Slashdot Mirror
US Congress Wants .kids TLD
mooneyguy writes: "Senators Edward Markey and John Shimkus have sponsored a bill that would seek creation of the .kids domain as an area that would be supposedly safe for children, as reported by CNN. Not only would this tread on ICANNs autonomy, but it also raises questions about enforcement and just how international standards of "decency" could possibly be determined. ICANN opposes the idea as being unworkable." Well, ICANN opposes the idea because they want to own the internet. But there are plenty of other reasons to oppose a "kid-friendly" domain. Kids in many nations of the world run around naked until well after puberty. Will they be able to post self-photos on .kids? While we're mentioning new TLDs, everyone associated with .biz apparently had a class-action suit filed against them, alleging the sweepstakes for initial registrations is an illegal lottery.
It's a sad day when you have to explain the humour to avoid negative moderation.
I would hope the quality of moderators on slashdot wouldn't be so ignorant.
-davidu
# Hack the planet, it's important.
the above IS a good idea, much easier to push the porn into .xxx than regulate everything else. Not that it will ever float but it makes more sense that .kids
.morons to the US senate, and .meatheads to the house :)
Perhaops we could reorg and give
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Anne Geddes shite *is* porn. It's degrading to its subjects, it's appallingly tasteless, and any self-respecting adult wouldn't dare be caught admiring it.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
for personal sites: what age do you get kicked out of .kids? 12? Then do we get .teens?
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
The whole western body-shame thing is a bit silly, really. The world would be a better place with more nudity.
A lot of the time, the point of prohibiting something is to make it _more_ desirable - personally, I believe this applies to nudity as well - if you spend some time in a naturist area, you quickly become desensitized.
I'm all for repealing archaic "decency" laws based on obsolete judeo-christian weirdness - if anyone was allowed get naked as and when they feel like it, the novelty would soon wear off.... and body shame is learnt by children, it's not natural, or upon any sensible analysis, healthy - I mean, your body is you, and being permanently ashamed of yourself is psychologically damaging, I'd say...
After all, clothes have their uses - warmth, decoration, etc... no need to mandate them, though.
Choice of masters is not freedom.
Whilst creating a .kids TLD *is* a good idea (we definitely need a few extra more TLDs), I believe creating a .xxx suffix would be quite complementary.
.xxx domains ought to be a lot easier than trying to filter out porn on random pages... Although I don't believe in censorship, I do believe not everybody wants to grant their kids access to porn to without going as extreme as to install filtering software that will block 'normal' pages as well.
Filtering all the
And don't come and tell me porn is free speech, pleeeeze.
/max
-- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
How long do you think itll take?
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Who decides what constitutes content suitable for kids? With schools across the country banning books such as Huckleberry Finn simply due to having language true to their era, I worry about parents delegating their responsibility in this area.
Doug
Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
Ok, I think I have a stumper for you all:
http://www.annegeddes.com
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
However, it seems that you could in fact codify what sorts of images would be allowed only on .xxx sites, just as almost every country in the world has rules for what types of sexual content can be purchased from magazine stands as opposed to adult-only venues.
It seems that this sort of segregation would make everyone happy. Finally, the online porn industry could come out of the closet, so to speak. Imagine an entire domain devoted to porn. Those who want some control over what their children see (thanks, let's not have Junior checking out pix of goatsex just yet), could much more easily apply filtering that would eliminate the most aggressively obscene material.
It's not censorship, it's not elimination of free speech. It's striking a balance between my desire to get porn on demand, and your desire to keep your kids from being relentlessly exposed to porn.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
dont.screw.kids
nuf sed
I am !amused.
Use Adsense for Charity
Ameri-centric. Then again the whole internet is, but that's hardly the point. A .kids tld would be tough to enforce, but possible (after all, .gov, .edu, etc. are all enforced quite well I'd say). Only give it out to "trusted" companies and organizations. That means of course US companies. ToysRUs.kids, etc. I very much doubt kids who run around nude in third-world countries would have the internet acccess in the first place, much less the clout they would need to get a .kids domain. Even if it isn't viewed as smut where they come from, the internet is americentric, .kids sounds like it will be quite americentric, and pen pals who send photos of themselves that are illegitimate to us will be stopped just like kiddie porn would obviously be.
Of course, just my 1/50$.
They'll enforce it like they enforce the "education-friendly" material of .edu sites. Now I haven't spent a lot of time looking, but I'm pretty sure there aren't any sex.edu sites. Basically they'll only give out .kids domains to organizations that prove themselves worthy of it. Now of course this worthy is subjective, and will be basically the stereotypical US view of "what is good for kids", but I can guarantee that they will likely stop smut quite quickly. Even if a group manages to get a facade to register the domain and then turns it into a sex site, they'll likely be cracked down on quickly.
naked.kids?
