Dot-XXX Domain rejected

[dajoga]

The creation of a dot-xxx designation was voted down today for the third time in seven years by the international board that oversees Internet domain names.

“This decision was the result of very careful scrutiny and consideration of all the arguments,” ICANN Chairman Vint Cerf said in a statement.

CitizenLink asked its readers on several occasions to e-mail the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to encourage the board to vote against the dot-xxx domain.

Hundreds of e-mails poured in from CitizenLink readers concerning the vote.



Send a follow-up thankyou (http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000004266.cfm) if you agree.

[Suzie]

Not real familiar with what the purpose of this was. Wouldn't it be better for the parental control blockers etc. if they DID have to have this type of domain if the content is something kids shouldn't see? Seems like this would have helped with that like movie ratings ... so the blocking programs know to filter ALL sites with those domains.

[MrSanity]

Not real familiar with what the purpose of this was. Wouldn't it be better for the parental control blockers etc. if they DID have to have this type of domain if the content is something kids shouldn't see? Seems like this would have helped with that like movie ratings ... so the blocking programs know to filter ALL sites with those domains.I agree.

The porn industry of all places should be regulated to the point where there is never an accidental case of an underage person viewing it.

[DeclinetoState]

The porn industry of all places should be regulated to the point where there is never an accidental case of an underage person viewing it.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->Yeah, so no more kids at the Super Bowl. You never know what they might see during the halftime show.

[Eagle1]

why shouldn't there be a .xxx?

porn is already everywhere on the net, this ruling does nothing to slow the spread

[Suzie]

That's what I was thinking. There isn't a "free speech" limit, so that wouldn't be a reason to oppose it. All it would do is give it a web classification to make it easer for people who don't want to see it to screen with blockers.

Why you down on it dajoga? What are we missing?

[DoctorDoom]

It would do nothing to limit it in the other domains. Some porno purveyors would use it, but the majority would ignore it because they don't want their filth easily blocked. They want it accessible anywhere and everywhere to anyone.

My major objection is that it would lend legitimacy to smut. It's bad enough that the disgusting sewage is being tolerated on the Web without placing it on the same level as COM, NET, ORG, EDU, GOV, BIZ et al.

What's unsettling is that it's being defended at all.

[MrSanity]

Beware of the Porno-Industrial Complex.

[S-T]

Not real familiar with what the purpose of this was. Wouldn't it be better for the parental control blockers etc. if they DID have to have this type of domain if the content is something kids shouldn't see?

No, because there is no way to force all of the porn sites into the .xxx ghetto. All you would get is a bunch of porn sites in .xxx to go along with the zillions in the dot com and dot net and so forth. Even if the courts were to allow forcing porn sites to use the XXX domain, you get into the question of what porn is. After all, is the purpose of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue any different from Playboy?

Come on, be honest. :D

[Suzie]

I guess so. But I would imagine there are some people who run those type of sites who don't intend for children to see that kind of site and would register for that type of domain to insure it. There will always be low life types who don't care or who WANT to attract kids. But I do hope some smut mongers might want to help keep it away from kids, and this does seem like an easy way to add it to a no no list on your puter.

[DoctorDoom]

Most "reputable" smut sites register with organizations such as ICRA (http://www.fosi.org/icra/), which provides lists for Net-Nanny-type software that blocks rated sites. This isn't out of a sense of decency or honor. They're covering their asses to minimize legal harassment, lawsuits, etc. They can point to the rating icon and say, "We registered our site. It's not our fault that the complainant didn't bother to use the software that blocks us from kids."

Their second option is to require a paid subscription or the use of one of the Adult Verification Systems (http://www.funfone.com/netsex/linkindex.shtml) to access their main content. Typically this is done through a portal page that might contain naughty but not smutty graphics.

Unfortunately, there are far too many porn sites that not only don't want to rate or require registration, but go out of their way to entice people to visit their sewers. A particularly nasty method of doing so is to load their meta names keyword list with words that are unrelated to the site.

