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!

XXX Top Level Domain May Still See Use

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the turnaround dept.

The Internet 265

eldavojohn writes "The contract between ICANN & ICM Registry has just been revised for procedures on using the .XXX TLD. ICM is saying that the domain should be readily available for registration as early as this summer. This means that parents will most likely have an easier time protecting their children from these sites and these sites will be more tightly regulated and easier to scrutinize by authorities. ICM also mentioned the collaboration with International Foundation for Online Responsibility."

cancel ×

265 comments

I call dibs on... (4, Insightful)

rednip (186217) | more than 7 years ago | (#17502674)

I call dibs on...

playboy.xxx
penhouse.xxx
sex.xxx
movie.xxx
and of course
whitehouse.xxx

Seriously, talk about a gold rush. A legimate porn tld would have users practically driven to it. I wonder if what they are going to do about the 'land grab'. At $60 a pop for every word in the dictionary, they stand to make some serious money right off the bat.

Re:I call dibs on... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17502732)

Yeah, the smart thing to do would be to auction them off. Or offer them to the owner of the .com, .net, .org addresses first.

It's a litle sad that a few idiots are going to make a shitload of cash just because they can hit "Buy" first."

They should base it on the .com's already sold. (3, Interesting)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#17502746)

Instead of opening it up like that, anyone who has a .com should be allowed to register the .xxx version at the same price as their .com address.

There, no "gold rush". Even though it probably means giving up some profit, it's the right thing to do.

There may be some cases where .com, .org and .net are all registered to different people and they would all want the .xxx version. In that case, I'd recommend a simple lottery.

But all of this is stupid anyway. The Internet is more international now. We should be dropping new 3 letter TLD names and sticking with .us etc.

Re:They should base it on the .com's already sold. (5, Insightful)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503060)

Why should anyone have a right to a new domain name just because they have some other domain name?

Just because you have "news.com" or "boobs.net" doesn't mean you own the words "news" or "boobs". If you're going to give favored access to existing domain holders, there's no public advantage whatsoever to adding new TLDs - it doesn't expand the name space, it just takes a bunch of cash from existing companies and gives it to the new registrar.

Re:They should base it on the .com's already sold. (2, Informative)

epee1221 (873140) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503212)

Why should anyone have a right to a new domain name just because they have some other domain name?
The intent seems to be to move all the porn to the .xxx TLD, not just make a new place to put porn. So porn.com could move to porn.xxx.
But then where would we put porn.net? Of course, it is doubtful that porn.com wouldn't want to keep both porn.com and porn.xxx, so you have a point there.

Yes, it does. (3, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503314)

Why should anyone have a right to a new domain name just because they have some other domain name?

So that it won't turn into a "gold rush" with lots of "squatters" fighting over it. If someone has already gone to the effort to develop whitehouse.com as a porn site, then why not make it easier for everyone and give them first shot at whitehouse.xxx?

If you're going to give favored access to existing domain holders, there's no public advantage whatsoever to adding new TLDs - it doesn't expand the name space, it just takes a bunch of cash from existing companies and gives it to the new registrar.

Adding a new TLD will also move "a bunch of cash" to the "new registrar". The only question is who will provide that cash.

And it does "expand the name space". It is a new TLD. Go ahead and register slashdot.xxx if you want to. But I'd still prefer to give CmdrTaco first shot at it.

What you probably meant is that it won't add any new porn sites. That is probably correct. But it really does not matter. Anyone who wants to set up a porn site right now can do so.

All this will do is allow the legitimate porn sites to redirect their sites to the .xxx domain and make it easier for schools and such to block them.

It won't solve the whole problem, but it will allow the legitimate porn sites to "protect the children" without subjecting them to squatters trying to drive up the price.

Although I still believe that this would be better served as *.xxx.us instead.

Re:They should base it on the .com's already sold. (1)

eric76 (679787) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503668)

So eBay would own x.xxx?

Nothing here except a monopoly trying to cash in. (1)

glomph (2644) | more than 7 years ago | (#17502922)

ICM somehow got the .xxx franchise, based on WHAT? I'd like to see the truth there.

Anyway, it's a dead asset, unless they can cash in on the monopoly money!

ICANN will do the right thing as they always have.

Creating a new TLD will do nothing except enrich the franchisee, and make a bunch of flat-earthers in Flyover Country yowl a lot.

Re:I call dibs on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17503006)

you forgot goat.xxx

Re:I call dibs on... penhouse.xxx?? (1)

madsheep (984404) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503056)

penhouse.xxx??

