ICANN Likely Finally To Approve .xxx For Porn Sites
266
shmG writes with this from the International Business Times: "The company that oversees Web addresses is expected to give the go-ahead on Friday for the creation of a .xxx suffix for websites with pornographic content, company officials indicated on Thursday. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which oversees the Internet on behalf of the US government, has in the past resisted creating a .xxx generic domain name system akin to those for .com and .net."
I've got dibs (Score:5, Funny)
on fu.xxx
Re:I've got dibs (Score:5, Funny)
because .xxx is nothing like .sex (Score:5, Informative)
Doesn't anyone bother to read the RFCs? (probably not, they're too interested in trying to sell domains to make money)
Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the .xxx domain is probably pointless. The vast majority of adult sites aren't going to be moving so you still won't be able to easily filter based on that criteria. The doc you linked does mention a different idea that I could get behind though, establish a .kids which would be a semi-walled garden of child appropriate material. That allows the creating of a relatively safe space for children which would be relatively enforceable by knowledgeable parents without creating the privacy and legal concerns that everyone seems to have with a .xxx domain.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's been tried, via an administered second-level domain, .kids.us [cms.kids.us]
From the link, It's the first and only "youth-friendly" Web space to be established by the United States government, and it features advanced technical, policy and operational mechanisms that keep young people informed, entertained and protected online.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I hear pedobear.kids.us has been a great success.
Oh....
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If anyone is too lazy to Google U-Rated, it's the UK equivalent of US Rated G. For a second, I was asking myself "What the hell is a U rating?" Google is your friend.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>"What the hell is a U rating?"
Some kind of kinky Uterus subcategory?
Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the .xxx domain is probably pointless. The vast majority of adult sites aren't going to be moving so you still won't be able to easily filter based on that criteria.
The .xxx domain definitely has a point. If porn sites don't move, you won't be able to filter them by domain. So, they will be forced to move by law, you know, for the children. That gives the government a legal cudgel it can use against anyone who hosts borderline material. This causes a chilling effect on healthy discussions of sexuality, advancing the agenda of the puritanical community.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> If porn sites don't move, you won't be able to filter them by domain.
Exactly. The law of unintended consequences. But in this case it isn't really unintended because a lot of people have been raising the alarm on the perfectly natural result creating an .xxx tld is going to have and the activists are sticking their fingers in their ears and humming really loud. By now they should realize what they are doing but apparently they are refusing to face reality. Idiots!
This is going to become a nightmare
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> If anyone were thinking rationally we would make .kids, allow parents to
> lock a browser into that domain and stfu with all this "we must do it for
> the children" nonsense.
They thinking rationally. They're just lying about their motives. Otherwise they'd just control their own children and mind their own business.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, obviously it will be banned at work, schools, libraries, so there will still be sites on
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So you think people will search for porn by typing random domain names ending in .xxx?
I personally use Google to find porn the same as I find anything else. I don't really care what domain it's in Except that .xxx will be blocked on just about every access point except those who have decided to "opt out", and who in their right mind would put in writing that thy want access to porn domains? Fine if you're a single guy, not if you live wi
Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex (Score:5, Interesting)
However, it does offer value to both porn sites and internet users. First, it's a namespace that you always know is porn, so if you're looking for porn this can be a useful tool. Filtering these sites is as easy as it can get, and as mentioned before most porn sites don't try to get around filters anyway. Porn sites now have a way of identifying themselves more fully for customers and they don't have to compete for
Most importantly in my mind, this could be the easiest way to get people weaned off of
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nooo, the exact same amount of domain names will be available. www.porn.com will, as quickly as possible, purchase www.porn.xxx. However, also as quickly as possible, www.dell.com will purchase www.dell.xxx.
Every single business I know, including my own, will be picking up the .xxx domain. Do you really think Google is going to allow *anyone* else to own www.google.xxx? Of course not. I am n
Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex (Score:5, Insightful)
What did children do to be locked up in a prison of mind? Or rather, do you want to teach them that they should expect such?
Because, sorry, porn does not even interest kids before puberty (really, they simply don't care - no threat of lifelong damage or anything, its just that). And after puberty I think you should kind of have to realize it is a human urge that cannot be suppressed entirely without negative effects. Even more iportantly that at the time of puberty they are definitely getting some of the last opportunities on the path to maturity of mind.
