ICANN Approves .XXX
259
lothos writes "Pornography will have its own top-level domain, dot-XXX, the board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers decided today." Ars Technica has a short but thoroughly-linked article tracing some of the long history (in Internet time) behind the push for .xxx. See also ICANN's announcement of the approval, and — for all the juicy details — the rationale behind the decision (PDF).
5..4...3... (Score:5, Insightful)
Countdown to criminalization of all non-.xxx porn.
Re:5..4...3... (Score:4, Interesting)
So what if someone were to use some .xxx sites for non-porn? Will this to be illegal too?
Re: (Score:3)
It godamn better be.
If I type in thousandislanddressing.xxx into a web browser I am not looking for salad recipes.
Re:5..4...3... (Score:4, Funny)
I am not looking for salad recipes
I'm guessing you would be more interested in the term as it applies to "tossing."
Good heavens, a Slashdot article where that's actually on topic... what is the world coming to?
Re: (Score:3)
Countdown to criminalization of all non-.xxx porn.
Well I agree that soft porn SHOULD be criminal... oh wait
Re: (Score:2)
Not just porn. How long will it be before somebody insists that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_penis [wikipedia.org] only be available from .xxx?
Re: (Score:2)
so, you WANT little children to see pictures of a PENIS???? You. Are. Sick.
Re: (Score:2)
Countdown to criminalization of all non-.xxx porn.
All you'd have to do first is define "porn" (and by that, I mean defining it a whole lot more objectively than a former Supreme Court Justice when his answer was: "I'll know it when I see it!")
Oh, and then you'd have to get that definition ratified across a zillion countries (and by that, I mean countries ranging from Saudi Arabia to Holland).
And, once you manage to get all that in place, and manage to actually get some sort of universal "criminalization" going, you and I both know full well that approximat
Re: (Score:2)
not really. You don't have to have an international effort. The TLD servers really are controlled from the US. Yes some would slip around but more likely the ones that actually are worth while and do a service, such as education, or provide a community for people of differing sexuality will not.
Re: (Score:2)
ICANN controls the internet through it's IANA function, and it is headquartered in the US.
Re: (Score:3)
All you'd have to do first is define "porn" (and by that, I mean defining it a whole lot more objectively than a former Supreme Court Justice when his answer was: "I'll know it when I see it!")
Well, no, you don't.
Before the Internet, porn was confined to stores specializing in it, and to controlled locations in stores. Everyone knew what not to put out on the magazine rack where the nanny-squad could imagine a child getting his hands on it. And the definition was pretty much what you quoted there.
They still do it that way out in brick-and-mortar land. Just nobody notices the porn out there any more, because we're all inured to it by the mass quantities available in plain sight on the Interwebs
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but internationally the definition varies and is .xxx really .xxx.us? Of course we agree on certain things but let's take this BluRay [amazon.de] as example. In Germany that's ok for 16+ year olds, it's not pornography which has an 18yo limit. Would you sell this to a 16yo in the US? My impression would be no.
Re: (Score:2)
Followed by the .xxx registry charging 100s of bucks for domain registration and renewal.
Re:5..4...3... (Score:4, Insightful)
Please STFU. What is and is not porn is very hard to define and your ideas will only result in more and more violations of peoples rights to free speech.
Re: (Score:3)
How does "A website with a primary or secondary purpose of providing entertainment through real or simulated erotic media. Erotic includes but is not limited to exposed genitals and sexual acts. Media includes but is not limited to images, videos, and audio files."
Not perfect, will certainly be abused, but could be a starting point for something like this. I don't think 4chan should be forced on to .xxx but tube8 probably could be.
Or people could just leave it the hell alone, we have a new TLD that can p
Re: (Score:2)
Define secondary purpose? Would the fact that some folks jerk it to the best cancer website be enough? Or maybe wikipedia for its articles on medical things?
Re: (Score:3)
I was thinking along the lines of percentage of content not intent of the material. So if erotic material was in the top 2 as a percentage of content then it would qualify.
As I said it would very easily be abused. Especially if you talk about a retailer like Victoria's Secret.
I personally don't think we needed .xxx but don't have an issue with it existing either.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How does "A website with a primary or secondary purpose of providing entertainment through real or simulated erotic media. Erotic includes but is not limited to exposed genitals and sexual acts. Media includes but is not limited to images, videos, and audio files."
Pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
If they're allowed on .XXX, their free speech isn't being violated.
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit, this is like saying that free speech in a free speech zone is good enough. The constitution seems to indicate the whole nation is a free speech zone.
Re:5..4...3... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's more like bitching that because a cinema kicks you out when you start making a political speech in the middle of a movie, your free speech is being abridged. You can say whatever you want, but nobody has to provide you with a forum to say it.
