digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Unusual Alliance Fights .XXX Creation

seattlepi.nwsource.com — Online pornographers and religious groups are in a rare alliance as a key Internet oversight agency nears a decision on creating a virtual red-light district through a ".xxx" Internet address.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 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!
    • Xageroth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+41The internet has porn?! What?
      It must be hiding behind all those ".com"'s!
    • 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.
    • 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?
    • 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.
    • 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...
    • 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!
    • 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.
    • Jwymon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+33Let's get this right...

      2 x infinity = infinity
    • nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2>a child could simply punch in the numeric address of any blocked


      You have not clue how a filter works do you? Any filter will automatically do a lookup of the IP to find out what its real domain name is and filter it anyway. I have not seen a filter you could around by just using an IP since the mid 90's.

    • N1VAD, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3This sounds like a fine idea to me. I only wish that they would require all current site owners to move there porn over to the .XXX so that it would make blocking the junk that much easier for parents!
    • 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.

    • ray73864, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I agree, having a .xxx TLD and forcing all porn sites to move to it would then allow programs like 'netnanny' 'cyberfilter' 'ISA Server' etc... to effectivelly block all the sites in one go thus removing porn sites from schools and from the eyes of the children.

      Hillary Clinton help stop the .xxx TLD from going through the first time, all i can say is religious groups and governments must be very much blind when it comes to these things, especially if they can't see how much of a benefit it would provide to filtering the content out.

      I can see why the porno industry would not want it to happen, because then there content would be easilly filtered.
    • 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!
    • 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.
    • KamikazeeDriver, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"either way there are too many porn sites to count!"

      I agree, there's so much porn on the internet, you can pretty much just type in www.yournamehere.com and it's a porn site.
    • 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.
    • 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.*
    • fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm guessing the reason is .xxx domains will be bulk registered within 3 seconds and porno sites will have their brands weakened or the .xxx version of their domains ransommed.
    • link_36p, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is a really good idea if coupled with a few laws making hardcore pornagraphic material exclusive to .xxx......
      Wait there are no internet laws lol oh well....
      Just saying is make the blocking softwares job a whole lot easier lol, but kids are so smart now days.
  • tmyprod, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Are you saying that's a bad thing?
    • 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?
  • zizzy, on 10/12/2007, -22/+3Twice as many domains does not equal twice as many sites.
    • Akaji, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31Well, technically, it does...
    • zizzy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+32What I meant is twice as many domains does not equal twice as much porn.
    • BladeMelbourne, on 10/12/2007, -21/+6The amount doesn't matter (it's quality not quantity). After all, I just need 5 mins of it, 5 times a day. lol
      And no, I am not talking about praying to the Derka Derka infidel.
    • spookyttws, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6@BladeMelbourne

      Not only a very sophomoric comment, but a racist one to boot! And....you're blocked.
    • BladeMelbourne, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6@spookyttws

      Racism has absolutely nothing to do with praying or religion. And....you're blocked.
    • Lennalf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You honestly don't see how "Derka derka" is racist?

      Do you have Brushfield spots?
  • 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.
    • 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.
    • SierraAlpha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Then you'd just get sites like molesta.child
    • MaxPayne3476, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Actually, the idea of .child would be a nice idea! Basically, figure a content-controlled domain so no Molesta.child wouldn't be allowed. But then, who would run it?
    • mhockey14221, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1www.google.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
    • 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.
    • jcapogna, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7gizwiz.biz
    • KSUdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7dl.tv
    • MaxPayne3476, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2i don't know, but buying them is expensive as hell!
  • 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."
  • Bey0ndtheGr4ve, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1wonder what the keyboard shortcut for it would be
  • 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.
    • Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3no they are worried as the article says
      that this will make porn more acceptable
      like gay marrige would make other immoralities exceptable
    • tendonut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That would only be about 65,000 IP addresses if my math is correct (of course, correct me if I am wrong) and I can see that range fill up rather quick. Also, that would be 65,000 IP addresses that are probably already assigned to something else, especially if some ISP already "owns" that range for their own subscribers.
    • 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!
    • MaxPayne3476, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What about hosts that are hosting sites other then just porn? They have technically the same IP address. What about someone who is hosting the porn site from their own PC or FTP?
  • SP420, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Jesus, porn webmasters know that all these tools are going to be given to parents and the like to block the .xxx domain, so why the hell would they want to limit their hit counts? Cmon. There's too much porn out there to begin. Only an immeasurable fraction would go to .xxx if it were established.
  • Dustyb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I've been wondering why Christians have been fighting making a .XXX... As a Christian I know that I can't take down porn sites but if all pornographic (or some even) sites where on .XXX it would be a lot easier for me to run a blocking program and just enter in *.XXX to a website filtering program and never have to deal with pornography on the internet.
    • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5So if you don't have to deal with it, then the problem goes away? That sounds so selfish and personal, and 'in denial.'
      I thought you folks at least CLAIMED to be working for the good of us all!
      I guess not! ;-)
      (And I thank 'Science' for that!)
    • MaxPayne3476, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6how about this. Just don't visit porn sites? It's really not that hard to do!
  • kelly, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2Clever summary... mention "religious groups" (as if we're all a single unit of like-minded ideals) so that the digg community, automatically supports online pornographers.
    • KSUdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16As if the digg community didn't support online pornography before seeing this article.
  • 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.
    • jetsetgo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Easier to access? is this .xxx domain somehow going to change google? WTF?
  • 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?
    • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2But who decides (or who SHOULD decide) who else can get their own domain suffix?
      Suppose all the people who like to trade cheesecake recipes wanted their own domain? And don't forget all those who keep gerbils as pets (maybe .ger )...the list goes on.