I don't know buddy. Think you've got a few winners with the others but I am not so sure about penhouse.xxx. Some how I don't see a house of Pen's being very erotic.

Re:I call dibs on... penhouse.xxx?? (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503114)

It's a typo, should have been "penisland.xxx"

Re:I call dibs on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17503368)

What about:
  • christian.xxx.
  • oxymoron.xxx.
  • wearewatchingyou.xxx.
  • insertcorporatebrand.xxx.
  • insertpersonyouhate.xxx.
  • www.xxx.
  • xxx.xxx.
  • xxxx.
  • cowboyneal.xxx.
?

Re:I call dibs on... (4, Informative)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503390)

You missed:

  • MoveHereSoWeCanCensorYouAndRepressSexuality.xxx

Re:I call dibs on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17503660)

Dibs on thepenismighter.xxx. Suck that, Connery!

myRedbook is Far Worse (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17503412)

myRedbook is far worse than any of those joke websites mentioned in the preceding article.

myRedbook [myredbook.com] is a website at the center of a sex-trafficking scandal in San Francisco [sfgate.com] . myRedbook is an online marketplace where customers hook up with prostitutes working in and around Silicon Valley. The prostitutes come from a variety of countries and have a wide range of ages.

Also, in a discussion forum provided by myRedbook, many customers talk about the quality of prostitution services (e.g., hand job, blow job, and full-sexual intercourse) sold at the Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theater. myRedbook maintains reviews of the prostitutes who work at the Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theater, located at 895 O'Farrell Street in San Francisco.

If you visit the myRedbook website, take pains to remember that myRedbook actively records and traces Internet-Protocol (IP) addresses in order to defeat law enforcement. Your privacy may be compromised.

Re:I call dibs on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17503642)

I'd go for prophet-mohammed.xxx

Clarification (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17502684)

ICM also mentioned the collaboration with International Foundation for Online Responsibility.
As the article notes, the International Foundation for Online Responsibility [iffor.org] (IFFOR) is not a separate organization. Nor is it in anyway committed to online responsibility of any other nature than asking and/or requiring porn sites register in the XXX TLD.

ICM created IFFOR with the sole intention of having the regulation of porn sites run by a community rather than a company. The name is impressive but the goals of it seem rather specific. You can look at this two ways, ICM really wants porn regulated and easily blocked because they're thinking of the children. The other angle is that ICM wants domain registration moneys. Both can be correct and most likely are.

Re:Clarification (1)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 7 years ago | (#17502818)

First, I think that besides country TLDs they are stupid.

Second, being that others think that TLDs are interesting or at least profitable. Why isn't there a XXX TLD?

If there are rediculusly stupid ones like .biz, .name, .info, .museum, why in the world is there not already a .xxx one? At least then I can find some porn, because its next to impossible now with the existing TLDS (/sarcasm for those who have no sense of humor :)

Re:Clarification (4, Informative)

Ernesto Alvarez (750678) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503150)

There is no .xxx domain because it is already known how good such course of action is. [rfc-editor.org]
Now, they've made one in order to allow some organization to get some easy cash, while screwing us all with all this "think of the children" stuff. Gee, thanks a lot for listening to what the technical community has to say.

(At least read the title of the document linked, it says a lot)

BTW, I agree with you on TLDs, only country codes should be allowed as TLDs.

Re:Clarification (0)

TheLink (130905) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503396)

Block .xxx? Huh, all along I thought a valid technical reason for having .xxx was so people looking for porn could do the following google searches:

site:.xxx ;).

Seriously though IMO .xxx is more justifiable than .biz or .info.

However, I disagree with you and the GP on TLDs.

I have long been arguing for .here to be a reserved TLD for free use for everyone - like the private RFC1918 IP addresses (10.x.x.x 192.168.x.x etc).

Basically everybody can host their own airconditioner.here in their houses/offices/rooms, and control it with http://airconditioner.here/set?temp=25c [airconditioner.here] . And _polite_ people trying to figure out whether they are explicitly allowed to use an open WAP can go to http://here/ [here] to look for terms and conditions, more info etc.

For more do a search on tldhere:
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-yeoh-tldh ere-01.txt [watersprings.org]

I think my proposal had and has a lot more merit and utility than .xxx, .biz, .info and maybe even .tel.

But I just don't have USD100K to give to ICANN to try to get .here and then give .here to the whole world.