If you prevent them from learning about what's REALLY out there in the world (wikipedia, news, violence, porn and prostitution, inequality and unfairness...) and even to feel hurt by it, they may never in their life manage to deal with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, just because it's an RFC doesn't make it accurate.
The legal/philosophical issues are debatable; the author does a fair job of making his opinion on the matter clear, but I can't say I found it all that compelling.
When the author tries to lay out technical issues, though, it just gets laughable:
He mentions that there are thousands of languages and questions which one to use in choosing the label... well, how about the same one from which the other TLD abbreviations are taken? Do you think .com is mean
Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a big difference between trying to force all porn sites to use .xxx (or any other specific term) and allowing people who wish to buy .xxx domains to do so.
In other news, who cares?
Obvious... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That trumps the "Why ICANN no haz .XXX?"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Finally (Score:2, Insightful)
Hopefully, this is a sign that our policies are not dictated by the "Think of the children" crowd.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hopefully, this is a sign that our policies are not dictated by the "Think of the children" crowd.
To be honest, this could easily be made to be pro 'think of the children'. If suddenly it is designed that porn sites are to have the .xxx domain name then you can easily put on a very basic (even just OS Parental Controls) to just refuse to load .xxx domains. Its 'thinking of the children' as suddenly porn sites are easily identifiable and blockable since they all (in theory) be .xxx domains (like how most governments sites are expected to be .gov)
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully, this is a sign that our policies are not dictated by the "Think of the children" crowd.
To be honest, this could easily be made to be pro 'think of the children'. If suddenly it is designed that porn sites are to have the .xxx domain name then you can easily put on a very basic (even just OS Parental Controls) to just refuse to load .xxx domains. Its 'thinking of the children' as suddenly porn sites are easily identifiable and blockable since they all (in theory) be .xxx domains (like how most governments sites are expected to be .gov)
And I'd think that even the porn people would be on board with this. The kinds of people that want porn blocked in certain situations are the same kinds that are willing to pay for it in other, more private situations.
Re: (Score:2)
Like bathroom stalls in airports?
One problem with the "Think of the children" crowd (Score:3, Funny)
i got dibs (Score:2, Funny)
on se.xxx
and sex.xxx
and goatse.xxx
So... (Score:2)
How long till slashdot.xxx is registered and what will it link me to?
In all seriousness though, Will this cause a massive surge of porn hosts buying domain names that exist in .com or .net for .xxx (like google.xxx) so that people curious if it exists will stumble upon their porn site?
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So... (Score:4, Funny)
If google.xxx is what I think it would be, it could perhaps be the best website on the Internet.
I'm pretty sure that will be 'googal.xxx'.
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're welcome. [monzy.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The owners of Slashdot.org would most likely serve a C&D on whomever registers slashdot.xxx for the clear trademark violation. TLD owners like .TV and .CC used to brag about the major companies registering all their trademarks with them... when really all those companies were doing was making sure nobody else used their brands the wrong way.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Really you want a default null tld so Slashdot.org would just be slashdot. I don't care where a site is based, whether it's for profit or not. I want to just type:
slashdot
ubuntuforums
bbc
etc and not try and guess/remember whether they're: .com .net .org .co.uk .org.uk
etc etc. The distinction is meaningless to me.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Really you want a default null tld so Slashdot.org would just be slashdot. I don't care where a site is based, whether it's for profit or not. I want to just type:
slashdot
ubuntuforums
bbc
etc and not try and guess/remember whether they're: .com .net .org .co.uk .org.uk
etc etc. The distinction is meaningless to me.
The distinction doesn't exist solely to help you mentally organize sites. It exists because DNS reads from right to left, and it has to start somewhere. Otherwise there would be no way to organize them.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
PROTIP: There's more to the Internet than the Web.
Re: (Score:2)
Really you want a default null tld so Slashdot.org would just be slashdot. I don't care where a site is based, whether it's for profit or not. I want to just type:
slashdot ubuntuforums bbc
etc and not try and guess/remember whether they're: .com .net .org .co.uk .org.uk
etc etc. The distinction is meaningless to me.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
Have you tried just typing those words into your browser?
