What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
114 Comments
- warrenfalk, on 10/12/2007, -10/+58So I guess ICANN't
"with conservative groups campaigning against the domain due to concerns that it would legitimize pornography"
Who wants to legitimize porn? It's so much better having kids stumble across it by accident isn't it? - Keloran, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20isnt porn already legitamized by the fact that the studios have to pay tax??, becasue if they dont have to pay tax, im gona start my own studio
- AJwonder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14The whole point of the .XXX domain is so that:
1) It will keep a good chunk of pornography in one place for...
1a) easier regulation according to current laws
1b) easier web filtering
2) So people don't accidently stumble upon it (ie, whitehouse.com vs whitehouse.gov)
Personally, I think it's a fairly good idea. It may take some time to adopt if it was actually approved, but most "legitimate" businesses would likely follow suit. - tzmguitarist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I don't see why this is a problem. TLD's are reserved for use all the time (.edu; .gov) so why not .xxx??? I really would like to hear a valid argument other than violating the rights of someone's ownership of taraspantyhose.com.
- Dannychico, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Why would these companies give up their .com addresses? Was a forceable switch proposed? Sure, there would be new sites that would take the new domains, and those would easily be blocked by monitoring software (block *.xxx). But it's not going to change the fact that there are already a million adult .com addresses out there.
- blakesinclair, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15do people hate vin diesel that much?
i'll be the first to admit, im not that funny. - spectre, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@rasterbator
"Let's close off our internet domain borders. 95% of the spam would go away and our traffic could flow freely."
Good point. Because as we all know, Americans don't spam. - ru1dt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Chicken-flavored popsicles, huh?
I'm in. - dpk87, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9One large problem is suppose their are two adult sites, a blah.com and a blah.net. It's not fair to give the .xxx to one of the websites and screw over the other.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Hahaha, you used the "children" what if. You automatically lose.
It's okay to show violence to kids, but god forbid they see porn. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11There is a book called "Sex in the South" by Suzi Parker which talks about how the southern United States is populated by people who are extremely conservative on the surface (anti-gay, christian fundamentalists, anti-porn, etc...) but do the weirdest and wildest things behind closed doors. In general the approach amongst those "conservatives" is to do whatever you want as long as no one catches you. If you happen to get caught, then "deny, deny, deny". I think this really applies the world over though. My wife is reading a book called the "The Bookseller of Kabul" right now. One of the things that comes up in the book is how even though they might have very fundamentalist Islamic views, there is still a "seedy underbelly". There is a story that gets repeated fairly often as a joke among the people mentioned in the book. It relates the tale of a woman who had a donkey and really liked the way the donkey worked for her. But one day she noticed that the donkey was not quite up to his usual energy level. One night she snuck out to the stable to make sure the donkey was resting well. She was surprised to find one of her servant girls pinned under the donkey enjoying some intimacy. She watched for several nights and then thought to herself, 'if this is good enough for my servant then surely it's good enough for me' and set out to try herself. The next morning the servant girl was shocked to find her employer dead under the donkey. Upon inspection she realized that the employer had not utilized a hollowed out pumpkin to prevent the donkey from fully entering her. After all she really only needed a little bit to enjoy herself.
What this points out is that most people who purport to be conservative on sexual matters are usually either dysfunctional or hypocritical. Sex is a funny thing in that it makes people do the strangest things. Both positive and negative. Personally I think the .xxx domain is a great idea since it essentially creates a "red light" district on the net that can be avoided by those who don't wish to see it. Perfectly logical. Of course we're not dealing with logical people here. We're dealing with bigots who think that sex is only for procreation... It used to be for that, but there is a pleasure element that cannot and will never be denied. Unless we start chopping people's genitalia up or off after they've had an allowed number of offspring. - NOFXY, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8you get a digg for the lame attempt at a joke that actually made me laugh and for admitting you're not funny :)
- 5thfreedom, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11It makes sense, domains are created to cater to a particular type of website. .edu is for education, .gov is for government. .xxx would be for adult content. I think a forced switch should be mandatory, but alas, that isn't going to happen.
- justice7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9HOSTS file change
*.xxx 64.191.203.30 # digg.com
was that so hard? :P - fartingbob, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11If a kid wants porn, he'll get porn. Its like trying to stop the tide of the sea. Having this new domain wouldnt make it any easier to find porn (you'll still end up using a search engine, lets face it), and it wouldnt make it any harder (if .xxx was blocked, porn companies would just not use it, or have it mirror their current .com site).
Total waste of time, but it annoyed the christian conservatives, so worth the debate. - warrenfalk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@Dannychico: Yes there were several proposals of forcible switch by legislation to protect children.
- 7diesel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8can't you do us all favour and read the crap you just wrote.
- Sixcolors, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Because God knows people are tired of raising and protecting their own children these days. It's the responsibility of others to know what's "wrong" for my children and remove that content for me.
On one hand, I understand the reluctance to be forced into a .xxx domain when your .com address is pulling in so many hits. Not to mention the number of hits you get from mistyped, misspelled, or just misunderstood addresses. However, I think it would also make things easier for people who're looking for porn deliberately to know what domain to look for. And of course there's the ease of blocking it would create.
But then on the blocking subject; I get the feeling that some sites don't really care who their audience is. To them it may be that a click is just a click. Yadda yadda, must be 18, etc.
And the argument that it "legitimizes porn"? I don't think it has to be legitimized, it's already there whether you like it or not, and it's not going away.
And where exactly did you get that quote, anyway? I didn't see that in the press release. Link, damn you! - mcflynnthm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10I always love the argument against .XXX that says it will make it easier for kids to find. Because it would be so hard to set up your computer/browser to block anything with a .xxx. Seriously!
- omnithought, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I wish people would stop pretending that "the children" is a valid excuse to ban anything. Adults should have access to anything they want, and it is the job of PARENTS, not corporations or the gov't, to decide what their children should see.
After all, if boobies harm the children, how do they get fed when they are infants? - ocram, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/countries.lasso
http://www.bytestart.co.uk/content/15/15_2/where-is-spam-coming-from.shtml
Good luck with that. - Sixcolors, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Conservatives look at porn, they just don't talk about it in front of the family.
- 5thfreedom, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11ANYTHING that annoys the religious conservatives is worth a debate.
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I'm actually a bit disappointed. I manage a porn site, and I was kind of looking forward to a XXX domain. I agree with the reasons for having the domain.
- ThugEsquire, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Some Christians respect/love sex. The rest are just confused.
- Sixcolors, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Ah, but then who decides what is pornographic and what is artistic? If your site contains art with sexual imagery, are you going to be forced into a .XXX domain and therefore blocked from public viewing? Does anyone remember the stink raised years ago about library filters blocking sites with info about breast cancer?
"What's the difference between art and porn? A government grant!" (ba-da-dum) - maximusGeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5whitehouse.com was not always a free speech site. It made headlines a few years ago... it was a porn site.
- q3ctf4, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Let's close off our internet domain borders. 95% of the spam would go away and our traffic could flow freely."
You're a genius. Who cares if we would be isolating ourselves from the rest of the world and become like North Korea, at least 95% of the spam would be gone. - tzmguitarist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Does a forceable switch constitute violation of rights? The government has precedent in Imminent Domain all the time - allowing them to seize property for the purpose of public use and safety. Can this not be considered domain of public safety (no pun intended)?
I'm all for retaining rights; but I would like to hear the argument which validates the rejection of a proposal that could potentially make the internet a safer place for children. We filter our schools of distractions (obscene t-shirts, revealing clothing and even religion) to provide a distraction-free environment for our children to be educated. Why not the internet? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I don't see why the government can't just take the children, raise them and release them back into the wild when they are adults. That way they can grow up free of porn and no chance any of them will become liberals.
- maximusGeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I am for .xxx domain but how do we define what should be moved from .com? We currently have issues with legitimate sites getting blacklisted by websense and others. Would an editorial about the adult industrie's contribution to technology be forced to the .xxx? What about medical photos that include partial nude bodies? Holocaust photos?
- maximusGeek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5My mother went to whitehouse.com while at work. She was going to DC for a business trip and thought she might stop for a tour while she was in town. She didn't get what she was expecting.
- cyclotron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The entire objection to .XXX is that it will solidfy a place for porn on the 'net. Porn's position is already embedded on the net. Its the most successful 'net industry.
This is so retarded. We could make it a law the "content for sexual pleasure" must be on the .XXX domain. And then fliters could easily block those sites.
Then we could make a law that all Mexican beer sites must be on .XX Mexican beer can be filtered in a variety of ways. - NOFXY, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I agree. It's because of irresponsible parents that all adults must suffer rear windows on cars that don't roll down all the way, pill bottles that are difficult to open, stickers on the visors of cars warning us that children shouldn't sit on the front passenger seat, warnings on small objects that children might choke on them (as if it wasn't obvious enough by their flipping size!) there's many other things that i just cant think of right now but it does piss me off that the rest of society must put up with a couple of parents who have no idea what being a parent is.
ITS TIME FOR PARENTS TO BECOME PARENTS! ACCEPT YOUR FUH-KING RESPONSIBILITY AS ONE AND DO YOUR EFFING JOB!!
Sorry for that rant, mod me down if you must - neofactor, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9If only they passed this.... I could finally get suckmycock.com as a legitimate business name... but that damn porn site will get to keep it now. Greedy bastards!
I guess I will need to go with suckmycock.org - chrisc2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Because it would be so easy to enforce that any and all pornographic images can only be shown on .xxx domains?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4That's what some of us conservatives are proposing. There are many liberal parents out there who aren't fit to the task. They expose their children to things like public libraries where there is too much information about unclean, ungodly things. They pollute the minds of their children with the concept that government should be free of the word of the Lord. They destroy the chances that their children will ever enter the kingdom of God by allowing them to fill their minds with knowledge acquired through the works of man, like science, logic, philosophy and psychology. What we are working for is privatized, affordable schooling. It would be perfect. Imagine a Wal-Mart approach to boarding schools. Parents who don't have enough time to watch their kids can turn them over to us for proper upbringing so that they can enjoy successful and well formed American youth when they graduate. Liberal parents could be forced to turn their kids over to us since what they do is pretty much child abuse. All we need to do is change a few laws here and there in each state and this can be a reality. So who's with me?
- raitchison, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I'm conflicted on .xxx but ultimately I think it's unworkable.
It's a great idea, if you can restrict all the porn to .xxx domains it would be easy to block, easy enough that the average AOLer could probably figure it out given a how to guide with pretty pictures.
The problem is it's unenforcable, and if you even tried to enforce it you'd be censoring people. whitehouse . com is a great example, porn sites would be unwilling to abandon their .??? and move voluntarily to .xxx, are you somehow going to get TLD registrars to prevent registration or renewal of certian domains based on the content hosted? This would take money out of their pockets so isn't about to happen. These are the same people who want you to register a .net, .org and .whatever address when you are only looking for a .com.
We can't even keep .org for non-profits and .net for ISPs and Internet related companies there is no way Verisign is going to turn down money from a porn company for a .com domain. - stumpadoodle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I like how they assume that kids ALWAYS find the stuff by accident...
That's not how I remember it as a middle schooler :) - Dallas70, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I agree - most spammers ignore the 'Sexually Explicit' part of their e-mail or simply change the lettering for one simple reason: It bypasses the filters. If you require a .xxx domain you'll get Playboy and other large legit companies to comply, but good luck enforcing it with the rest of the industry, especially those that have no respect for the current law.
IMO the only thing this benefits is a stepping stone towards enforcing current laws, whether or not that happens...well, I'm not holding my breath - kevinmotel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3the porn industry is just that: an industry. it's a commercial entity that sells a good (pictures and movies of explicit material). it's no different than a website that sells any other good. the problem is that .xxx would result in someone other than the owner of the website deciding what is decent or not
- roguepirate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3.xxx would be really good for filtering purposes which is probably why the porn industry would lobby like crazy to not get stuck with the .xxx domain. I doubt it's the work of conservatives than it is the work of the porn industry to prevent themselves from getting filtered out in many places. The internet was huge for porn so limiting them to the .xxx domain would hurt their revenue.
- BonusEruptus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Why not create a .kids domain, and force all parents to use a whitelist that only allows *.kids? Have heavy penalties for anyone who tries to put porn on a .kids domain, and leave the rest of the net for regular people.
A whilelist is always easier to maintain than a blacklist, and you don't have the troublesome issue of having some government official determining what is obscene. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I didn't see that quote anywhere on the article. Source?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What site do you manage? I got money to burn!
- cope, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3the internet is run by a pack of *****.
- Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3OH...OH...OH I've got dibs on www.digg.xxx!
- omnithought, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3ICANN is forgetting one very important thing...
Sing it!
"The internet is for porn!
The internet is for porn!
Why you think the net was born?
PORN PORN PORN!" - vypergts, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I'm not a coder by any means but I think that it's pretty safe to assume that it's a lot easier to make a filter that blocks .xxx domains versus one that has to figure out whether or not a .com is safe...
Seriously, ICANN't understand why these people are in charge of this. Lobbyists already ***** up the US legislative system, who's idea was it to run the Internet the same way? - tehvsx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's just porn, not a doomsday device.
Sooner or later everyone witnesses it. -
Show 51 - 100 of 114 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is