Re:Clarification (2, Informative)

_Ludwig (86077) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503726)

I have long been arguing for .here to be a reserved TLD for free use for everyone - like the private RFC1918 IP addresses (10.x.x.x 192.168.x.x etc).

Bonjour/Zeroconf/mDNS already provides this, [apple.com] albeit with .local rather than .here

It's too late to make a difference. (4, Insightful)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | more than 7 years ago | (#17502688)

Seems unlikely that existing porn sites will voluntarily move from .com to .xxx domains.

Re:It's too late to make a difference. (1)

Bruitist (987735) | more than 7 years ago | (#17502722)

Not least due to the fact it'll destroy the bookmarks of their valuable customers...

Re:It's too late to make a difference. (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 7 years ago | (#17502754)

I guess they'll register an .xxx while still keeping their .com domain.

Re:It's too late to make a difference. (2, Interesting)

Quzak (1047922) | more than 7 years ago | (#17502828)

Yes, they would prolly use their .com as the front door for their .xxx

Enforcement is gonna be fun, I can already see the violations of free speech and censorship happening already.

Re:It's too late to make a difference. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17503032)

It is UNENFORCEABLE. That is the problem. You cannot MAKE them move, so it is USELESS.

Re:It's too late to make a difference. (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503464)

It is UNENFORCEABLE. That is the problem. You cannot MAKE them move, so it is USELESS

My understanding is that domain names are controlled in the USA. If that is correct, then US law can (and almost certainly will) make them move to xxx. If your choice is move or disappear, you'll move.

Remember, as one slashdot signature accurately has it: The root passwords to the US constitution are "thinkofthechildren" and "terrorist."

And of course, once they move, they can be censored. And they will be censored.

They're working to flood us with issues: loss of habeas corpus, ex post facto law and punishment, censorship, government support of religion, watering down science education and the cultivating of a newly gullible populace, wars of aggression, loss of 2nd amendment, commerce clause absurdities, phone tapping and mail opening and lists of enemies of the state (no-fly lists, no live here lists, no get job lists), torture, politics as a completely rigged shell game, theft of land for tax revenue... and it's working just fine. We can't fix any of this the usual way. The xxx industry is just going to be the latest casualty. Just ask yourself: Will you stand up and save them when the time comes? How many others? Don't hold your breath.

Re:It's too late to make a difference. (1)

m0ng0l (654467) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503366)

I recall, back when this was getting kicked around the first time out (what 2-3 years ago now?), I came across a posting on Asia Carreras' (a now retired porn "actress" with two kids) web site, where she basically said she supported the idea of a domain exclusively for porn sites.

My prediction (if it goes through) would be that the current owners of porn sites on .com/.net/.org addresses, will (presuming they get the equivalent .xxx domain) put up a redirect to the new page. After a couple months or more of this, the redirect goes away, and the non-.xxx address eventually goes back up for sale (or they keep it registered for themselves, especially if it's a trademark)

Re:It's too late to make a difference. (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503468)

My prediction (if it goes through) would be that the current owners of porn sites on .com/.net/.org addresses, will (presuming they get the equivalent .xxx domain) put up a redirect to the new page. After a couple months or more of this, the redirect goes away

After a couple of months, half the ISPs have been pressured to block .xxx by default (and how many customers want to go on file as requesting access?) and all the porn sites put a redirect on the .xxx and go back to their .com.

Re:It's too late to make a difference. (4, Insightful)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503516)

Seems unlikely that existing porn sites will voluntarily move from .com to .xxx domains.

They wouldn't have to.

If they set up a permanent redirect, they can keep their .com domains, but the filter on a parent's computer would prevent the redirect from working.

Re:It's too late to make a difference. (1)

qzulla (600807) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503604)

So the kids put in .com instead.

Problem solved.

qz

Re:It's too late to make a difference. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17503654)

> So the kids put in .com instead.
> Problem solved.

You put in the .com, which redirects you to the .xxx, which the filter then Blocks.
Since the .com wont have any content on it, your suggestion gains you nothing.

All of this was said in the GP...

Re:It's too late to make a difference. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17503570)

Seems unlikely that existing porn sites will voluntarily move from .com to .xxx domains.

Everybody keeps saying this, but it is in total opposition to the facts. There's loads of porn sites that give free advertising for filter software and voluntarily comply with various filtering standards. Believe it or not, but they are in the business of making money - and kids without credit cards aren't exactly profitable, they are just a waste of bandwidth - or worse, if the kid gets hold of a credit card and they get fraudulent payments.

