What is Digg?103 Comments
- SlvrEagle23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+56Why is it always so obvious that an article was written with someone with no actual Internet experience?
"a child could simply punch in the numeric address of any blocked ".xxx" name."...oh, that's why.
Yes, that's right parents, your kids are going to school and swapping the IP addresses of porn sites. - Xageroth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+41The internet has porn?! What?
It must be hiding behind all those ".com"'s! - u8myfoood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+38"There will be twice as much pornography on the Internet."
either way there are too many porn sites to count! - zizzy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+32What I meant is twice as many domains does not equal twice as much porn.
- Jwymon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+33Let's get this right...
2 x infinity = infinity - Akaji, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31Well, technically, it does...
- BladeMelbourne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27@SlvrEagle23
IP addresses in the browser address bar may work for some sites, but many sites share a web server and an IP address. The way the web server identifies which site to load is via the host header. So kiddies would have to edit their hosts file.
I still remember getting pr0n on a floppy disk. No puns please. - nazsco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22.xxx is sugested because you can then outlaw everyone who puts porn in a non .xxx domain. I think
then, we're back to chasing our tails on What is considered porn and who determines it? - sparks2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19"Mark Kernes, a board member with the industry trade group Free Speech Coalition: "I have not met one single webmaster or adult video producer that is in favor of '.xxx,' and I've met a lot of them.""
Oh I see... he met a lot of producers.... uhum... - unxpernced, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16On the surface .xxx sounds like a good idea, but if you spend even 5 minutes researching the topic you'll realize that it will solve nothing. As the article mentions, an address geared toward kid friendly sites, say .child, has a better chance of realistically making sites easier to filter - but is still not perfect.
- KSUdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16As if the digg community didn't support online pornography before seeing this article.
- SierraAlpha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Then you'd just get sites like molesta.child
- mb3581, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16what happened to .tv and .biz and all the others that were suppsoed to be popular a couple years ago.. I only know of a couple mainstream sights that are anything other than .com .net or .org
- OneKingDown, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Why would there be more pornography? Wouldn't there just be more porn sites, with the same ol' porn as the rest of them?
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14FTA
"And because a domain name serves merely as an easy-to-remember moniker for a site's actual numeric Internet address, even if a government were to mandate its use, a child could simply punch in the numeric address of any blocked ".xxx" name."
So why don't they just designate an IP range for all the X-rated stuff? How about 69.69. etc. And for 'gay' stuff, just put it ass-backwards, 96.96. etc.
And I would guess the religious groups are against a specially designated domain name (or IP range) because if it exists, they and their followers can no longer pretend that porn doesn't exist. - dmason, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I completely agree. I thought *.xxx was a good idea, but then we might need *.violence for violent content or *.language for bad words. A *.child would be awesome.
- nerdjesus1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Well, if you'd have listened to the Daily Giz Wiz, you'd know that .tv is really the country code for a nation called Tuvalu.
- Naxr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11key point from the site:
"ICM Registry Inc., the company behind the proposal..."
"Trueman and other critics say ICM will be the only beneficiaries.
The startup, founded and funded by four entrepreneurs with backgrounds in domain names and British Internet companies, plans to charge $60 to register a name -- 10 times the fees for ".com." Ten dollars of it would go to a companion non-profit group that would set policies for ".xxx" use and recommend business practices for combating child pornography and promoting child safety." - ez12a, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10with .xxx suffix porno sites will be blocked easier by parents (insert corporate entity), which would stop kids (employees) from stumbling onto it, thus decreasing traffic dramatically as well as the number of potential clients.
however the .xxx suffix will also group all these types of sites together, which in a way makes them easier to access.
my 2 cents. - nazsco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9>> "There will be twice as much pornography on the Internet."
hooray for ipv6!
pr0n really drives the intraweb. - tmyprod, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Are you saying that's a bad thing?
- MaxPayne3476, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6how about this. Just don't visit porn sites? It's really not that hard to do!
- djAnakin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I've thought they should have done this years ago. Make all dedicated porn sites have .xxx so you know what's gonna be on the page. Sites like collegehumor and others that happen to post porn shouldn't have to. I guess the question is, who decides who does and doesn't have to, and who will regulate it?
- KSUdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7dl.tv
- jcapogna, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7gizwiz.biz
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Well if pron is really THAT prevalent, maybe they should concentrate on making a range that is NOT pron! heh heh
Or how about they just make two internets...one for porn and organized religion, and another for everything else! - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5How many dads does your best friend have?
- KiSA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4God I hope they force them to move the sites to .xxx domains. I mean, when I go looking at nakedlesbians.com, I do not expect to see any sort of pornography, but there it is. Hooray for freeing up those domain names so they can be filled with more dignified and informational material.
- SlvrEagle23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@BladeMelbourne
I'm aware of the issues involved with using IP addresses, but I deliberately left that out for the sake of sarcasm. The funny part there is the suggestion that children would even try that, not the fact that the porn server's configuration might cause them to fail...hell, the latter isn't even funny at all! - Nerys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I DO NOT GET THIS I work in the adult business and I think this is a FANTASTIC idea
there is no need to RESTRICT to .xxx just make sure you END UP at .xxx so if you get a .com you must FORWARD to your .xxx since you will always end at .xxx the filtering will work.
as for IP just lock down the machine to not accept direct IP entry or just have the filter (online filter at ISP level) note the ip's to .xxx and block those as well (duh!)
then the adult business go run unrestricted online without worrying and parents can let there kids online without worrying.
the trick will be to make sure ALL pornographic content ends up somewhere somehow at a .xxx AND that its CLEARLY defined so people with adult but NOT pornographic content do not have to be caught by this filter.
Only a moron would object to this its a fantastic idea. We would just have to make it illegal for ISP's to filter without permission (otherwise you get into big time 1st amendment issues which I have strong feelings about)
The whole point is not to hide it from the kids the point is to make it relatively simply to segregate the content at a parents discretion. YES if a destermined kid wants to get it he will but at least its a determined effort not a click click hey whats this accident.
there IS a difference and I think its a excellent solution. and once .xxx is the total domain name for all pornographic content it will be a LOT easier for for programmers to make more effective software to filter content for your children. IE harder for your kids to defeat it.
I DO NOT agree with forbidding porn sites from having other than .xxx that is just plain wrong. Just make sure your non .xxx FORWARDS to a .xxx
thats all. EASY solution. - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4LMAO I wanna reserve jesuslovesyou.xxx
- robarahz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Even if it was approved, it brings up an age old problem: What is considered porn and who determines it?
- imfm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I couldn't care less how much porn is on the Internet. If I wanted it, I'd find it, and since I don't (not a guy), I don't look for it. If there wasn't a demand for it, it wouldn't exist. A .kids domain makes more sense to me because sites would want to get a "kid safe" stamp of approval, but a porn site wants to reach as many credit card-holding breathing bodies as possible, not brand itself "bad". It's hard to stumble upon porn if you're not looking for it (or searching warez sites for pirated software and cracks), so it's really not much of an issue for little kids, and teenagers...well, teenagers look for porn. Mostly boys, but some girls, too. Monitor them as best you can, but eventually, they're going to (gasp!) be exposed to porn. It won't scar them for life any more than it scarred you for life to see the Hustler magazines that Dad had hidden in the back of the closet (and you know you looked).
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Two groups fighting the same enemy without coordination between them can hardly be called an alliance.
- wonboodoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ray73864 & N1VAD
Regarding your "force them to move to .xxx" comments. Besides it just being a retarded suggestion (why not move violence to a different domain too? Or sites about drug use? Or sites about stealing? ... etc), you have an additional problem. Can you answer this:
What is porn?
The U.S. legal system has been unable to answer that question for years. By saying it's a representation of a naked human (photos or writings), or a representation of a sexual act, or whatever, you are effectively banning important literature, art (Greek statues, Picasso, ... etc), news items, ... etc to ".xxx" domains. Guess what now gets blocked by the filters? A good chunk of culture, history, and news.
While I'm not against the creation of ".xxx" that is used voluntarily there are so many civil liberties trampled on by forcing them to move that it's a ridiculous suggestion. - bytefoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Damn my puritan ancestors!