Are you complaining because you're not allowed to put your blog on .mil, .gov, .edu? The situation is just the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One can dream eh? Imagine how easy it'd be to filter searches. Even seemingly innocuous searches return a bunch of porn links nowadays. .XXX should have been there from the start.
What the hell are you searching for? The only time I'm getting anything pornographic is when I'm searching for something pornographic. And then it usually takes an image search.
Sorry, you don't have that "right". (Score:3)
Violation of free speech? what about my rights to have a clean search and not have to worry about my children seeing things that I don't want them to see.
Sorry. You don't have that "right". The rights to free speech and a free press take precedence.
Free speech and press were recognized because interfering with them interferes with peaceful removal of tyrannical regimes, leading to more tyranny on one hand and more violence when they finally do get replaced on the other. Give tyrants ANY excuse to suppres
Re: (Score:3)
what about my rights to have a clean search
'Clean' is only specific to your personal beliefs. The world cannot accommodate 7 billion different views on the Web (at least yet). Besides, you're talking about so-called 'positive rights' which demand the labor of others, for free. That's slavery and morally reprehensible.
and not have to worry about my children seeing things that I don't want them to see.
Oh, I see, you want somebody else to do the parenting for you. Cripes, subscribe to some whitelist softw
At last! (Score:5, Funny)
I always had trouble finding porn on the internet before, what with there being so little of it out there. This will make it so much easier to find now! Thanks Internet!
Fucking stupid morons (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Puts pressure on all sorts of sites to operate only under a
2. Falsely creates a sense of safety amongst idiots who think they can block
3. Creates a sense of unjustified expectation amongst a different set of idiots who immediately decide that just because ICANN has created this TLD, that any site they deem improper that operates outside the hierarchy is engaged in some terrible underhandedness for daring to do so, trying to expose innocent people to their content.
4. Instantly tars anyone who visits a site in
5. Creates artificial segregation along lines decided by minority moral bodies. I.e. sexual content has to be treated differently. We don't have a separate TLD for religion, or science - why must sex be so treated?
6. Make pot loads of money for ICANN and registrars everywhere.
I'll leave it to the reader to consider how that last consequence was balanced against the others...
Re:Fucking stupid morons (Score:5, Funny)
It does one more thing.
7. You can finally spell goatse.xxx right
Re: (Score:2)
While I understand most of the points you want to make:
1. Puts pressure on all sorts of sites to operate only under a .xxx domain whenever a loud enough moral group insist that it should be categorised as dirty.
There should be no pressure in any way, but I'd really like a TLD where I can expect that every subdomain really hosts porn.
2. Falsely creates a sense of safety amongst idiots who think they can block .xxx and filter out "the bad stuff".
That's like filtering .com and expecting you wont' see anything commercial. Besides: "Safety" and "idiots" in one sentence, really?
3. Creates a sense of unjustified expectation amongst a different set of idiots who immediately decide that just because ICANN has created this TLD, that any site they deem improper that operates outside the hierarchy is engaged in some terrible underhandedness for daring to do so, trying to expose innocent people to their content.
Noone expects that sites with commercial interest are only .com, so why should they expect porn to be only under .xxx?
4. Instantly tars anyone who visits a site in .xxx domain in the eyes of moralisers and authority groups, regardless of whether the site is donkeyporn.xxx or just some site that was pushed to register under .xxx because it deals with mature topics.
That's not a problem of the existence of an .xxx TLD, it's a problem of governments
Re: (Score:3)
I think consequence no 6 "Make pot loads of money for ICANN and registrars everywhere. " is what they are after.
I cannot see effective criminalisation of porn on non-XXX domains: too many free speech issues, and there will be well funded push-back from established sites that use other TLDs.
You are going to see all the porn sites on .xxx in the same way that all businesses use .biz or all airlines use .aero
Re: (Score:2)
ICANNs bank accounts
Re: (Score:2)
Reading TFA, it seems that conservatives are against it, free speech advocates are against it, even the porn industry is against it. Who is in favor of it at all?
The registrars.
Re: (Score:2)
If there was a sizable body of such material on the net, you can be people probably would be pushing for that. I mean, you can occasionally find suicide photos, or alleged crime scene photos or some such if frequent particularly sick forums, but the quantity is many orders of magnitude less than porn on the net.
For ALL the juicy details? (Score:3)
and — for all the juicy details — the rationale behind the decision (PDF).
I take it there are pictures?
Get ready for new proposal from the feds (Score:2)
Ban of porn web sites and e-mail senders not properly labelled under the .XXX TLD.
TLD for Financial Transactions (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd really like to see ICANN create a TLD limited to banking sites and online stores the way .edu and .gov cannot be registered by any old scammer. I think that would do a lot in the way of preventing phishing. Few people understand the concept of security certificates and even fewer know why a self signed certificate is bad. ID theft and fraud seems to be a more important issue than preventing a 12 year old from seeing the human body due to a stigma based off 2000 year old mythology.
