Plans for an area of the internet dedicated to pornography were killed last night in a vote by overseeing organisation ICANN. In a split 9-5 board decision, the organisation acted ruthlessly, against its own previous position, in order to put an end to an increasingly difficult and controversial issue - the approval of a .xxx top-level domain.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-11-10
I've never seen the point. How does a new TLD make room for more addresses when no sane normal company would want analgangbang.com anyway? Don't all the porn websites all have porn names to begin with?
Although introducing a .xxx would mean that hundreds, maybe thousands of companies would have to immediately buy up several extra domain names to protect their existing .com's from being shadowed by another company. And that adds up to lots of tax dollars 
Member since:2005-07-06
I've never seen the point. How does a new TLD make room for more addresses when no sane normal company would want analgangbang.com anyway? Don't all the porn websites all have porn names to begin with?
Not necessarily. For example, Madonna.com was first used, supposedly in a non-cybersquatting manner, by an Italian porn company. I could name more examples, but I'd rather not here 
Member since:
2005-11-19
The idea of having a "red light district" on the internet seems like one idea of funneling porn into a single, easily blockable, TLD or face a fine. Who'd police the rest of the internet for porn, on the other hand, remains to be a bigger issue. There are already laws regulating use of cables to transmit smut that are underenforced here in the U.S. so why introduce another one? There should be better ways to police the internet against illegal porn than this.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2006-01-10
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-11-19
Member since:
2006-05-11
Member since:
2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Well, Ms is more vicious and porn than any XXX....
Member since:
2006-01-03
#1 They can't force anyone into the .xxx domain, so instead of controlling where porn is they just create another TLD for porn to propagate to.
#2 WHO gets to decide what porn is?
Everyone has their own opinion of what porn is and isn't about so you could never get a consensus on #2.
The .xxx domain is a bad idea that should have been dropped and I am glad it was.
Member since:
2005-06-29
Member since:2006-01-09
Member since:2006-01-03
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-07
Member since:2005-07-13
What If I'm a webdesigner who wants a domain like linu.xxx, or all.uni.xxx?
Well, if you were interested in generating traffic, you'd effectively be locking yourself out of viewers trying to access from public schools, institutions and most likely anywhere in Utah.
I mean, sure it's meant for porn but the sufix can have some very interesting legitimate uses
Ay, carumba! You're implying porn isn't legitimate?
Many of the things we take for granted on the net today were driven by and pioneered by porn. Online porn drove streaming media, e-comm, webchat, conferencing, traffic management etc. I strongly suspect porn drove adoption of broadband for residential customers. For years, porn sites were the only ones figuring out how to make money on the web, and to this day still represent one of the largest chunks of e-comm transactions today.
Hell, back in the day companies like Cisco would "unofficially" test new gear on popular porn sites because they were the one sure source of real-world high load web traffic.
You don't have to enjoy porn to respect what it has done for us all.
/tongue-in-cheek-but-ironically-true
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:2005-08-13
-> < Porn develops the web we so love >
Amen - 
- very neccessary post & true .
"xxx" - domain ?
Hmmm I think as said before that this something which should have been pushed years ago in order to categorize websites by their suffix .
BTW is there a ".god" - that would sell well .
Endings for all the differents beliefs & opinions out there
Actually cant we simply get rid of that system & have descriptive names for sites for example ?
No http or slashes or www or all these suffixes ... its really looking a bit dated to my eyes .
:)
Member since:
2005-11-16
I've never understood why they're so against .xxx when it could potentially make it easier to control access to those sites. If they don't want their kids browsing playboy.com, wouldn't creating a porn ghetto on the Internet be a step in the right direction?
I'm sure they'd prefer to wipe pornography off the planet entirely, but while there's so much demand for it that's rather unlikely to happen. Is this just a knee-jerk reaction to anything vaguely porn related?
Maybe without .xxx it's easier for them to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that internet pornography doesn't exist, and isn't actually a multi-million dollar business.
Member since:2006-01-03
RE: ICANN can eat my short
Member since:2005-07-10
Yeah, because they're doing such a bad job with for instance the international phone system? Or are you just giving us a typical ignorant american "all about UN sucks" comment? (I'm not trolling here, but I just haven't seen anyone but americans make these statements.)
I'd suggest you familiarize yourself a bit with what the UN actually does, and maybe look into those "scandals" you were thinking of. If I read your post correctly, that is...
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-08-02
Maybe not the UN, but there definitely needs to be some sort of international oversight on the internet, rather than the US only. This whole "net neutrality" argument is bad enough, but it really puts egg on America's face if ISP's are allowed to create a tiered internet. If they really were doing a good job of managing the internet in everybody's best interest, it wouldn't even be an issue.
To be fair, the ISP partitioning scheme hasn't kicked in yet. If it does, though, I think US oversight should be yanked at that point.