In mine (FF3.5) it take me straight through to the site using (I think...) Googles 'I feel lucky' feature. This way, typing in a keyword has a good chance of taking you to the site you want. If people could register single keyword domains like that, I reckon it would cause a net decrease in convenience as more and more single keywords take you directly through to someone's site.
With email, it's usually copy/paste for me, or just entering the first part of an address I've used before. I guess it could be useful, but probably not useful enough to warrant the 'search by keyword taking you to someones site' issue above.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been saying this for years. Most people don't know about the different TLDs, and because of that most popular sites buy up the other TLDs that match their domainname to prevent people from squatting there, and they redirect (or not) the traffic to their "proper" TLD. Take for example http://slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org] http://slashdot.com/ [slashdot.com] http://slashdot.net./ [slashdot.net.]
I've always held that country code TLDs are of value. It sucks to do some online searching to buy something and end up at a .com address that is in the UK.
Actually, I don't dare type a URL in my location bar that is not already in my history and/or bookmarks that is automatically completed. Too dangerous if you misspell the sucker. Google is the real DNS provider. Sometimes names aren't what they would think they are either. EG, its not bmw.com, its bmwusa.com.
To belabor this stupid point further. WTF is up with .name and .museum ? TLDs have digressed from their original goal. To simplify and classify things. I mean, how is slashdot.org really a .org anymore? Its a commercial entity. What was ever the point of .net? .biz? And then countries sell off their TLDs like .to, .fm, and .tv, and those are rarely used.
Google (or similar) is the authoritative TLD master, the rest is just novelty.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First, .net had a very particular meaning once upon a time. It meant you were an ISP or other network service provider (Google might even qualify). This is to be separate from IBM which sells stuff, but does not provide network services (that I can think of. and if you want to be a PITA, try Pepsi or Coca-Cola).
Meanwhile, I think that perhaps we should have per-country DNS search paths, such that if you try to do www.google.com, and you're in the UK, you go to www.google.com.uk. (this would break with .co,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose we should buy up
That might be pretty fun too... Or maybe just really creepy... Can't decide which it is...
Open the floodgates.... (Score:5, Insightful)
With the new rules letting any company/group create a TLD if they've got the money and infrastructure, it's only a matter of time before we'll be going to Sprite.coca-cola and BigMac.McD.... so why not give the sex operators a red light district that's easily blockable. Sure, it won't block 100% of porn, but it's one rule that can block 100% porn with no false positives.
Re:Open the floodgates.... (Score:4, Insightful)
but it's one rule that can block 100% porn with no false positives.
Only if you make the assumption that your definition of porn matches their definition of porn.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. Who gets to define "porn"? Larry Flint? Fred Phelps? The Pope?
Probably the same group that gets to decide what is a .org or a .net or a .com is. All these comparisons to "burger.McD" really don't hold water. Porn is not only the *reason* that internet access is affordable (early adopters paid the high access rates to pave the way) but it is still a large portion of the traffic on the net, including much of the bittorrent traffic.
I wouldn't get too excited, most porn sites won't switch to a .xxx s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The group that decides whether you get a .com, .net. or .org is... whomever's paying and taking the registration fee. Many for-profit groups register all three for protection of their brand. Other domains, like most geography-specific domains require you have a tie to that area, although some lucky countries got American-valuable domains like .TO, .TV, and .AM and opted to just collect the fee. Government domains like .gov and .mil are closely regulated for official US Government use and publications.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Exactly. Who gets to define "porn"? Larry Flint? Fred Phelps? The Pope?
I believe it's defined in the context of "community standards", and then, presumably using a "I know it when I see it" test.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you figure that trademark holders aren't going to buy up their .xxx domains?
Do you also figure that the US Congress isn't going to try shepherding sites into the new TLD?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Secondly, if the owners of the site (not one of thousands of contributors) intended its' contents to be sexually arousing, then yes. It's all about the intent of the creator/publisher. So Flickr can have little kids in bathing suits frolicking in a pool and it's nothing. But if they had a section called 'preteen hotties get wet'' then it's meets the 'porn' standard.
It gets a little tricky though when the creator or publishers' intention
Re: (Score:2)
Well, okay... 100% of those who chose to self-identify as porn.
It doesn't matter (Score:2)
If you're going to block .xxx, you probably have a very broad definition of porn.
A company, for instance, will want to block anything that could result in a lawsuit. That means blocking anything that someone might find tasteless.
