulbs and creating a system for the generation and distribution of electricity.

More info: Thomas Edison [wikipedia.org] and Light Bulbs [wikipedia.org] from Wikipedia

Re:He who funds, controls (1)

'nother poster (700681) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050218)

The light bulb is another non-American invention.

Well, a lot of people think a guy in Menlo Park, NJ USA invented the light bulb, or at least the first reliable one. Supposedly some guy that worked for Thomas Edison, but Edison took the credit since it was invented at his facility

Re:He who funds, controls (2, Insightful)

Renegade88 (874837) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050248)

Ignoring the fact the grandparent didn't mention anything about a "tax", the parent still is a non-sequiter. America has it's own railway and highway system, it didn't augment an existing system built by another party. If you wanted to compare apples to apples, your country would have invested it's money in a separate internet system that it could control as it sees fit. If your country didn't accept the control authority of the existing internet, it should not have invested in it.

Re:He who funds, controls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15049877)

Who has financed the internet into what it has become today

Everyone who has ever bought a router, even (gasp) non-Americans!

Imperialist dickhead.

Re:He who funds, controls (1)

stillmatic (874559) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049881)

Seems to me that's a world wide effort, unless the US is paying to lay fiber outside of it's borders.

Re:He who funds, controls (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049888)

But it's completely unfair, I mean, if you invite a guy to your party doesn't he suddenly gain some property rights to your house? I mean, you let him in, why shouldn't he be able to control your stuff?

Re:He who funds, controls (3, Insightful)

Serapth (643581) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049936)

CERN?



...atleast initially.

Re:He who funds, controls (3, Funny)

zerojoker (812874) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049944)

>Who has financed the internet into what it has become today. Who developed
>the technology and who operates the largest backbone?

That's Al Gore obviously. He should be in charge alone!

Vote yes for .xxx (1)

Symp0sium (961148) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049835)

It makes it even easier to find teh pr0n

Re:Vote yes for .xxx (2, Funny)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049901)

If you're having such a hard time finding it, perhaps you'd like a free beta account?

Re:Vote yes for .xxx (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15049992)

Sorry, icann says ucannt use xxx to find your pr0n

Thank you.. (0, Flamebait)

stillmatic (874559) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049837)

I would like to thank Christian fundamentalists for helping to continue to make access to pornography easy for children. Keep up the good work.

Re:Thank you.. (1)

'nother poster (700681) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050267)

Well, the kids have to find it first so the dads can just click staight through without all that wasted effort of learning how to use a search engine. ;)

Not how I remember it.... (1)

ChrisGilliard (913445) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049842)

Pressure from conservative Christian groups in the US, which has a veto over the internet addressing system, led the organisation last year to put off introducing a new ".xxx" domain for pornography on the internet.

I'm sure there was pressure from some Christian organizations, but if I remember it correctly, the real pressure was from countries that didn't like the idea (China is one that comes to mind). Anyone else remember it that way?

Re:Not how I remember it.... (2, Insightful)

joedoc (441972) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050274)

Er...maybe I'm appearing to be an uninformed dumbass here, but I'd really like to know who these "conservative Christian groups" who opposed this might be. The moment I read that, some red flags went up:

1. The original story is published in the Financial Times (London). A nice publication, but this stiry is lacking on the details. It's not likely the NY Times or WaPo would get away with that too frequently. Name names.

2. In today's political and media environment, it frequently appears that tossing up "conservative" and "Christian" (especially in the same sentence) is an easy way to create some kind of nameless, Luddite, Dark Ages bogey man. I'm conservative and Catholic, and I don't have a problem with this. Nor do a number of fellow conservatives and Christians that I know. I realize that my circle of acquaintences is pretty limited, but just who are these nameless "groups"?

3. What is this "pressue"? A letter writing campaign from some pro-family church-based group? I would call that the right to express one's opinion. Does this mean there was no "pressure" from non-conservative Christian groups to crate the domain? Alternatively, was there any pressure against the domain from adult content providers? I see a number of reasons why they wouldn't want this (some expressed in the replies here), so doesn't their opinion also have some sway with ICANN?