-b
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
But this assumes that the .kids domain would use the same kind of "no questions asked" registration policy that's in place for .com etc. That's not necessarily the case, though. They could as easily require each registrant to submit a brief description of what was on their site, have a person check the description to make sure that it was "kid safe", and revoke registrations for sites that either violated their description (so that you couldn't register nambla.kids as a Barney site) or the general requirements for all .kids sites (i.e. no nudity, no discussion of sex, etc.) Anyone could lodge a complaint with registrar.kids if they felt that a site was inappropriate. It wouldn't necessarily keep nambla.kids from existing temporarily, but as long as the policy was well spelled out in advance it would give them justification for shutting the site down as soon as it published anything "kid unfriendly".
This, IMO, should be one of the goals of all new TLDs. They should have a clearly stated policy regarding who should be allowed to register, and should block and/or revoke the registrations of sites that violate that policy. Thus they could have policies like one domain per person or organization, must not have the same second name under a different TLD, must not be the trademark holder (for .sucks), etc. If .kids had such a clear policy on what was and wasn't allowed, they could do a pretty good job of ensuring that their domains were consistently appropriate for kids.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
And you know about these countries where kids run around naked how? :)
News to me...
Frankly, I think this is a waste of time. It doesn't address any fundamental problems. As has been pointed out time and again, standards are different everywhere. What's OK in Europe probably wouldn't make it in America. Who would enforce this?
.kids sounds like it would encourage it. I'd vote against it. And parents, PLEASE - don't take the path of least resistance raising a child. It will be the worst decision you will ever make.
More to the point, the whole idea of a "safe internet" basically sounds to me like parents who don't want to take the trouble to educate their kid what stuff to avoid and how to handle what they may inadvertantly run into. Too young? Then what are they doing on a computer? I have issues with young kids on computers at all (same with TV) but that's another post. If you are going to let your kid on the internet, make it a family activity. Get involved. Don't use the computer as a substitute for meaningful time with your kids. That's just begging for trouble, and
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
feel-good communist propaganda
Ok - you had me until that. You do understand that it is Government Propaganda (McCartyism) that has led you to *not* understand what Communism is about. Communism has nothing to do with brainwashing - I would argue Capitalism actually *brainwashes* via advertising and marketing... the proof is in the Unbridled Consumption that occurs in the American Masses..... and their arent Evil, Godless, Commies(TM) are they?
Americans confuse Fascism with Communism - one is an economic system, the other a method of government...
The following will be immediately approved:
disney.kids
pepsi.kids
nike.kids
rep ublican.kids
democrat.kids
toys-r-us.kids
barbi e.kids
nsync.kids
makeup.kids
shopping.kids
ww wf.kids
The following, if administered in the US, will not:
socialist.kids
communist.kids
consumerism. kids
greenpeace.kids
sweatshop.kids
I would not want any of *my* children to be exposed to the first list, the second list is what my children should spend their time learning about...*
*outside of republican/democrat.kids - balanced arguments are necessary, what *.kids will become is a wasteland of Consumerism and Advertising...
Maybe if they declared *.kids a 'Trademark' or 'Copyright' free place, only for altruists and people intending on educating or entertaining, without any nefarious marketing ploys; "How many KoKa-Kola(TM)brand Soda Cans does Johnny have?"
.kids would be to "kidfriendly" as . . .
.org is to "ONLY" non-profits (see: Andover)
.net is only for web services, ISPs or the like
There is NO way that a registrar could constantly monitor the content on a whole TLD. Of course URLs like hardcoreporn.kids wont be allowed to go through, but I could register sesamestreet.kids and then turn it into a porn site as soon as ICANN (or NS or whoever runs this garbled mess of a hierarchy) turns their head.
On top of that, who are we kidding? ICANN wont enact new TLDs as long as they're in control. How many years have we seen "NEW TLD!" headlines. Anyone see any new ones besides country codes yet?
I didn't think so
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
And of course, some people have found controversy even in the kids' programming.
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
In the case of .edu, there's already this accreditation infrastructure in place. Who would accredit "kid-friendly" sites, and how would they accomplish that?
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
First of all, safe for what age? Material that's perfectly reasonable for a 13-year-old might be inappropriate for a 7-year-old.
Secondly, "safe" is a gray area to begin with. If the goal of this legislation is to shield kids from porn, what qualifies as porn? Is a National Geographic picture of Australian aboriginals who aren't wearing any clothes off limits simply because it depicts nudity? What about a discussion of the reproductive behavior of pandas at the National Zoo?