Schools, with their "think of the children" mentality, have a similar attitude. They'll block anything that might not be appropriate for children. Bonus: medical sites probably won't fall under .xxx, so learning about breast cancer is still fine.
The very conservative/religious sh
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I seriously doubt we're going to have any web site *forced* to be put on .xxx even if the owner doesn't consider it to be porn.
I have considerably less doubt about that eventuality.
XXX domain as a tool for censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope this doesn't encourage would-be censors to restrict the kinds of content allowed in non-xxx domains. Not all content fits neatly into an XXX designation, and even if it did it is simply not right to restrict XXX content to XXX domains. Having an XXX domain has always struck me as either pointless (insofar as XXX content might continue to be hosted on non-XXX domains) or otherwise a really bad idea (insofar as no XXX content may be allowed outside of XXX domains).
Re: (Score:2)
Since retroactive bans are generally looked down upon, sane countries wouldn't try to ban porn from non .xxx domains. Insane countries, like Iran or maybe even China, might give it a shot, but here's the thing:
No government controls the Internet. America has the most influence, undoubtedly, but even they can't mandate something like that.
Really, the most any government will do is block access to the entire .xxx TLD. Since those that would do so probably are already, the only real effect would be making cert
Re: (Score:2)
That's all it will do. Make porn stand out as porn.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends what trademark holders do/are allowed to do. What do you figure will be at, say, coca-cola.xxx or mcdonalds.xxx?
Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship (Score:4, Interesting)
Most likely, nothing. They'll probably just register the domain and leave it empty, or make it redirect to a .com. I just tried mcdonalds.tk, it loaded a blank page. By extension, they'll do the same to .xxx. So that will get blocked by a blanket ban, but it won't really affect anything. How often do you go to slashdot.com?
I don't foresee many false positives. Besides a few puns like ro.xxx, I think anything in .xxx will be porn.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm disturbed by how easily you remember anime porn sites, yet still bookmarking it...
Re: (Score:2)
I used to be part of that community, and every month or so, someone would show up on the forums, asking how to patch FFVII to keep Aeris alive past Disc 1. For some reason that popped into my head when writing that comment. I don't even know if the site's still up.
RFC 3675 (noted above) (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also worth pointing out that "sex" and "xxx" probably only have meaning in American English - in
Re: (Score:2)
and even if it did it is simply not right to restrict XXX content to XXX domains.
Why? The TLDs were designed to break up the WWW based on categories. Ok, so the US never really enforced the other TLDs, but other countries haven't been so lax. In Australia, you need to be a registered business (which is not hard - costs nothing, takes one phone call) to register a .com.au. You need to be a registered charity or non-profit to register a .org.au, a certified educational institute for .edu, etc (we do drop the ball with .net). I don't see any problem requiring pornographic sites onto a .xxx
Re: (Score:2)
FINALLY (Score:5, Funny)
Finally there will be porn on the internet.
Took them long enough!
Re:FINALLY (Score:5, Funny)
Finally there will be porn on the internet.
Took them long enough!
Wow... mom was right, you will go blind if you play with it...
It's all irrelevant (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody will use it. Using .xxx will allow every administrator to just wildcard block the .xxx domain, and I doubt its in the adult industry's best interest to use it.
It's almost baffling that the "oh, think of the children" crowd doesn't want this. I would think it would be of their interest to "force" (which I doubt could ever happen) adult companies to use the .xxx domains to allow this "dirty content" to be easily censored, and create a "red light district" of the internet, which you could just easily block with a simple wildcard filter. Fortunately, most of the censors are idiots and would rather put their head in the sand than acknowledge it exists and there is no way to get rid of it, since there will always be demand.
Either way, whatever ICANN approves or disapproves the usage of .xxx domains, it won't make a difference either way. The internet will be full of porn, everybody who wants it will be able to get it, and .xxx will continue to be unused, whether it's available or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost baffling that the "oh, think of the children" crowd doesn't want this. I would think it would be of their interest to "force" (which I doubt could ever happen) adult companies to use the .xxx domains to allow this "dirty content" to be easily censored, and create a "red light district" of the internet, which you could just easily block with a simple wildcard filter. Fortunately, most of the censors are idiots and would rather put their head in the sand than acknowledge it exists and there is no way to get rid of it, since there will always be demand.