4. Just because a bunch of people write some letters, send some e-mails or make some phone calls doesn't mean there's "pressure" to do something. Once again, people express their opinions, which is a right. How many times have similar campaigns failed against some TV show that some groups found offensive?

5. How certain are the reporters that these groups are completely "conservative" or "Christian"? I'll bet I could find someone in my circle of liberal, Jewish, agnostic, athiest or libertarian friends that take the same position.

I'd prefer some reporting with factual substance. Not some drive-by shots at some straw man.

Huh (2, Interesting)

romka1 (891990) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049843)

What do "conservative Christian groups" have to do with internet domain names...
EU has full right to complain about us control over the domains

Re:Huh (3, Interesting)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049925)

its article flamebait. The groups had almost no say (though they did speak against it) Who was more against it was other countrys like China and Russia. The EU picked up the whole "Christan Fundi" thing so that it could have a better footing in opposing US control, since the whole argument is lost when you find out that it was other countrys who oposed it along with the US.

The fact remains though that the EU should continue to have no say. They dont fund it, they never created it (at least how it is today, though England Universitys did help in some early tests) and they have shown in the past that there is no way the EU could get its head on straight enough to even run things half as well as the US has (they already admitted that they would allow countrys to limit control by their own people, exactly what they accuse the US of being capable of). If they want their own network thats fine, but I could garentee that their own people would revolt when they flicked off the switch to the rest of the world who would stay with the EU

Re:Huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15050082)

See, this is what makes no sense. Obviously the vast majority of the internet within the EU was built by companies within the EU and used by people within the EU. The claim that the US has any rights to it is silly. The DNS system today works because we *choose* to allow it to work. But the system as it is now has no natural right to exist and can be changed at any time.

I for one don't understand the problem. Create the extension and let people buy names just like for any other extension. There'll be a goatse.xxx as well no doubt. Why one would want to either force people to use it or restrict people from using it is beyond me...

Re:Huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15050087)

If they want their own network thats fine

Bollocks. Did you miss the reaction to China thinking about setting up their own DNS hierarchy? Oh noes! The Internet will be broken!

Basically, all the Yanks that hang around in places like Slashdot complain when the rest of the world want a bit of control over DNS, and say "go build your own", and when we do just that, we get accused of splitting the Internet up. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. In essence, America wants us to just shut up and take what we are given. Bollocks to that.

Re:Huh (2, Informative)

JanneM (7445) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050092)

The fact remains though that the EU should continue to have no say. They dont fund it, they never created it

A bit of a misconception. "The Internet" is a bunch of national networks (funded by their respective countries, with Arpanet being the US network, SUNET being the Swedish one and so on) interconnected and with common rules to make them work together seamlessly. The US funds the US networks and part of the transnational links; the EU countries fund their parts and part of the links and so on.

So the EU already has "their own network" just like the US, and it's the EU part of the Internet. Having a say on it is perfectly reasonable.

Re:Huh (2, Insightful)

turnipsatemybaby (648996) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050125)

Ok, for me this brings up a question and a couple points:

Where did the submitter get this "Christian Veto" thing if they don't (And I certainly hope they don't!) have one.

I find your arguments against the EU are completely unfair. The US doesn't WANT other countries to fund it, because that would take away from the absolute control the US currently has.

You also complaining about the EU "already admitted that they would allow countrys to limit control by their own people, exactly what they accuse the US of being capable of". If I am readin that statement properly, there is a HUGE difference between what the EU wants and what the US is doing. The EU wants individual countries to have the right to exercise some levels of control. The US wants to IMPOSE their brand of morality on the rest of the world.

I have to say that the way the US treats other countries, I can hardly blame the EU for wanting the US to give up some of its power.