So please, leave the head-sand burying rendezvous to the religious nuts and pay attention to the facts. Plenty of pornographers want this.

first twofo (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17502698)

last post [twofo.co.uk]

zeus sucks cock

Yet another brick. (3, Insightful)

BlahSnarto (45250) | more than 7 years ago | (#17502752)

Anyone else worried about this?

Authorities and officials requiring all "questionable"
material be required to don the XXX TLD? again at brief
glance it looks like a good idea, but in the long run it
could be hazardous for free speech in a whole..

Reading material:
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/BriefHistoryof. XXXandLinks.htm [freespeechcoalition.com]

Re:Yet another brick. (5, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17502790)

I worry about anything our government does, just on principle.

Re:Yet another brick. (2, Insightful)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 7 years ago | (#17502902)

"I worry about anything our government does, just on principle."

A very good priciple, IMHO.

GP wrote:Anyone else worried about this?

Authorities and officials requiring all "questionable"
material be required to don the XXX TLD? again at brief
glance it looks like a good idea, but in the long run it
could be hazardous for free speech in a whole..


It looks like an attempt to cordon off the virtual areas in which free speech is permitted, similar to the real-world designated protest areas that one finds near political conventions. It is a trend that allows governments to say, yes you still have free speech, but you have to say it here. Then they can slowly restrict the designated areas - both virtual and real - until free speech is squished down to nothing.

Re:Yet another brick. (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17502964)

Incrementalism at work again. You really have to keep an eye on these guys. Incredible, really ... they just can't seem to leave well enough alone.

But I have to say, between the GP's nick of "BlahSnarto" and your "Harmonious Botch" I'm having a hard time keeping a straight face.

Re:Yet another brick. (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 7 years ago | (#17502950)

Agreed. Specially since off course a lot of places are gonna block . domains right away. Off course, sites will have a mirror at a .com or .net or .whatever so everyone can access them. Eventually some republican will try to organize the "tubes" of the internet and make . domains for "cuestionable" content mandatory. The definition of cuestionable will be broad and actually very cuestionable =). many ISPs will reduce access to . by charging extra or limiting bandwidth or banning it alltogether.
Censorship in the Internet at your fingertips.
Yes, i'm paranoid. Yes, this is a bit far fetched, but it's far fetched not because there arent s that would make this a reality, it can be considered far fetched and won't probably happend because people will talk, and people will complaint, and people will write, and people will tell. So it isn't redundant to say it, it's exactly because NOW we say it will happend that it won't.-

Re:Yet another brick. (1)

Ninjaesque One (902204) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503456)

Your spelling of questionable and your use of the phrase, 'of course' is cuestionable.

Can't imagine why it wouldn't... (1)

aendeuryu (844048) | more than 7 years ago | (#17502774)

Capitalism trumps puritanism on this one, I think. These things are guaranteed income. Who wouldn't pay a premium price for the rights to the www.sex.xxx domain?

Re:Can't imagine why it wouldn't... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17502956)

Because, for most people, .com is the Internet. Do you think Joe (or Jo) Public is going to go to sex.com or sex.xxx first? If you've got sex.xxx, then you are going to need sex.com as well, or you will get someone else typo-squatting and taking away your revenue. At which point, the question is 'why do you need the .xxx domain?' and the answer is 'because if you didn't have it then someone else would and they would use it for typo-squatting.'

The argument that it makes it easier to find things is nonsense. Do you find your country code TLD makes it easier to find things near you? Unless you know the domain of a particular entity, you can't get to it; there's no 'browse the web sorted by TLD' option in any modern web browser. Google lets you restrict searches to domain names, but how many people do you expect are going to be searching for 'porn site:.xxx' as opposed to just 'porn?'

Re:Can't imagine why it wouldn't... (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 7 years ago | (#17502980)

Who wouldn't pay a premium price for the rights to the www.sex.xxx domain?

Easy, The guy who owns the XXX.XXX.XXX domain.

Filtering porn (3, Insightful)

Bob54321 (911744) | more than 7 years ago | (#17502810)

This means that parents will most likely have an easier time protecting their children from these sites
Not that I have done extensive research or anything, the will still be a lot of porn available that is not on .XXX domains. I see how adding .XXX to a filter list will block a lot of new stuff but any kid wanting porn will get it...