      Why should one group get a special treatment by ICANN?

      And why are the people in ICANN qualified to make those choices for us all? Who are they? Did we all get together and elect them?
      I say we need to overthrow the ICANN internet overlords, and have democratic elections.
      And I nominate Kevin Rose!

      (How about a domain for organized religion: .lie!)
    • Raidenwolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Pretty simple if it's Playboy quality it's not porn. If some dude is spraying cream all over some chicks face it's porn. Isn't porn just some form of media recording sexual acts. You know sexy naked picture not porn. Sexy naked picture with dildo in an orifice Porn.

      What the .xxx would do is keep simple mistakes from happening. I remember 12 years back 95 96 I was teaching some people 6-7 women in a department about the Internet, they were gathered around one desk. The Internet was new to the work place and we had a 56k isdn line yoohoo. Anyway I was showing them that like if you want to goto IBM site then try www.ibm.com or for ftd use ftd.com Then I said like the whitehouse (like a dumb ass) you would type www.whitehouse.com (notice not gov) so up pops porn with all sorts of money shots and the popups just keep coming some of these women are all old enough to be my mom, and a Vice Pres was walking down the aisle towards us. Popups still coming up women laughing. I'm still closing popups. He's like one cubicle away I just jump up and pull the power plug. One girl close to my age said she pee'd herself. Everyone else is laughing cause they will not let the VP in on it. And I was scared *****. For the rest of the week all those women would make funny comments, "so you like that whitehouse huh ?"
      Come to think of it That was awesome.
  • seehuge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Woah, Patrick Trueman is one of my best friend's dad. I just called up his son to let him know he hit the front page of digg.
    • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5How many dads does your best friend have?
  • 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?
    • PKO17, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah. I also can't imagine how you would force millions of porn .com's to become .xxx's.
  • 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).
    • 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.
  • 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'
  • hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Two groups fighting the same enemy without coordination between them can hardly be called an alliance.
  • Lokomis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Nothing but hype and planning to solve a 'problem' nobody ***** gets to begin with. It's like this year's Daylight Savings or Y2k on a less epic but equally stupid scale.

    "...domain name for voluntary use by porn sites..."

    There is an extremely important five-dollar word in that string. Can (vol) anyone (unt) else spot (ary) it?

    Meh, at least we can capitalize. If this looks like it's going to pass, you better believe I'll be purchasing se.xxx, sex.xxx, teens.xxx and whatever else floats to the top of my head for resale purposes.

    ...

    now selling: AnalPlundering.xxx at a starting bid of 1337.
    • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1All your dot-XXX are belong to us!
  • 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.
  • t0ny, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3What f*ck is wrong with people, there is porn on the internet and it will stay. So whats wrong with .xxx? Nothing, it will give the porn people different domain names to use and a easy way for filters to block some porn.
  • burjzyntski, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0why not just *.porn?
    • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1uh...because current servers can only recognize a three letter suffix...which is why all the ***** is gonna crash on
      January 1,2010, when the new 45 letter alphabet kicks in.
  • mapkinase, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1There is nothing unusual, because there is no alliance. The fact that two groups oppose the same thing, does not mean they are coordinating with each other, which is a necessary prerequisite of alliance.
  • billraydrums, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bottom line- you can't have it both ways; It's just like cigs, alcohol, or any other vice- if it's available, people will buy it (metaphorically speaking). If it's not, they'll find a way to get it.

    You can't hide things from your kids. They WILL find them.
  • 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?
    • nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3They reserve such names already trademark holders for other domain types and they simply would not be allowed... your point is meaningless. They have already solved this issue a long time ago for other domains.

    • Lennalf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you buy microsoft.com you will get your ass sued. Reference "mikerowesoft.com"
  • nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1

    This is LONG OVERDUE.... It would be cool to have all porn listed as .xxx.