Re:Huh (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050301)

the internet is about free information. its not imposing our morality, its imposing the whole purpose of the project decades ago, one the european nations had no problems with before they where even the EU. This was a academic exersize in freedom and its been succesfull, but as is evident by a lot of EU and Asian nations the idea of freedom is a very scary one cause it means informed people.

This is simply a power play by the EU to try to prove to the world its not a useless bureacratic organization made up of rich fools who think they know better. Its going to be yet another losing battle and show its own people why there is even more reason to just bow out of the whole thing. As it is they cant even agree on a damn constitution and they want to control a peice of major worldwide infastructure? I think not.

Re:Huh (1)

TopSpin (753) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050219)

What do "conservative Christian groups" have to do...

Little or nothing. The MSNBC wording is suspiciously ambiguous:

Pressure from conservative Christian groups in the US, which has a veto over the internet addressing system, led the organisation last year...

Reading this quickly leads one to think ICANN must get sign-off from Jerry Falwell or somesuch. In fact, the veto power belongs to the US government, not a US church.

It isn't necessary to rely on religious zealots to provide reasons for opposing .xxx, .sex, etc. There are sound legal, philosophical and technical reasons why .xxx is a bad idea. Consider what some at the IETF have to say [ietf.org] on the matter.

EU has full right to complain about us control over the domains

Yes. The EU and any other recognized government. Ommited from the /. blurb is opposition of .xxx from other nations...

The default /. Slashdot position appears to be; .xxx is cool and it's only those Benny Hinn types getting in the way! This is juvenile, naive and about par for the /. course, so take what you read here on the matter with a large grain of salt.

V is for Veto (4, Insightful)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049845)

Pressure from conservative Christian groups in the US, which has a veto over the internet addressing system, led the organisation last year

So, please tell me why they have a veto, and the progressive Buddhists do not?

Re:V is for Veto (0, Flamebait)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049868)

Because they're loud and obnoxious, and the average Buddhist tends to be more introverted and searching for his own inner light instead of focusing on trying to force his point of view onto the rest of the world.

Re:V is for Veto (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15049980)

Hey, isn't that the same reason we pay any attention to Korea?

And as to the Europe angle...screw you guys, we built it, get your own intehnet.

Re:V is for Veto (5, Insightful)

hal9000(jr) (316943) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049952)

Pressure from conservative Christian groups in the US, which has a veto over the internet addressing system, led the organisation last year

I think this is poor use of Englitsch. I think what the author was trying to say was, "The US, which has veto over the internet addressing system, was pressured by conservative Christian groups ...."

Re:V is for Veto (1)

Peter La Casse (3992) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050260)

Pressure from conservative Christian groups in the US, which has a veto over the internet addressing system, led the organisation last year

I think this is poor use of Englitsch. I think what the author was trying to say was, "The US, which has veto over the internet addressing system, was pressured by conservative Christian groups ...."

That is what the author said. "which has" can't refer to "groups" because "groups" is plural.

Conservative groups don't want this? (1)

sxltrex (198448) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049869)

Pressure from conservative Christian groups in the US, which has a veto over the internet addressing system, led the organisation last year to put off introducing a new ".xxx" domain for pornography on the internet.


This I don't understand. Can somebody help me out? Why wouldn't they want to keep all of the porn sites in one domain, where a very simple filter could eliminate all of it from view? I would think it would be the other way around--the porn companies should be against this as it would make filtering too easy. Do they refuse to admit that there is already tons of pornographic material on the internet, and if they ignore it, it will go away? Perhaps they think giving porn its own domain would legitimize it. Or do they think it will be ineffective if the porn distributors aren't required to use .xxx?

Re:Conservative groups don't want this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15049975)

Basically, they started writing a letter saying "We vehemently support pornography filtering" and scrap that thing, thinking "well, I almost sent them a letter saying "we vehemently support pornography".

Re:Conservative groups don't want this? (5, Insightful)

Stanislav_J (947290) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050000)

This I don't understand. Can somebody help me out? Why wouldn't they want to keep all of the porn sites in one domain, where a very simple filter could eliminate all of it from view? It's very simple -- Christian groups don't want porn "segregated" -- they want it to disappear entirely. Providing a special domain is an admission that porn has a legitimate place on the Net, and that concept is anathema to the folks who don't just want to avoid it themselves, but deny anyone else the choice to view it.