What baffles me is how some of you tend to think the internet is controlled by a single filter. Can you not imagine a kids computer in the living room with '.xxx' blocked and one in the bedroom without such limitations?
OF COURSE there will always be demand. But segregation of this type allows for something the customer very much wants in the way of limits via age, appropriate setting, etc.
XXX is promotional (Score:2)
Nobody will use it. Using .xxx will allow every administrator to just wildcard block the .xxx domain, and I doubt its in the adult industry's best interest to use it.
That's not how the XXX marking has ever worked, and that's not how the .xxx will work.
Any site that has a .xxx will have a .com as well. The .xxx will serve as a promotion, just like it always has. There's no such thing as a XXX-rated movie: that was made up to grab people's attention. The same goes with .xxx -- it shows potential visitors just how hardcore they are.
Adult sites shouldn't care that the .xxx will be blocked the .com takes care of that, really.
Re: (Score:2)
Porn isn't commercial now? Seems like it's a pretty well-funded industry to my amateur eye... I agree that having a .xxx TLD will be nice, but I can't really see that .com is being abused in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, coca-cola.xxx is not ambiguous at all.
Or do you think trademark holders won't buy up those domains to cover their bases?
Re: (Score:2)
Right now many sites use 'ambiguous' names to lure me with tame sounding name. Putting it into the xxx domain tells me 'not what I am looking for' OR if i am looking for porn 'thats what I am looking for'.
How often does that happen to you? I can't think of the last time I accidentally ended up on a porn site. Most of the time I've seen porn without intending to do so involved someone's prank or visiting questionable sites that paid their traffic bills with porn site ad banners.
Along those lines - I've always been suspicious of the "...and when I walked in to the room, I found Little Johnny staring at the screen in SHOCK at the naked ladies that somehow showed up on his screen completely by accident" storie
Why did this take so long? (Score:2)
So, why have they been rejecting it for so long?
If the religious fanatics say "sex is immoral", well, it's not like there's gonna be any MORE pr0n online. It's just giving them a different web address to use.
And by using .xxx it will make censoring it on your home computer(s) a LOT easier for parents who don't want their kids looking for any of it.
Or has it always been big corporations that have been opposing it, so that no one buys up coca-cola.xxx or something?
Re: (Score:2)
Or has it always been big corporations that have been opposing it, so that no one buys up coca-cola.xxx or something?
Rule 34 in the making right there... [xkcd.com]
A Brave New Era (Score:2, Insightful)
Worst. Idea. Evar. (Score:2)
What is the reason for a
1. Would a site be 'required' to register in that domain? Well, redtube.com wouldn't go away, they simply add redtube.xxx
2. One mans porn is another mans vacation pics.
3. Who would be the internet police? Fred Phelps? a Sharia imam? Owner of a Barcelona gay bar? Who decides?
4. Is this required
Re: (Score:2)
A
Religous Right (Score:5, Insightful)
Members of the American religious right also oppose its creation on moral grounds.
I respect freedom of opinion, but this attitude is plain fucking stupid. As if pornography will become more/less prevalent if the .xxx tld is approved/denied.
This is the same brand of ignorance that believes teens will have more sex if educated about it, or that prostitution should be outlawed instead of regulated.
As a species, we wouldn't still be here if sex wasn't a big deal to us, but the range of cultural attitudes today is astounding. There's Amsterdam, where one can window shop for sexual services. There are ultra-religious societies where women must be covered from head-to-toe since, presumably, their men could not control themselves in the presence of exposed female flesh. There are countries where women have their genitals mutilated to prevent the enjoyment of sex. And there is America, where murder and violence are standard fare for entertainment, but God help us all if a nipple pops out!
Re: (Score:2)
where women must be covered from head-to-toe
Ironically, and somewhat amusingly, there also appears to exist burqa fetishists. One may fleetingly wonder if there are any Amsterdam window shops catering to that kink; the cultural crossover would be quite mind boggling.
Somehow it's still smugly satisfying to note both the failure of such rules and the implications of such attractions; porn is mostly in the mind of the observer.