Re:Filtering porn (1)

Tim_UWA (1015591) | more than 7 years ago | (#17502892)

Any kid that wants porn can always get it (put the url in google translator with a bogus language and they can still view .xxx sites), but it might stop a lot of kids accidentally finding porn while looking for something else (assuming that everybody who has a porn site has all of their content at the .xxx address)

Re:Filtering porn (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503160)

Not really. It's real hard to block a TLD like that effectively... all you need to do is proxy requests to .yyy to go to .xxx for example and the block stops working. If you can make the request to the root nameservers (not necessarily on the same machine or network) you can find the websites.. the rest is just a matter of coding.

Re:Filtering porn (1)

bunions (970377) | more than 7 years ago | (#17502962)

I view it as the porn industry protecting itself. I don't think that any legitimate business -wants- underage kids looking at their wide selection of Mongolian Goat Porn. Setting up shop under a xxx banner is a pretty clear indicator that they're adult content, and since filtering on a .xxx tld is so impossibly easy to do it's a pretty clear indicator that the business has taken all reasonable steps to prevent underage kids from gaining access.

Re:Filtering porn (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503168)

And that is precisely why this is completely unworkable, and cannot achieve the aims of what it is trying to do. Not all "porn" resides on a website that belongs to someone in the porn industry.

Re:Filtering porn (1)

bunions (970377) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503696)

of course not. Getting porn off the internet is, like someone who I can't remember once said, is like getting pee out of a pool. But it IS productive in that it creates a simple, clear demarcation between where general and adult content belongs.

Re:Filtering porn (2, Funny)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503176)

I would like to hear more about the Mongolian Goat Porn. Email me pls.

Not gonna work (1)

ip_freely_2000 (577249) | more than 7 years ago | (#17502868)

.
All the porn sites are going to do is redirect the .xxx domains onto their established .com domains. There has to be some way to force porn off the .com TLD. Probably the only thing to do that will be an army of faeries riding in armor mounted on flying unicorns. ( for those lacking a sarcasm detector, it means it's never going to happen )

Re:Not gonna work (1)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 7 years ago | (#17502938)

There has to be some way to force porn off the .com TLD.
It's pretty easy actually. All they have to do is make it against the terms of service for the .com registration and the next time registration comes around make everyone put up a $500 deposit on their .com domain registration as a bounty. If anyone reports a legitimate occurrence of pornography on that web site, they get the $500 bounty and your domain gets put into on-hold status until you've cleared away the offending content to the satisfaction of the registration authority and paid another $500 deposit. It'd be self-policing for the most part.

Re:Not gonna work (1)

bucky0 (229117) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503108)

So, youtube, myspace, fark....oh, anything that lets users post content can be shutdown just by posting a pornographic image and telling the cops?

It seems like a good idea, but I think it would be ultimately unworkable.

Re:Not gonna work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17503246)

We need a new domain for those: .srop (slight risk of porn).

Re:Not gonna work (1)

tehdaemon (753808) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503346)

Sweet idea! A $500 reward for hacking a website and leaving no incriminating evidence.

Re:Not gonna work (2, Interesting)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503018)

All the porn sites are going to do is redirect the .xxx domains onto their established .com domains. There has to be some way to force porn off the .com TLD.

I'm gonna take a wild guess at something for this. However, it would require blocking software.

No sane operator of a porn site is not going to register their .com/.org/.net sites in the .XXX domain. So, what software could do, is check the .com/.org/.net site and see if it resolves the same as the .XXX domain. If so, then you would know that it is most likely a porn site.

Basically, the .XXX domain could provide a nice crosscheck for a lot of sites.

Re:Not gonna work (1)

XnavxeMiyyep (782119) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503258)

And when people buy fox.xxx (porn involving foxes), yahoo.xxx (porn involving the excited) and google.xxx (porn involving large numbers), hilarity shall ensue.

Re:Not gonna work (1)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503532)

No, his proposal was to see if they resolve the same. They would not resolve to the same address, so the access to fox.com, yahoo.com, and google.com would be allowed.

Re:Not gonna work (1)

AnyoneEB (574727) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503566)

The GP suggested checking to see if the .xxx domain and .com domain referred to the same server. Naturally, you could buy google.xxx and point it at Google's servers, but it would not be the same as what you said. Then again, maybe porn sites which want to make themselves easy to block (i.e. don't want to look like they are trying to show porn to minors), could simply have all of their sites redirect to .xxx sites, which could be trivially blocked by a filter. That is, sex.com would be accessible, but it would just redirect to sex.xxx which would not be. As to whether such filters should actually be used, that's not my call. I do not think it is unreasonable for a parent to attempt to filter their child's internet access. After all, the child will find a way around it eventually. :)

To make myself clear, .xxx could not and will never be useful for blocking all porn, but it could at least help.