Re:Conservative groups don't want this? (1)

AngryNick (891056) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050304)

Now I get it! If we pretend that p0rn doesn't exists then our kids will be safer on the net.

FOR THE RECORD: Not all Christians think this way.

Re:Conservative groups don't want this? (1)

Vapon (740778) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050111)

having a xxx domain is only going to help for those that choose to use the domain, your not going to force playboy.com to change to playboy.xxx if you do who gets to buy the .com extention from them? and if someone desides to have some family home page with domain xxx are you going to tell them they are required to get some porn onto their website if they have that domain?

The End of the Internet (5, Funny)

neoshroom (324937) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049872)

A plan for a new internet "domain" for pornography has once again been shelved, dealing another blow to the US-backed addressing system that acts as the glue holding together the unified global internet.

The setback is likely to add to pressure stresses that could eventually fragment the internet, breaking it into a collection of separate national systems, some internet experts warned.


The reason for this I assume is because if users can't easily access porn, there really is no point to the internet, is there?

__
Elephant Essays [elephantessays.com] - Custom-created essays and research papers.

Re:The End of the Internet (1)

Fastolfe (1470) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050213)

Though your comment is marked as Funny, this concern is a touch more legitimate than people might like to think. A lot of money is spent on Internet access specifically for this reason. I imagine ISPs are stuck between the positive PR of trying to promote a child-friendly environment, and the brutal truth about why a lot of people spend so much on their high-speed Internet access.

Subtlety at its best (2, Insightful)

Mayhem178 (920970) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049882)

I like all the subtle little messages in this article, further reinforcing the fundamentalist Christian conservative stereotype and implying that the Christians are the ones feeding fuel to the ICANN vs. Europe dispute.

Seriously, this debate already has enough touchy issues to keep both sides warring with each other. Looking at the situation objectively, I don't think ICANN can make any kind of intelligent decision now without sparking accusations from European protesters. So what, then, makes this .xxx domain decision any different than any other domain decision made by ICANN? Easy...it's a touchy issue with Christians. Christians who, by stereotype, are all conservative, and therefore are an easy target for the liberal media (yeah yeah, "liberal media", buzzword, I know).

Personally, I see this article having little to do with the .xxx domain decision at all.

Re:Subtlety at its best (1)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049948)

I like all the subtle little messages in this article, further reinforcing the fundamentalist Christian conservative stereotype and implying that the Christians are the ones feeding fuel to the ICANN vs. Europe dispute.

The way this article is presented is just bizarre. Quite apart from the fact that it is worded to imply that it's the Christian group that has veto power (when it really means the US. I realize some people get confused about the separation), one of the greatest opponents of the new domain were porn purveyors and fiends -- much as the abortion debate gets sidetracked by slippery slope arguments, they feared that the addition of an XXX TLD is the first step to segregating their businesses and interests. e.g. Follow it up by a law that all questionable sites have to be on the XXX TLD. Now that they're in the porn ghetto, it's pretty easy to cut it off. Many conservatives were for the new TLD, given that porn is already out there and pervasive, and if there was a way they could control their children/group's access to it via such a simple filter, more power to them.

What a confusing mess.

Re:Subtlety at its best (1)

stillmatic (874559) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049949)

You've caught them now! ICANN is a secret anti-christian organization working for the scary "liberal media"! Or maybe the article is really just about the .xxx domain and why some people might not agree with how US interest groups seem to have a great deal of influence over an "international committee".

Re:Subtlety & Truth at its best (1)

Steve B (42864) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049960)

I like all the subtle little messages in this article, further reinforcing the fundamentalist Christian conservative stereotype and implying that the Christians are the ones feeding fuel to the ICANN vs. Europe dispute.

Well, then, who is? The pretzel bakers?

Or (even more implausibly), has this administration suddenly started listening to expert opinion?

Sigh (3, Insightful)

Zerth (26112) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049896)

And this will keep coming up until somebody realizes we can't force everything naughty into a ghetto.

If they want a kid safe internet, they should put their efforts behind the .kids domain registrar'ed by a US company/NGO simultaneous with a law being passed covering what kind of content was allowed in .kids . Whitelisting is the only way to keep the pr0n out.

Not that they could agree on what falls on the "not pr0n" side of the fence.

Re:Sigh (1)

Fastolfe (1470) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050249)

A more robust solution that does not involve turning DNS into a content label would be ratings, such as what is provided by ICRA [icra.org] (formerly RSAC). Have a site rate itself as being a porn site, or being child-friendly, and get the ratings bureau to sign off on this. Browsers can then be configured only to permit access to this type of site.

This technology exists today. It's just that nobody uses it. Perhaps people don't actually care as much about this issue as they'd like others to think?

For God.COM's sake ? (2, Informative)

craznar (710808) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049906)

" from conservative Christian groups in the US, which has a veto over the internet addressing system"

And you guys wonder why the rest of the world doesn't trust the US to run the internet ...

Tell me the above is a late April fools joke.

For those who haven't been keeping up... (2, Informative)

TechnoGuyRob (926031) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049921)

If you're unaware about the current .xxx domain battle, see these earlier Slashdot posts throughout the years: 1 [slashdot.org] , 2 [slashdot.org] , 3 [slashdot.org] , 4 [slashdot.org] , 5 [slashdot.org] , 6 [slashdot.org] , 7 [slashdot.org] , 8 [slashdot.org] , 9, and tons of news articles [google.com] .

Overall, a very interesting battle: should we place man's vices (it's true, admit it) in one desolate, but convenient group, or leave them interspersed with everything else?

Re:For those who haven't been keeping up... (2, Informative)

TechnoGuyRob (926031) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049938)

I'm sorry, the preview of the post renders the links differently--remove the "slashdot.org/" at the beginning of the hyperlink.

I don't understand... (1)

dnwq (910646) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049923)

Just what preference did these "conservative Christian groups" have? Did they favor the idea of .xxx domains or not? It doesn't seem immediately obvious.

And the crystal ball says... (1, Interesting)

Lewisham (239493) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049926)

"Responding to the risk that the delays might lead some countries to establish their own addressing systems, effectively in effect creating rival internets, [ICANN chief executive Paul Twomey] added: "Anyone can set up an alternative root system - the difference is, our root is the one that a billion people follow.""

This is exactly the sort of quote that will bite you on the ass in six years time.

Patriotism is built-in to the human psyche. Pride might well force the hand of someone like the European Union. Browsers will ask users which root system they want to use by default, and unresolved addresses are then queried against the other system.

Everyone loses.

Twomey should be focused on consolidation, not baiting the upset nations with bullish comments like this.

(and yes, the "It's our Internet, if you don't like it you can git out" are shameful. The Internet was developed for the benefit of all, and the World Wide Web sure as heck isn't American)

surprising (2, Funny)

sjg (957424) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049946)

Given the predominantly republican controlled government at the moment, I figured the proper strings would get pulled to slip this through. It would have been good move in that it would have given adult companies the opportunity and an avenue to regulate themselves, something that is sorely needed. For better or worse, it would also have prompted future legislation requiring adult companies to live solely on the .xxx TLD, which was the main complaint of those in the industry. Many adult industry heavyweights fought this tooth and nail.

Questions & Comments (1)

AviLazar (741826) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049961)

Pressure from conservative Christian groups in the US, which has a veto over the internet addressing system

Who has the veto power? Christian groups or the US? This sentence is confusing, though I would hope they meant US and not Christian.

Why are Christian groups opposed to this? I would think they would like this "great now we can just block anyone from .xxx so we don't get their heathen, unholy smut on our computers." I wouldn't mind having an .xxx domain and relegating all the pr0n sites there.

Re:Questions & Comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15050050)

But .xxx also makes it easier for kids to find Pr0n on the Internet.

I guess the Christian parents are afraid that they could loose the main reason to control what their kids see if, all of the sudden, the Internet was deamed *safe*.

Re:Questions & Comments (1)

djmurdoch (306849) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050074)

Pressure from conservative Christian groups in the US, which has a veto over the internet addressing system

Who has the veto power? Christian groups or the US? This sentence is confusing, though I would hope they meant US and not Christian.

This should be clear. "Which has" is singular, whereas "groups" is plural, so it couldn't be the antecedent. "The US" is singular, so it must have the veto.

Now don't complain about the fact that "US" is an abbreviation for "United States". It's singular, I tell you.

Let's run our own. (1)

caluml (551744) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049973)

Let's start our own. If we registered domains for already existing sites ( playboy.xxx ), etc we could possibly get everyone using it de-facto. Then ... profit!
Bagsie the master .xxx server.

How about .cum? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15049977)

Seems like a better name to me. :D

.xxx is a stupid idea (1)

cortana (588495) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049978)

Having a separate .xxx domain name gives us nothing that PICS [w3.org] doesn't already give us, in a superior and more fine-grained way.

Why blame the religious right? (4, Informative)

oneiros27 (46144) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049982)

There are plenty of technical reasons why not to do it. See RFC 3675 [faqs.org] for details.

The only justification for new TLDs that I've seen is that it makes companies have to buy them to protect their trademark, thereby making profit for the new registrar.

How about a .cum domain? (1)

s0l3d4d (932623) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049998)

How about a .cum domain instead?

And why doesn't no one suggest resiously to put a specific domain for sites that contain any sort of fanatism (any religion, extreme politics, terrorism etc)? .rpt = religion, politics, terrorism etc.

Re:How about a .cum domain? (1)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050153)

And why doesn't no one suggest resiously to put a specific domain for sites that contain any sort of fanatism (any religion, extreme politics, terrorism etc)? .rpt = religion, politics, terrorism etc.

Because that would cause problems for people who do Religious pornography, or Political pornography, or perhaps Terrorist pornography (or, as you said, just Fanatic pornography) - they can't decide whether or not that goes under .rpt or .xxx. They'd have to create .rptxxx or something.

Dammit (1)

Elitist_Phoenix (808424) | more than 8 years ago | (#15049999)

God Dammit how will I find any porn now?!

It was bound to happen. (4, Interesting)

tetrahedrassface (675645) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050039)

It was bound to happen again. The net is just too big to enforce something like a .xxx domain, i still think that parents should be more involved with their children. As someone whos wife is a now retired teacher (to stay home with our kids), I have seen just how BADLY a lot of parents engage their childrens minds.

for example..

Children coming into school smelling like meth, (ie parents cooking it off in the house)

Children sexually abused.. A lot

Parents that expect society to instill values and morals instead of the home.

\ Nothing but tv and games all day/night.

I could go on buts its just too damn depressing. BUt we have seen it all.

If the .xxx domain was supposed to protect children well.. nothing can be better for a child than a good sound creative, loving, and supportive home, where the parents actively are a part of the childs life..

Maybe we need a .ped domain (parental education domain)... hehe or something like it.

Ive even seen crack/coke babies with all types of physical defects, while mommie is still out on the streets.

Ive seen a so much of the crazy stuff with regards to bad parenting that i think its about 75% of the problem. The children + porn thing just comes from turning Johnny loose on the net because it shuts him up so the parents can forget about him for a while..

Thats my 2$

Re:It was bound to happen. (1)

birge (866103) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050302)

The general decline in parenting has depressed me, too, and has made me not want to have kids. However, recently I've been turning around on the whole issue. In fact, now I love it. Do you know how easy it is going to be for me to get my kids into a good school and a successful life with all the fuck-ups out there raising their kids on TV and day care? Hell, I used to think raising a kid would be difficult. Now that the bar is so unbefuckingleivably low, I'm not really worried. You actually give a shit about your kids and keep off the pipe while they're around and they'll get into Yale, easy.

I can't wait until US News and World's College Rankings adds a column for "Literacy Rate of Incoming Freshmen".

DNS isn't a content label (2, Informative)

Fastolfe (1470) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050117)

Both .xxx and .kids are bad ideas because the Internet is not "teh interweb". DNS domains are not "web sites" and it's dangerous to say you want to standardize on "web site content labels" by way of DNS.

What happens when a company publishes both pornographic and non-pornographic content? Do they now have to split up into two DNS domains?

We already have content labels today: PICS and ratings bureaus like ICRA [icra.org] (which actually uses RDF instead of PICS lately).

If you want a kids-safe browsing experience, get the kids-safe web sites to start labeling their content. IE, at least, can be configured to only display pages that meet certain minimum requirements defined by the type of label you use.

If you merely want a safe-from-porn browsing experience, get the porn sites to label their content and indicate that the content is porn. They're just as likely to do this as they are to voluntarily move to .xxx.

Unless this move is made mandatory, many (most?) porn site operators are not going to move to .xxx because they'll look at it the same way that businesses look at .biz: it's for low-budget operations.

US Government response. (0, Offtopic)

dwalsh (87765) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050131)

I wonder what the current US administration has to say on this subject. Let's see:

Browse to http://www.whitehouse.com/ [whitehouse.com] ...

Oh dear.

Mr. Foot, meet Mr. Bullet (3, Interesting)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050166)

Pressure from conservative Christian groups in the US, which has a veto over the internet addressing system, led the organisation last year to put off introducing a new ".xxx" domain for pornography on the internet.

This reminds me of far-left types who demand world peace and the end to world hunger but vehemently object to the only credible means of achieving either. War isn't going away without the removal of all tinpot dictators; hunger isn't going away without pervasive globalization of all commodity production and the removal of all tinpot dictators; and Internet porn isn't going away without the marshalling of all material into a single TLD and the eradication of all human males.

Internet Evangelical-Theological Force (1)

Florian Weimer (88405) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050200)

The Internet Evangelical-Theological Force (IETF) has published their own objection: .sex Considered Dangerous (RFC 3675) [rfc-editor.org] in 2004, when ".xxx" was still called ".sex".

I'm appalled by the way those Christian Conservatives shape the Internet!

what a difference... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15050283)

Pressure from conservative Christian groups in the US, which has a veto over the internet addressing system, led the organisation last year to put off introducing a new ".xxx" domain for pornography on the internet.

How's that again? Conservative Christian groups have a veto over the internet addressing system??? Careful with those commas, they might be dangerous. :)

The following links paint a fuzzier picture (2, Informative)

what about (730877) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050287)

I did a search on ICAN for .xxx and what I found seems different that what the crowd says (that evil forces are trying to have xxx approuved or actually the opposite :-)

The proposal for .xxx is here [icann.org] apparently it is quite old since we are talking of 1994

Then there is a descritpion of the registry that should actually handling it, something called ICM [icann.org]

Apparently there is a further stage of the "test", you can find the announcement here [icann.org] it is June 05

And finally one of the many comments [icann.org] , of various type, basically it seems to me that there is not a clear cut idea if this is good or bad...

What I cannot find is a reference to what the article under scrutiny says, maybe it is just rumors ?

But... (1)

pizza_milkshake (580452) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050298)

But where will they put the porn?!1

Conservative christians... (0, Flamebait)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#15050300)

Should I call them idiots or hypocrites?

Allowing xxx domains isn't different from setting a flag saying "Thou shalt not eat the fruit from this tree". I can't understand how allowing that would be "legalizing porn" as they claim. The only logical explanation behind these groups opposing the .xxx TLD is (besides idiocy or ignorance) astroturfing.

Call me a tinfoil hat user, but I have the suspicion that this particular group of "conservative christians" is a well-paid front end for the internet porn mafia protecting their interests.
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...