    The whole "fear" and "scaryness" of the internet would be a lame argument then... much of that is due to the fact that the current DNS .com is a total mess.




    The deal is this: THERE IS ALREADY a bill introduced into the congress this session (by a DEM) that will make it a US Federal Crime if you allow porn content to be viewed by minors.

    The cheapest, and easiest way for the porn industry to comply is to go for this .xxx domain, and then they can say "hey we are .xxx domain, if you didn't properly filter us, thats your fault".


    If this law takes effect than the porn site will be held accountable if someone ELSE does not filter the content out like say a school properly.


    The porn industry had better get their act together or some anti-port zelot will have a field day with them eventually...after all whos gonna vote against "the kids"?!

    • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1"...that will make it a US Federal Crime if you allow porn content to be viewed by minors."

      Too bad it's not a federal crime to order a military stand-down, and then fire a missile into the Pentagon and tell everybody it was a jumbo jet under the control of foreign terrorists!
    • wonboodoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@waterdragon
      Ummm .... that is a crime. Thanks troll, and blocked.
  • 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, -1/+1"then the adult business go run unrestricted online without worrying and parents can let there kids online without worrying."

      It sounds simple, but it is not!
      Why shouldn't they do the same for super-violent images of murder and destruction, so they too can be blocked from kids?

      Oh wait...but then the 'game' industry would get upset, as would a lot of children who are being raised on that kind of disgusting, anti-human violence. WoW! Kids will just have to adapt, or continue growing up to be violent, depraved a**holes whose lives just provide canon-fodder for the rich bastard overlords!

      The argument is simple: Why should kids be protected from 'porn' (like naked titties and pussies), but be allowed to watch all kinds of sick violence?
    • wonboodoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"the trick will be to make sure ALL pornographic content ends up somewhere somehow at a .xxx"

      And what exactly is pornography? Can you define it without banishing important literature, paintings, sculptures, photography, & news to ".xxx" and being effectively blocked? I didn't think so.
    • nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Its already been defined by the courts and legislatures....your point is meaningless.
  • chemicalallan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2pr0nz, on my internets?!?!?

    It's more likely then you think
  • 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.
  • 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
    • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yeah...remember that story about the little girl, who's mom said she could get a kitty cat? She wasn't sure what kind she wanted, so she went online and Googled the term 'pussy cat'...and all sorts of inappropriate things popped up.
  • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4LMAO I wanna reserve jesuslovesyou.xxx
  • 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.
    • nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>who is in charge of determing what pornographic actually is

      Ummm its already been legally defined by the legislature and courts 10x over, thats a strawman.
    • HigherLogic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, I realize that, but the Internet is a global thing. For example, some people consider the Super Bowl incident in 2004 to be pornographic, though in most countries in Europe, a nipple is not grounds for porn...one man's porn is another man's Sears catalog.

      Are these people who advocate putting all pornographic material onto an XXX TLD going to raise a commotion over anything that isn't there?
    • wonboodoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>>who is in charge of determing what pornographic actually is
      >Ummm its already been legally defined by the legislature and courts 10x over, thats a strawman.

      No it hasn't. Anytime it was defined it was later struck down by a higher court. Show me the legal definition.

      thanks,
      Strawman.
  • thenet411, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This is complete BS. The ONLY reason these porn idiots don't want to be forced into a .XXX TLD is because they would actually be easy to block! Imagine that!
    • HigherLogic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Or easier to find (not like it's a challenge)...
    • supaflystud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They wouldn't be forcing them:

      "Porn sites are largely concerned that the domain name, while billed as ***voluntary***, would make it easier for governments to later mandate its use and "essentially ghettoize sexual information on the Web," Kernes said."

      They would still have their "sexsite".com, but most would "voluntarily" register "sexsite".xxx just to obtain the name. That's why both religious groups and the online porn industry object to it. Religious groups don't like the additional porn domains, while the porn industry doesn't like the duplication.
  • Ninja337, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I would not pay extra for a gay .xxx domain.
  • 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
  • electricarc89, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Online pornographers and religious groups working together?

    This is just a harbinger of the upcoming PirateBay + RIAA alliance... they figured they'd work us into it slowly so nobody notices.
  • stray, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not unusual. Pornographers don't want a ".xxx" top-level domain because then they can be forced into it and then walled off by fundamentalists.
  • zbeast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sorry this is a bad Idea. Whats x rated? talk about birth control? erotic cartoons? story's that have sex in them.
    The only advantage that this would created is for companies with deep pockets snatching up all the domain names in the
    .xxx Domain and blocking out competitors.
    This all about money it's not about making easy to block access to porn by little lisa.


  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.