Member since:2005-09-15
werfu said: "those fagets have been bought by the pr0n industry and at the same time the stupid religous right wing. While creating a red light disctrict and enforcing porn to the XXX domain they could have had a great deal for child protection."
Me: that's actually not true at all. In the late 90's a guy (forgive me I don't recall his name) in Seattle that had the nickname at the time "the king of net porn" first proposed the idea of a "red light district" on the net to congress. So the porn industry actually are the ones who WANTED this. They know there's more than enough people who will legitimately/legally use it so there's no need for them to attract minors etc...
Member since:
2005-06-29
Member since:
2005-11-15
Member since:
2006-01-08
This entire idea of creating a domain then forcing people showing/saying things that you don't agree with onto it is backwards.
If you want to create a place where everyone lives by your standards create a gated community. If instead of wasting all this time trying to create a .xxx tld they created a .safe tld and only let sites they approve of onto it they would actually have something today. Parents could use a filter to only allow sites in the .safe domain and be confident that their children are not viewing porn.
Two groups have different views on what is safe, no problem. Each of them can have their own community that lives up to their own standards.
The problem is the people pushing for a .xxx tld are not interested in creating something useful. They are interested in forcing their beliefs onto other people. How else can you explain their choice to pursue the most invasive least practical solution
Member since:
2005-08-18
Member since:
2005-08-18
Member since:
2005-08-18
Onthe contrary, abandoning the .xxx domain idea is not pointless. .xxx would never have worked for numerous reasons:
1) Existing pornsites will not relocate to a new, much more expensive domain.
2) You would have to get a universal agreement with ALL registrars and ccTLD's that they force "porn sites" to use .xxx domains. You'd also have to get them all to agree on a common definition of "porn", see 3.
3) Who decides what's porn? Different countries have different views and legislation on this and if you would cater to them all any site that showed even a nipple would be "porn".
More importantly, where do you draw the line? Some governments consider democracy a "dangerous idea". Should we create a .democracy domain so that they easily can block it?
The .xxx proposal was stupid from the start and it's a good thing ICANN has finally had the sense to drop it.
Member since:
2006-01-14
It's not that new, but reading the story at the registry it looks like internet related thing are introduced in US. Has that been the same for other TLDs, like .com of .co.uk, etc?
Although I think PORN is made to do something with te mind and body in erotic ways, there was nothing in this article that gets me excited. :-)
It's quite known that the most conservative places in the western world are the biggest sellers of PORN-related material. Maybe the .xxx domain was ment to find stuff faster....
Member since:
2005-11-11
Actually, there are lots of places where porn is illegal. Utah comes to mind first off.
No surprise there. Though it's also not a surprise that you're using a bit of hyperbole
TFL states: Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry.
There are doubts about whether it is constitutional for sure, but it hardly bans the stuff from the state. Upon request by a consumer is the relevant part. It would then be blocked from that consumer (as per his/her request) but not from everyone else, unless they all made the request too. Of course it's all totally infeasible lol. Just saying you're exaggerating the truth a tad.
Anyway, it's really interesting to see how this debate has swung around. A half year or so ago, the prevailing sentiment seemed to be that the ICANN (and USA) were a bunch of prudes for not allowing a .xxx TLD. "You have the .xxx backwards - it was actually a good idea, shot down by the US government because it offended their christian ethics." for example. ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168444&threshold=1&commentsort=...
It's been really amusing to see the consensus swing over to people assuming the prudes want .xxx so they can control it better. Whichever it is, an argument could be made that the US is the center of the porniverse, perhaps all the charges of prudery are somewhat misplaced. Or one can at least be pretty certain the prudery isn't leading to censorship.
Member since:2006-03-06
"an argument could be made that the US is the center of the porniverse"
If you haven't trademarked "porniverse", maybe you should
I'm disturbed, by the way, at the amount of anti-US sentiment in this thread. Not all US citizens drive enormous SUVs to WalMart while eating a Big Mac, waving a gun in the air, shouting "I love Bush" and killing middle Eastern children for oil, so hold off on the hatred a bit.
Member since:2005-08-26
Member since:
2005-08-18
"I'm disturbed, by the way, at the amount of anti-US sentiment in this thread."
Really? I'm surprised at how little there is. I had expect a lot more of the usual anti-US, anti-Europe and anti-UN flamefests.
I guess everyone's busy with the (micro/exo/monolithic)kernel flamefests.
Edited 2006-05-12 14:22
Member since:2005-08-13
Member since:
2005-07-22
Imagine how easier parental control would be if there was an .xxx top level domain and laws said all porn sites would have to be hosted on .xxx !!! Are those right-wing Chirstians crazy or just plain stupid?
.name is used for only names... why shouldn't .xxx be used only for xxx?
Edited 2006-05-12 14:31
Member since:
2005-08-18
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-09-17