Re: (Score:2)
than preventing a 12 year old from seeing the human body due to a stigma based off 2000 year old mythology.
People have been wearing clothes for far more than 2000 years, so I would say that the "stigma" runs a lot deeper than the Juedo-Christian reference. I often wonder exactly what it was that drove people to wear clothes - women's self consciousness about their breast size, men's self consciousness about their penis size, fear of mockery of either of the above from others, the obvious deterioration evidenced by aging (only people died rather young back then), women's periods, lack of ass wiping technology or
Re:TLD for Financial Transactions (Score:5, Insightful)
I often wonder exactly what it was that drove people to wear clothes
Run around naked through the woods and you'll quickly discover clothing is quite usefull.
I especially recommend thornbushes for maximum educational value.
Even if you don't want to put on shorts or a shirt, atleast get something to protect the dangling bits.
Seriously though, I think a lot of it is down to status; clothing demonstrates wealth hence people want clothing.
These days everybody has clothing, so we created artificial status through expensive clothing brands, and those seem to be quite popular as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:TLD for Financial Transactions (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
a stigma based off 2000 year old mythology
In all fairness, that kind of stigma is really only about 400 years old. Puritan discomfort with sex is something way more than what existed before it.
Re:TLD for Financial Transactions (Score:4, Insightful)
That's actually a really good idea, until I stand up my fake TLD server and steal half the internet away from their usual .bank sites, around which they no longer do any sort of shoulder-checking when they enter security information.
Re: (Score:2)
Define "online store". The line between a "legitimate" online store and an illegitimate one is a thin one indeed. If the rules for certification are too strict, you hinder cottage industry (and their are thousands of tiny, one-man ecommerce sites out there). If the rules are too lax, scammers won't have any trouble registering domains.
And of course, many people still won't know the difference between http://legitimate.onl [legitimate.onlinestore]
The Porn Industry Won't Go For It (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You're funny.
I know - it's not often I can work a stripper joke into a /. post. I'll be here all week!
Re: (Score:2)
They'll touch the domain. .com/.net/.org/.whatever domains too.
They'll just keep their
In the worst scenario, the .xxx TLD could be a gateway to excessive government censorship. .xxx domains and nothing changes for the rest of the world. .xxx TLD would have beneficial effects.
In the best scenario, ICANN just makes a lot of money by selling
I can't imagine any scenario in which this
Re: (Score:2)
pron hosts file for sale!
x.x.x.x site1.xxx
y.y.y.y site2.xxx
Yea, those blocks will work well (do you really think they'll do rDNS?).
Re: (Score:3)
wait. you think a router gives a damn about the name of a site?
doesn't do you any good to resolve a name to an IP address if packets containing the IP address get spilled on onan's floor
Re: (Score:2)
The best will be when it becomes a hosting situation wherein some site that hosts evilsex.xxx also hosts academicresearch.com on the same IP.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I can understand colleges and corporations, but why the hell would ISPs block this? I'm sure pornography accounts for a large amount of the bandwidth they sell their customers. Doing this would be shooting themselves in the foot.
ICANN Approves .XXX (Score:2)
I can approves it too, LoLCat. Your point?
Enforcement? (Score:3)
They don't enforce the intended purposes of most of the other domains so what is the point besides another way to generate money?
Re: (Score:2)
There is none. This lets icann sell more domains.
ICANN has XXX? (Score:3)
ICAME
everyfamouspersoneverknown.xxx (Score:4, Funny)
Wait till someone registers $firstname$lastname.xxx .... of their least favorite politician. When they come along and say "hey you're domain squatting my name" you can make sure there is heaps of publicity about them wanting to register their .xxx domain.
this will have absolutely no unintended consequences and certainly wont be abused [/sarcasm]
Can't resist... (Score:2)
Re:Can't resist... (Score:4, Funny)
And the fq in fqdn!
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you could say... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
.....*puts on sun glasses* "Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaahhhhh!!!!!!" :)
tl;dr -- money talks (Score:2)
tl;dr: ICANN grew up, and recognized just because they don't have unanimous support on a TLD being suitable, doesn't me they should block it. Oh, and the fees collected for the domains are better than a sharp stick in the eye.
Let's face it ... (Score:2)
By
Wow! Never thought I'd see the day! (Score:2)
The .xxx domain saga has been going longer than Duke Nukem Forever's release date. What a year this is, to see both .xxx come to fruition and an actual release date for DNF - both in the same year even!
Suppose next we'll get a black president or something. [Imagine Doc Brown if Marty would've been from now instead of 1985. Think having an actor for a president was strange...]
Supply/demand, will they auction sites? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah Bing should turn up those .xxx domains shortly after Google does...
Re: (Score:2)
Btw, could we have slashdot.xxx, where slashdot users can upload their nude pictures?