Actually, this comment [slashdot.org] makes good points, although I am not sure I agree with the high cost/oversight idea. I suppose domains having a specific usage and oversight to ensure they are actually used that way is reasonable, although it does not seem to happen much on web currently.

Re:Not gonna work (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503448)

There has to be some way to force porn off the .com TLD.

Why? The domain was designed for commercial use. Porn sites are often commercial, therefore pornsite.com. If we start requiring special domains like this, two things happen:

1) It becomes a lot easier for people and organizations to be censored and harassed.

2) The people and organizations affected will host their content elsewhere and/or get a domain from a country without the requirement.

Re:Not gonna work (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503504)

Probably the only thing to do that will be an army of faeries riding in armor mounted on flying unicorns.

Sounds like a job for Maxwell's Demon.

Re:Not gonna work (1)

asifyoucare (302582) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503624)

All the porn sites are going to do is redirect the .xxx domains onto their established .com domains

Actually, I expect it should work the other way around. blah.com will redirect to blah.xxx. This way, existing bookmarks will work and owners of domains will retain their valuable domain names. The redirection to blah.xxx will allow simple filtering on the PC (or upstream) to block access to porn.

I may have missed something, but I think that's workable.

fucking religous nuts (1, Flamebait)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#17502954)

that's all this boils down to, is religous creeps attempting to push their views on the world. they think if you enjoy sex, god will hate you. oh please please god forgive me for using my penis!

Re: religous nuts (1, Funny)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503508)

MISUSE OF MODERATION ABOVE - valid opinion, substantiated by the evidence and general cultural activity, mis-moderated as flamebait.

pointless (1)

delirium of disorder (701392) | more than 7 years ago | (#17502998)

To protect the children, we must enable every cable and satellite company to provide xxx content on channel 69!

Ummm...Are we going to restrict other channels from carrying pornographic content?

No. It's technically difficult and would be expensive and violate the first amendment.

Doesn't this just give the porn companies more porn channels while doing nothing to censor kids (which is unethical anyways)?

Cablevision used to... (1)

CrAlt (3208) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503656)

To protect the children, we must enable every cable and satellite company to provide xxx content on channel 69!

Heh.
Back in the day before digital cable, CableVision used to have the Playboy channel on ch69 here in CT.

Obscenity Laws (1)

simula (1032230) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503012)

If xxx becomes a top level domain, I can see a great moral push to force any content deemed "obscene" by local communities into the xxx tld. An attempt to whitewashing the internet so that only xxx contains content that is considered "foul, repulsive, or detestable" by every local community across the world would be very unfortunate for the notion of free speech.

Re:Obscenity Laws (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503232)

Won't work. If your website is hosted in any other country then it's unenforcable. 'local' communities can't agree on stuff like that - the US is decidedly on the puritanical side & would rather view the viewing of naked flesh completely.. Europe is a lot more liberal (and in fact has no meaninful censorship of its adult content), UK somewhere in the middle. In Japan manga shows children having sex regularly and it's considered perfectly normal..

So you're just never going to get a law that'll stick beyond the confines of your own country.

Re:Obscenity Laws (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503362)

It's mostly problematic because of the annoyance in rebranding and in user-created content. If you've spent years being, say, attrition.org and all of a sudden you're required to move to attrition.xxx just because some of your content is obscene (not necessarily sexually explicit) then moving is going to be painful (though you can certainly also own attrition.org and redirect--this won't get around filters). For sites like Youtube, Livejournal, etc. they suddenly have to split or censor their content. It's unworkable if only for that last reason--almost all of the currently most popular websites would have this problem.

That said, it would certainly make it feasible to whitelist sites you want to see rather than the more difficult task of blacklisting sites which display content you don't want to see. I wish there was a magic bullet for this problem. Unfortunately, there isn't one.

Eminent Domain (1)

Swimport (1034164) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503014)

If porn is only allowed on xxx domains this would make established sites worthless. Could you even link from your old site to your new site? Effectively it would be eminent domain, except I doubt domain owners would be compensated. Domains like freep0rn.com would be worthless overnight. Not to mention the free speech issues. Perhaps Government Criticism should be limited to .gc domains.