- coditza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No, introducing .XXX for porn sites won't do any good to the internet in general. This will only add the building blocks for gov regulated website, where someone else is telling you what to put on your own site.
The better solution will be a set of rules for advertising the content of your site. http://www.icra.org/sitelabel/ does a good job at doing this. Also, pornografic web sites should show you a warning the first time you visit it (like kindgirls.com and girls.coada.net do). And the most important of them all would be that these rules be enforced in some way. - jetsetgo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Easier to access? is this .xxx domain somehow going to change google? WTF?
- DigitalJester, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I can see it now.
'Google ventures into the Porn Business with Google.xxx
Search for your favorite porn with a slick, easy to use interface' - KlayBorg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3From the article:
"The Web site measurement firm said 4 percent of all Web traffic and 2 percent of all time spent Web surfing involved an adult site."
Only 4%?
But the internet is made for porn! - HigherLogic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2On paper this sounds good, but so do a lot of other things.
Look at how all the other extensions caught on, like .tv and .biz (sarcasm should be noted here).
Porn companies are still going to buy up the favorite .com domain name, there's just too much value in those domains (from a guessing standpoint...for example, how many of you have tried typing in something.com...well, not actually something.com [which I'm sure people have tried], but major keywords in hopes of finding exactly what you're looking for?)
And someone said early on in the comments that if they designate all pornographic material to .xxx, then who is in charge of determing what pornographic actually is? Should we then take that a step further and break websites down purely by what bothers us because of our moral beliefs with TLD extensions? Someone said, hey, let's put all the violent websites on .violence. You can keep going with this, but ultimately, who decides, and does this really serve a purpose besides giving more people the opportunity to come up with neato domain names with the TLD.
If that's the case, shouldn't all religious websites be on their own extension? Maybe they should go to the .BS extension, that way if a parent wants to keep religion out of the internet, they can...
It just seems to me that, the more TLDs we have, the more complication involved. People are always looking for the "big three" (com, net, org...and seriously, out of all of those, the .com domain still holds the most power, will for quite some time).
I really don't know if there's a solution, porn is here to stay. Has been for quite some time, internet or not. If some people have an issue with that (read as moral police, religious folk), then hey, maybe they're the ones that need their own little special internet to block against liberal views, porn, violence, and all the 'evils' of the net. - NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2". The way the web server identifies which site to load is via the host header. So kiddies would have to edit their hosts file."
Back in my day I remember building some ***** angelfire site in comp sci. Spread netbus through the network, went home, logged into the system and modified the hosts for all the computers.
The next day we started our class with some hardcore pornography and then early dismissal... very early. - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3One side-effect that nobody's considered yet.
Who would buy google.xxx? Or microsoft.xxx? Would Microsoft buy microsoft.xxx and redirect it to microsoft.com? That would defeat the purpose of .xxx. Or would some other company buy microsoft.xxx, and turn it into a mockery of Microsoft? - Dragon88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"There will be twice as much pornography on the Internet."
Twice as much? That would be like... *tries to comprehend*.... *head explodes.* - b04155, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The Free Speech Coalition believes a domain name for kids-friendly sites would be more appropriate."
I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest .kid - obby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@N1VAD "I only wish that they would require all current site owners to move there porn over to the .XXX"
Could you imagine the headache that would cause. You would have domain squatters buying up everything they could. If they asked me and the rest of my country to move my ccTLD to a .cdn domain, you can bet some wise ass will buy all the domains he can so he can rip off the owners. - chemicalallan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2pr0nz, on my internets?!?!?
It's more likely then you think - nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Its already been defined by the courts and legislatures....your point is meaningless.
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If there was a domain specially for kids, who would protect them from the viral marketing campaigns of poisons, like McDonalds garbage, and Coca Cola poison and high fructose corn syrup-toxic beverages in general? ...Certainly NOT the FDA. or other corporate-controlled government agencies.
Ultimately, the only real protection for kids, or anyone, is AWARENESS! And it is gotten through (better) education and real honesty from others. - funkytommyman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2its a great idea. if i ever ACTUALLY wanted to look up the term "snowball" i would know which links not to click on
-
Show 51 - 100 of 103 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