What's the point? (Score:2)
Most likely ICANN is setting up
Not quite aptly named (Score:4, Funny)
New TLDs like printing money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The TLDs, they do NOTHIN! (Score:3, Insightful)
Without a mandate to move all porn to xxx, a new xxx TLD would be worse than useless. Indeed, since the laws of the US (supposedly) end at the borders, how would this stop a (foreign to the US) porn site owner from using the standard .com TLD?
Therefore blocking .xxx would not mean you are blocking all porn.
There are only two winners in this scenario of mandating porn go to .xxx: the politicians for doing something that doesn't actually, well, do anything substantial or helpful in any way. The other winner would be the .xxx registrar. Money and campaign contributions for nothing. .xxx would be just another TLD ghetto like .biz. I don't know of any legitimate businesses that use .biz instead of .com, and the ones that probably do have FQDNs that end in both .biz and .com.
It's not like domain names or TLDs matter much anymore. Yes, sex.com was worth a lot of money at one time. But that was before decent search engines. I have not gone anywhere on the Internet in many years by guessing a FQDN. It's been a long time since the 'net has been a "library without a card catalog."
--
BMO
14 years later (Score:4, Informative)
This was discussed a lot in 1996 in the IETF NewDom [ietf.org] Working Group, which I participated in, and which partially lead to the creation of ICANN. What a zoo that was - it ended with Eugene Kashpureff going to jail for attacking the DNS root servers. For some reason, ".xxx" seemed to drive people crazy, and I am not sure it is much different today.
Re: (Score:2)
Parental controls filtering your site isn't a bad thing. Kinda seeing your site is bad press, and the reality is most kids don't have the money to spend on porn anyways so they're likely to get theirs from the free sources. Many sites used to (and I'm assuming still do) put intentional meta tags on their site to be filtered by parental filters like CyberSitter and NetNanny.
Just personally, I don't really have a problem with the .xxx domain idea. Having a designated place for porn is a non-issue for me, a
Re: (Score:2)
Compare to strip clubs - I really don't care if city ordinances require them to be out in the boonies - people who want to go there typically are willing to travel to where they are, as long as there is SOME place they're allowed to be, and most importantly, that the people who obviously aren't interested in attending such locations keep their noses out of what goes on there/
This!
Re:Joking? Satire? (Score:5, Interesting)
Step 1) Introduce tld .xxx
Step 2) Pass law that says, any site with porn must be in .xxx tld
Step 3) Block .xxx domain
Step 4) Totalitarianism
Re: (Score:2)
You jumped from government powers to individual choice and back to government. Why?
Just because your employer blocks .xxx, it doesn't mean your government will do so. Or if it does, may I recommend you emmigrate to a country with freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, step 3 might not be blocking the websites (which would be in direct violation of the first amendment), but requiring that anyone accessing them obtain a gov't issued license enforced by ISPs, etc.
And replace .xxx with any type of content and that type of content can be effectively banned using the same pr
Re: (Score:2)
That might be possible, but not in this country, clearly.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The number of countries with freedom of speech and the extent of that freedom in many countries is reducing every year. I fear that the concepts of freedom, liberty and democracy were nothing more than a passing fad and will be out of style within my lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but agreement upon a time and place for pornography happened ages ago. Well before the beginning of said lifetime.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You missed a step. Politicians start to define what companies must use a .xxx domain. In the US I can easily see some politician putting forth a bill requiring that gay dating sites, abortion information sites, and sex education sites must use the .xxx domain.
Soon followed by lawsuits against ISPs for not blocking the .xxx domain.
And just so they don't fall out of the spotlight, the RIAA/MPAA require that any site that sells music or movies is required to use a .validIP suffix. Any music or movies downlo
My version (Score:3, Interesting)
Step 1) Introduce tld .xxx
Step 2) Pass law that says, any site with porn must be in .xxx tld
Step 3) Block .xxx domain
Step 4) A working DNS alternative FINALLY shows up.
Seriously, DNS is pretty inefficient for the web, it organizes things into an outdated hierarchy that never really worked right in the first place (site.city.state.us? Really?). The problem is, we can't figure out a good open alternative, so we use the next best thing, search engines.
DNS was good when the Internet was much smaller and people
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent point. I can't wait for terrible smut like the following to be forced into .xxx and out of .va:
http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/x-Select/10select/10select_02.html [vatican.va]
Nah, religion should be moved into the .com TLD, since it's a for-profit thing. Then tax the 'hell' out of it. :)