No, we can't.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like it could be any more awful than idle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
goatse'd by CowboyNeal?
Re: (Score:2)
Uranus
Re: (Score:3)
Btw, could we have slashdot.xxx, where slashdot users can upload their nude pictures?
Wait... have you cornered the eye-bleach market?
Re:It's a good decision (Score:4, Interesting)
I wouldn't be so sure. The porn sites, from what I've heard, want to be in a .xxx domain so that they can be blocked more easily. Why? Because that gives them protection against future bills like COPA that would be much more burdensome for them.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure a lot of porn sites will continue to maintain their .com or .net domains, but I'd imagine they will quickly be modified so that each page redirects you to the same page in the .xxx domain. It's easy enough to set up a web server to do that.
Re:It's a good decision (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is the next push will probably be to force porn sites to move to .xxx and institute general blocking measures.
Also what goes on .xxx, well if it regulated that 'pornographic' sites must be on .xxx and no where else then it will be anything that can be passed as porno from gangbangs to gay and lesbian forums, to sexual health advice.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as sites voluntarily choose to segregate themselves, I doubt that any forcing will occur. To that end, it's in the best interest of the 'net for sites to be self-policing. When the 'net isn't, then government tends to step in and make a mess of things.
Re: (Score:2)
The great internet nerfing of 2011+, where we sanitize everything for the safety of pwecious wittle eyes has finally begun. Next step is to enforce a requirement that all "obscene" content be moved to xxx (and we all know how "obscene" is so loosely and meaninglessly defined). After that, simply using vulgar language or questionable images and comments online becomes a crime of corrupting a minor. Someome, please monitor my children as I'm incapable of parenting and accepting the world for what it is! Chang
Re: (Score:2)
That would be exceptionally foolish. Because a future step is for ISPs to block .xxx by default, requiring users to explicitly opt-in to have access to it. And that would be death for any site on the domain.
Re:It's a decision (Score:2)
It was also posted [slashdot.org] on
Haven't really looked for any
On the other hand, it took nine months for the dupe to show up. Coincidence?
Re:It's a decision (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Viablos is a sock puppet of devxo, a Microsoft shill.
Re: (Score:2)
Picture the Tron guy, then ask that question again.
Re: (Score:2)
Yikes! I doubt that more than 0,01 percent of the /. readers will want to see nude images of other /. users, even when you ignore the 95% that would upload a goatse picture.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Microsoft shill. And this guy's a professional. He gets first posts with alarming frequency, and when he gets modded down, huge numbers of mod points are spent to mod him back up, so he's either running karma whore accounts or he's part of a group.
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't that be eaten by some Kathleen already?
Re: (Score:2)
That just leads to a page wanting me to leave a comment without any subject to comment on, while hindering me to do that with a stupid captcha. No naked people there. WTF?
Re: (Score:3)
Not really, the argument was that it would make filtering slightly simpler in the future by blocking the entire TLD (as well as existing .com porn sites). I don't think conservatives would have a problem with that.
Re: (Score:2)
How does blocking something new, in addition to what you're blocking already, make filtering easier?
Re: (Score:3)
by forcing what there is already to move to the new.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then why are the conservatives so much against .xxx?
Re:A 21 exploding head salute (Score:4, Insightful)
One of many, I'm sure. The conservative arguments about porn have historically been contrary to common sense. When it comes to sex, giving kids access to condoms and vaccines against STDs is immoral, but teaching abstinence and watching the teen pregnancy rate soar is just fine. With porn, it's easier to deny that it exists (or place the burden of filtering upon ISPs, or grant the govt the power to snoop through your internet records to search for pedo material) than it is to simply allow them all to (voluntairly!) migrate to an easily filtered domain.
What's sad, virtually everyone else - ESPECIALLY THE INDUSTRY - wants this. Few people are *trying* to show that stuff to children. Only the producers of (highly ineffective) blocking software stands to lose here.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, the argument was that it would make filtering slightly simpler in the future by blocking the entire TLD (as well as existing .com porn sites). I don't think conservatives would have a problem with that.
If you think they are going to stop there, you haven't been paying attention.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
More like exploding heads in the opposition's mouth. Let's try to keep this discussion on-topic!
Re:yay (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not going for .xxx. I figure porn is a business so I'm using .com until they do it right and I can use .cum.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What ISP really filters Usenet (in terms of restricting access to certain newsgroups although they are offered by your Usenet provider)? It's not an ISP's duty to run a Usenet server.
Re: (Score:2)
Even back in the early 90ies, I saw my ISP in the role of providing me access to the Internet, and nothing else. That most of them provided Usenet, email, and other services, was a nice add-on, but not part of the deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Just read the link. That guy paid some millions for one animal with less than 100 kg edible flesh on it. Seems not to be the sanest person around.