Re:Eminent Domain (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503414)

HTTP 300 codes. They cause redirection. Makes it real easy to redirect from your old domain to your new site.

That said, the 'freedom of speech' issue on this strikes me as a little weird. Is slashdot.org restricting my freedom of speech by not letting me host whatever I want on their front page? Originally, TLDs had specific purposes and they were restricted to those purposes. Is that a restriction on freedom of speech?

The tags allow you to, at a glance, have an idea of what is present at the site. .org told you that it was a nonprofit organization. .net told you that it was a service provider. If .xxx existed at the time, you'd know at a glance that there was porn there. It's only restricting speech if you actively block addresses at that site through a law. This site makes it easier to execute such a law, but it doesn't prevent such laws from being passed.

if only (1, Informative)

huckda (398277) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503050)

they would then REQUIRE any and all illicit sexual content on the web to use .xxx
and ENFORCE it...school administrator's jobs of content filtering would get a thousand times easier...

Re:if only (4, Insightful)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503126)

they would then REQUIRE any and all illicit sexual content on the web to use .xxx

Just two questions:
Who defines illicit sexual content?
Who is the worldwide enforcer?

Re:if only (1)

huckda (398277) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503272)

enforcer? whoever has control of the route thus the ISP go as far up as need be.

defines? Merriam-Webster?

Re:if only (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503308)

enforcer? whoever has control of the route thus the ISP go as far up as need be.

And when the site is hosted in a foreign country, and they tell you to go away...what do you do.

defines? Merriam-Webster?

Describe the definable difference between the opening shot of a porn sequence when the girl still has some clothes on, and a Sears/Macy's/VicSecret underwear ad.

Re:if only (1)

Quintios (594318) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503480)

You can get that Sears ad for free in the mail without fear of your parents knowing what's going on! :)

Re:if only (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503580)

defines? Merriam-Webster?

I believe that's a dictionary, it defines words. (And there's much dispute about those.) How do you define a photograph? Do you know how much time, effort and paperwork and argument is involved in classifying movies for cinema release? Could that be automated to automatically and reliably classify millions of webpages, tens of thousands of videos?

Re:if only (1)

foreverdisillusioned (763799) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503270)

they would then REQUIRE any and all illicit sexual content on the web to use .xxx and ENFORCE it...school administrator's jobs of content filtering would get a thousand times easier...

What do you mean by "illicit"? Last time I checked, most types of porn are perfectly legal in this country. It's not the government's job to force perfectly legal websites to change their TDL just because YOU think that there's something wrong with the human body or sex in general.

Re:if only (1)

XnavxeMiyyep (782119) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503298)

Yes, obviously free speech should be sacrificed to make the school administrator's jobs easier. HOORAY FOR CENSORSHIP!

Re:if only (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503430)

Can you remind me of how free speech is sacrificed in this scenario?

Re:if only (1)

XnavxeMiyyep (782119) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503602)

Content that the government deems inappropriate is being suppressed and regulated to a certain area.

Re:if only (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503702)

I see no suppression. Please refrain from hyperbole.

As for being "relegated to a certain area", that's not a good analogy. It's more like the content is being tagged, and then anyone who wants to can block based on the tag. This is very similar to what RBLs do to maintain lists of spammers, so that those who wish to may block based on the list.

Re:if only (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503690)

they would then REQUIRE any and all illicit sexual content on the web to use .xxx and ENFORCE it...school administrator's jobs of content filtering would get a thousand times easier...

Great. Who is "they" that are going to require every website, whether hosted in Kazakhstan, Christmas Island, the Vatican City, Russia, North Korea... to do this?

All for the benefit of school admisitrators. Why not just make a white list for the sites you want kids to have access to, kids can apply to have sites added, if they're trusted they can do it themselves knowing they will be subject to review.

Why not ask all criminals to turn themselves in a police stations. That would make policemen's jobs a thousand times easier!

Underlying Problem (1)

chris_eineke (634570) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503084)

Isn't the underlying problem of this really the centralized nature of DNS?

Re:Underlying Problem (1)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503490)

How do you propose to create a useful decentralized name resolution system where the names are meaningful?

The question not getting much discussion is... (4, Insightful)

Nkwe (604125) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503136)

Who gets how many dollars per registration?

Re:The question not getting much discussion is... (1)

madsheep (984404) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503208)

The question isn't getting much discussion because it's right there in the article and is referenced above:

What has not changed about the contract is the registration fee for dot-xxx domains: It will remain at $60 annually, with $10 of each registration going to IFFOR.