E.g., I recall Googling Israel pictures, and one link with no description went to an Israeli queer porn site.

Once they've got you, they won't let go. Flurries of filthy popups that appear faster than they can be closed are one way.

Another effective method is to use a redirector page to go to their main site. When the victim finds himself staring at porn, he clicks the Back button, goes to the redirector and he's instantly sent to the smut page. The only really effective way to get out, short of closing the browser, is to rapidly double- or triple-click the Back button or use the backup dropdown menu to choose a safe page.

Sites that do that sort of shit won't even think of moving to the .XXX domain. About the only ones that might are the ICRA-rated sites, and they probably wouldn't.

[Suzie]

Interesting. I have registered many a website, but that's certainly not something I have had to consider when I did mine. I didn't know there was any kind of registration that would signify content. I always have to confirm that my site doesn't contain "adult content" whenever I submit it to any advertising or search engine anything like that. So I assumed there was no way to tell unless you disclosed that information with your listing. Which is what made me think this could help with those who would register their sites this way simply for screening purposes.

[Eagle1]

there would be some initial competition for the famous sites that are already taken on the .com and .net domains.

but i dont see this .xxx usering in a new mass of porn of restricting one

[DoctorDoom]

The .XXX was one of those "good ideas" that didn't take off because of the nature of the filth business. The smut peddlers make big bucks with their sites, and they don't want them easily blocked.

What they SHOULD create is a .SPAM domain for all those asswipes that load our inboxes with dick enhancers, penny stocks and phishing expeditions.

[Suzie]

Amen.

[S-T]

But I would imagine there are some people who run those type of sites who don't intend for children to see that kind of site

Those people do not exist.

Once they've got you, they won't let go. Flurries of filthy popups that appear faster than they can be closed are one way.

Not if you use Firefox. :D

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j159/conservatibbs/get_firefox.jpg

[dajoga]

Why you down on it dajoga? What are we missing?

From the article:

Supporters claimed adult-only content would be easier to regulate if it had its own domain. But Patrick Trueman, special counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said the argument that the domain would benefit children has no basis in fact.

“The proposed dot-xxx domain offered nothing but false hope to those wanting to keep Internet pornography from children," he said. "Pornographers would simply expand to dot-xxx and maintain their current dot-com sites, perhaps doubling the number of porn sites and doubling their menace to society.”


Apparently a "dot-xxx domain" would not remove the porn sites from current sites. I'm sure if that was the intent, there would have been support for it.

Right now my ISP does a pretty good job of filtering spam, esp. porn crap, but a few still get thru.

[Suzie]

Yeah I didn't think it would get rid of all of it but I was hopeful that it might help... at least somewhat. :(

[DoctorDoom]

Not if you use Firefox. Or Opera. IE7 has a blocker, but from what I see on the Net, it's far from perfect.

[Lazarus]

Sounds like a case of closing the barn door after the horse has already made tracks...

As it was pointed out already, tagging them with xxx doesnt stop them, limit them, and corral them - its an empty gesture...

If you cant figure out that MetermaidsInBondage.com is inappropriate for kids by its title alone, Im kinda betting that making them wear the "Scarlet Letter" isnt gonna suddenly give you a clue...

[Suzie]

I have someone I host that seems to have a bandwidth leach and I was trying to track it down in his links in. I clicked on one that gave no clue what it was and I had to close the laptop because my son was sitting right next to me. It was something like "goodcounter" but it wasn't a .com it was one of the others already out there. I was assuming from the name it was a website tracker that would count hits or something.

It would be nice if they HAD to have that type of domain name to have those kind of sites. That would make it much easier to avoid.

[Lazarus]

...I clicked on one that gave no clue what it was and I had to close the laptop because my son was sitting right next to me...Tis a dangerous job Suzie has... this is why she has a license to kill... [Que James Bond music here]:thumb: