What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
163 Comments
- trekkie, on 10/12/2007, -10/+612+1 just for the headline.
- leontes, on 10/12/2007, -14/+197Putting the head back into headline!
Err. I'm glad it came quickly to the the point!
err. It's just another cockamamy pun! - re0turin, on 10/12/2007, -10/+186I'm sorry but this idea is a little hard to swallow, it just leaves a bad taste in your mouth, and I can see why the churches who are anti-porn would try and beat this off.
- LogicBomB, on 10/12/2007, -11/+113Why is this opposed by religious groups? It's pretty much saying "we want to move all the porn into one place so it's easier to block and avoid" or "let's take it out of the mix and put it in 1 place". It's retarded to say this is anything but a good idea...
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -3/+98.com = pr0n
.net = pr0n
.org = pr0n
.us = pr0n
.xxx = pr0n - amercer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+72I see what you did there.
- hockey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+45@stuartcow
The sheer irony is when the original poster cut and pasted the first paragraph it was cut off on "The .xxx proposal is opposed by conservative religious groups" when the full sentence in fact reads: "The .xxx proposal is opposed by conservative religious groups, the American Civil Liberties Union, and a significant number of Internet pornographers."
Since no one on digg will ever RTFA they just assume that it's only conservative religious groups who oppose the new proposal. - repruhsent, on 10/12/2007, -15/+58Seconded. This is the best headline I've read in a long time.
- WarpFox, on 10/12/2007, -5/+42Headline wins 1 free internet
- monergism, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34If this happens I'd like to see all the TLDs reflect what the heck they represent.
.com = company, corporate, commercial
.net = networks
.org = organizations, non-profit
.us = US based websites.
.xxx = pr0n, adult material (and sales) - ahawks, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34If you ask me, fark is the poor man's fark.
- bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -6/+30Forcing porn sites to move to it is idiotic.
However, I think it'd be kind of interesting to register xxx.xxx and set up the subdomain xxx.xxx.xxx - evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27@logicbomb
Because then you're admitting that it's a legitimate use of bandwidth, instead of being teh devil. - venir, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27I don't know, are you?
- digginghacker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22the idea breaks if you don't make EVERYONE do it.
the point i'm getting from it is to let a nine year old who knows VB to make a web filter that takes out 100% of porn on the internets.
just block all sites named *.xxx - repruhsent, on 10/12/2007, -12/+32Dugg for more double entendre goodness.
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22It's a trap!
- wozley, on 10/12/2007, -19/+37Ditto. GG.
- StantheBat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Why not do the same thing in libraries? You could have porn mixed in with every subject, except for one small shelf of children's books. Then you could just prevent children from looking anywhere in the library except that one shelf.
Seriously- there's a tremendous wealth of information on the internet that's appropriate for kids but isn't specifically intended just for kids, and so wouldn't belong in a .kids domain. Sequestering kids away from all that information, and letting porn sites have the run of the place, strikes me as a terrible idea. - troymcdavis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18At logicbomb: Since the program is optional, porn companies are just going to by the .xxx domain, and keep their .com or .net or whatever. That means that there will be twice as many references to the porn (our not so tech-savvy clergy think this is the same as "twice as much porn on the internet"; it is not). So, rather than making it easier to block, it will make it no less easy to block (as blocks will still have to deal with the original address) and it will be far more easy to access (just type in anything.xxx and see what comes up).
- LucerinRed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16I actually support something like this. It helps keep content out of reach of those who shouldn't be viewing it or viewing it in places it shouldn't be viewed. I don't agree with censorship, but limiting access or giving someone proper tools to filter out improper content is another.
The whole argument against it that I have seen is that these companies don't want to give up their .com status that they've invested so much money in. I don't see why they can't be allowed to keep the main page a .com and all subsequent content be on a .xxx domain. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15"I don't care who you are, but you should be looking at porn."
Really? Even my 4-year-old brother? Get off the internet. - elev, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9actually, it would be triple x³
- gateway, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15your not going to get world wide compliance, its a lot better to have a .kids domain which will be a lot easier to police and filter your home computers to only show .kids, .xxx is a bunch of BS and a way for the government to control what is considered adult (remember alto of sites have nudity on them doesn't make them porn). Just head on over to http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/FSCView.asp?action=preview&coid=138 and read the opposition about this and if you really care about free speech and rights well time to step up. I vote for .kids
- saladtossser, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13wouldn't this be good for everyone? since it will be easier to spot and block anything with .xxx
- Fastamber, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11I don't use the internet for porn and I can see how this .xxx thing would be helpful.
- AmazingAndrex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@pile:
I suggest .God. - therainmaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I have a better idea for protecting kids on the internet. It's this thing called parenting. It's not allowing some 13 year old girl to sit in her room chatting on her webcam all day to strangers. Not letting your 14 year old son post every detail of his life on Myspace. There is no TLD that's going to protect children online. And even if there was, it's not the biggest problem facing kids online. Just take a look at Myspace or YouTube and run some creative searches, it's a pedophiles dream.
All .XXX is a $70 a domain cash cow for the creators of it. It's also a quick and easy way for uneducated congressmen to censor the web. There are already bills on the table in the US to require adult sites move to a .xxx domain. When this passes, it will just ramp up that legislation. Perhaps they'll make it necessary to prove to your ISP that you are 18 to access the .XXX tlds. And what falls under the adult category? Does Maxim, Victoria Secrets, and celebrity blogs that show pantyless upskirt shots fall in that category? Who determines this?
This is nothing but a way to censor things on the web. Don't be fooled by the "protecting children" rhetoric. This won't eliminate porn sites overseas. It's a quick cash grab that allows your government and ISP to censor material online. Will gambling and violence domains be next? - SwellGuy007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Seriously? Ask yourself this when your 10 year old is chatting with someone named suckme_007 or something similar and watching deep throat porn downloaded on a peer to peer network. I don't think you have to be a religious nut to want your children to learn about sexuality in a healthy way. I don't want some fat, greasy little pig like Ron Jeremy teaching my kids about sex.
- Phisolo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7 "I don't use the internet for porn"
Yeah, you read it for the Articles. - Trention, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16I don't see the problem with a XXX TLKD, so long as it remains optional. The idea of trying to force the entire planet into using it exclusively for porn is stupid, however, and I dare say it makes the US look a little dumb.
- Ackoogin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The 'analcumsluts' part before the .com doesn't give them a raging clue?
- AnteChronos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@monergism
You forgot .mil = military. But then, most people do. - SamsLembas, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I am confused. Why would conservatives oppose this? Am I missing something obvious?
- RobotCitizen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Headline dugg. Clever without trying too hard.
- digginghacker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@LucerinRed
because of sites like porn.org - foamcow, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8surely the religion TLD should be .god
- fcekuahd, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Oh yeah, that's great. .kids would be a popular destination for pedophiles.
- VinceIP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This is a bad idea. If all the porn sites get changed to .xxx, then it's just easier for my family to realize I've been pr0n surfing simply due to the .xxx extension.
- DonKarnage25, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Can't deny a great headline full of puns.
- metalhead3767, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It wouldn't matter. www.superpornsite.com could have no porn on it. Just a window.location script that would go to www.superpornsite.xxx
- davidsmero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Stiff......uhuhuh...you said stiff uhuhuh
- almostmanda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"the idea breaks if you don't make EVERYONE do it."
That'd be great, if it were possible. - tony23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Or, you could get parents to pay attention to what their kids are doing.
- Phisolo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Because then they could not claim "pop ups" when their wives or parishioners find p0rn on their computers.
Keep it hard to block. That way their is plausible deniability when they get caught with their mouse down. - Phisolo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"Why is this opposed by religious groups? It's pretty much saying "we want to move all the porn into one place so it's easier to block and avoid" or "let's take it out of the mix and put it in 1 place". It's retarded to say this is anything but a good idea..."
Because then they could not claim "pop ups" when their wives or parishioners find p0rn on their computers. Keep it hard to block. That way their is plausible deniability when they get caught. - Hubris, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7You noticed that in the article it mentioned the only group who is really pushing this idea are domain registrars, who want to have a flurry of new domain registrations. ICANN don't want to be saddled with enforcing this.....and pornographers don't want to be forced into a virtual red light district.
Regardless of whether it could be a good way of preventing the unwanted viewing of adult material, as it has been proposed, this is nothing but a money-making venture for registrars......not a valid solution to social problems. - MLyzz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I think that they should require ALL sexually-driven content to be registered under this domain. No more white house dot com accidental porno trips. Think of how easy it would be to protect young children from the sex sites - its a smart idea.
- MattLee09, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"...The conservative Family Research Council, which inundated the Department of Commerce with thousands of e-mail messages arguing that the establishment of the .xxx TLD would legitimize Internet pornography and make it more accessible while "giving false hope to parents who want to protect their families from pornography."
If it would truly have an effect on legitimizing Internet pornography as this group claims, I am all for it. I mean, "the internet is for porn", no?
However, I really doubt that parents who want to protect their families from porn, understand the society of today quite as I see it. Sexual innuendos are everywhere, at school, on the radio, in books...in news headlines... - Burninsensation, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Finally Christians, the ACLU, and Pornographers can agree on something.
I give it credit just for bringing everyone together. -
Show 51 - 100 of 163 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is