In case anyone is still wondering, it will cost 60 USD.

Re:The question not getting much discussion is... (1)

Nkwe (604125) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503542)

In case anyone is still wondering, it will cost 60 USD.

The point being that .COM domains register for under $10 now. $60 times the number of potential .XXX domains is a *lot* of money. Is this about moving and corralling porn (which won't work anyway) or is it about making a lot of money for the registrar?

protecting the children (4, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503204)

The submitter, or Slashdot editors, say "This means that parents will most likely have an easier time protecting their children..." (this is nowhere in TFA).

This is bullshit. How does creating a NEW domain for porn protect anyone? Only if at the same time porn is made illegal everywhere else, something that is not publicly advocated by the sponsors of .xxx. Though it's suspected that's an objective. However, no one has been able to clean porn out of any TLD and this remains impossible to do except as a symbolic and empty "We're protecting children from porn" statement. The only benefit of this new domain is the registrars who will collect $60 per year for all those existing porn sites who will be blackmailed into buying a corresponding .xxx domain to protect their brand from typosquatters. No one will set up a site solely on .xxx, a formula to be blocked by default from many users; they'll all just redirect to .coms or CC TLDs. No one will be "protected" from porn at all.

Easier != Perfect (2, Insightful)

nick_davison (217681) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503714)

"This means that parents will most likely have an easier time protecting their children..."

One porn site moves to the .xxx domain.

A parent blocks .xxx domains.

That's one more site than would be blocked otherwise. Thus, by definition, easier. Not perfect but better than not at all.

Most porn sites really don't want kids hitting them up - they just suck bandwidth and don't have credit cards to convert in to paying subscribers anyway. If sites like playboy.com then become simple redirects over - with .xxx blocked PCs unable to make the redirect - it does cut down on the number of ways a kid can stumble across porn and thus, even if not perfect, it does make it easier for parents to limit access.

Seatbelts don't prevent car accidents. They don't even save all lives in cars that have accidents. But they do still make surviving "easier". Just because something's not perfect doesn't mean it's not an improvement. The same holds true for .xxx as a tool for limiting porn access.

Protect the consumer (0, Troll)

Twillerror (536681) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503330)

The porn industry is not a stupid and corrupt as it might appear. They don't want little kids staring at this anymore then parents do. They are not the tobacco industry. They want to protect their interests which means not showing it to kids which is against the law.

They will switch over because it make them look legit. Someone sees the XXX domain and knows that it will probably be a good porn site. I wish there where actually some laws passed to protect the consumer.

Say I get some malware after visiting one of the sites. A repersentative from .XXX will review and then take away the domain name if they do not stop.

I'd say make them pay $1000 dollars for the domain name. With yearly fees. People will pay it if there is money, and the consumer will pay for fast downloads and good security.

The companies that don't switch over will still exist for sure. So blocking them will not be possilbe without the use of a service, but I really don't care. I want a designated area on the net for porn...and this will give us it.

Re:Protect the consumer (1)

xaosflux (917784) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503680)

"I want a designated area on the net for porn...and this will give us it."

I'd settle for a designated porn-free area of the net. Really, .xxx is not going to replace DCC, Torrent, and P2P streams anytime soon.

OMG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17503398)

My car won't start!

easier to scrutinize by authorities? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503406)

Sure, i want to sign up for that deal.. no thanks.

NO IT DOESN'T! Or, Article Is A Troll (3, Informative)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503424)

This means that parents will most likely have an easier time protecting their children from these sites and these sites will be more tightly regulated and easier to scrutinize by authorities

NO IT DOESN'T. Please at least pretend you've read RFC 3675 [ietf.org] .

Huh? (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503492)

What's all this silly talk about .xxx making it harder to get porn.

Anyone thinking straight will know that .xxx will make it easier to find and get porn (as if it's not easy enough already).

Note: I'm not arguing against the .xxx TLD though. I personally think ICANN sucks, but looking at the other alternatives it seems like anyone who's likely to take over from ICANN would suck even more.

You all should just let me take over from ICANN :).

How about this for an idea (4, Insightful)

Frogbert (589961) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503568)

Wouldn't it be better to have a .kid domain name. And only give that to sites are are deemed suitable to be viewed by kids?

i like it (1)

kbox (980541) | more than 7 years ago | (#17503716)

This means that parents will most likely have an easier time protecting their children from these sites
But on the plus side, It will make finding porn a lot easier.
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...