Third, what standards does this law intend to place on areas outside of sex? Is foul language off limits? (If so, how foul is foul? There's a big difference between, say, "c--t" or "f--k" and "damn".) What about material on drugs/alcohol, violence, firearms, racial issues, religion, evolution, or anything else that might be considered controversial? Will there be a "kid-safe panel" who gets to decide if a site devoted to discussion of, say, the Holocaust falls outside the realm of "kid-safe"? How about a site that discusses "The Catcher in the Rye" or "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" -- both the kind of things that some school systems believe kids should get exposed to, and others believe are cause for censorship.
Some might argue this is just doing for the Web what the MPAA does for movies, but Web sites aren't like movies -- they change all the time, they have input from other users, etc. Who would be responsible for enforcing these standards on an ongoing basis?
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
I never though the day would come when I'd agree with ICANN. How could you possibly police a Kid safe zone on the net?
.kids TLD might be possible.
All it does it create a false sense of security and the moment an enterprising company wants to do something that walks that thin line of decency the question becomes, who's job would it be to manage it?
You could always give some company like the Childrens Television Workshop control over that TLD and let them manage the content restrictions. Don't get me wrong. I don't think this would be a good idea, just the only way a safe
--CTH
--
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
At the University I attended, we had a game called "Degrees of separation".
What we did was we went to a "Safe" page, and the aim was to get to a pr0n page within 7 clicks. These clicks had to be repeatable, all within the HTML document window, and no typing was allowed.
The only page that has beaten us so far was the home page of the Prime Minister of New Zealand - this page has disappeared now cause we have a new PM.
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad, in some way or another" - Doctor Who
- Dan I.
Before you mod this OT: A kid is a young goat. Thus the humor.
- Dan I.
- Dan I.
script.kids ! :-)
karma capped
Oh, yeah, one more thing: if you have the rights to "foo-bar-baz.us", then you have the rights to "foobarbaz.us" and all other reasonable variants.
I'm a bloodsucking fiend! Look at my outfit!
While I don't really have a problem with a .kids domain, and while I like the idea of kids having a "safe" place to surf, I think that this can't possibly be safe from "pollution" of one form or another. I can see NAMBLA registering nambla.kids. The average parent would still be smart to run internet filters even on those domains.
But the best idea I've heard so far is simply to place the family computer in the living room.
Oh wait I forgot, that would require supervision.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
Ban all substances that aren't safe to consume in huge amounts
Ban all products small enough to fit in your mouth (kids could choke!)
Helmuts must be worn at all times. Don't you read studies? Helmust save lives - statistics prove that!
No mature ideas should be expressed that might reach a child (through a deviant 3rd party)
Child-proof every appliance and tool in your home, including kitchen knives and office supplies that could be used as weapons. Weapons are bad, remember, not the person who misuses them.
We need "Education Camps" where children go to be brain washed by feel-good communist propaganda... (Oh wait we have that - they're called schools)
The future holds even more promise. Someday you'll be able to read your childs' thoughts. Any contempt or wrongful thinking can then be smack out of them! That'll be great for keeping them moral and clean until you let them go. Hell, who says you have to let them go at all? Keep them in perpetual fear of sin their whole lives, hating their own feelings, demeaning any bad thoughts or ideas they might get from somewhere other than you. Guilt is the best tool of all - make them feel guilty for existing.
Be patronizing. Be condescending. Be feared, not loved.
Only then will you be a good parent.
Unfortunately, these same questions just keep coming up because they are a natural part of any attempt to restrict information "to protect the children." It's a twofold question: who watches the watchdogs, and who trains them? And it defies any easy solution, because every parent and every citizen has their own thoughts on how other people should be raising their kids.
Gee, maybe censorship isn't the right solution. It sure seems out of place in such a diverse nation. Maybe all we need is some good parenting instead. But that's never going to happen...
My 2c.
-all dead homiez
>>>Look, a lot of the posts I see out here are saying well, what about www.sexwith.kids but wouldn't it be just as easy for a child pornographer to register www.sexwithkids.com if he really wanted to. Don't tell be those 3 extra keystrokes make a difference.
.kids domain is safe for your kids, now its even EASIER to take care of your children" and simply turn their backs, this facet of social engineering will rapidly become an easy way to prey on children as vehicles of, for example, virus proliferation, sexual advances, you name it. Even if the .kids domain were TIGHTLY controlled and regulated, it's a laughably easy manner to fool someone into clicking a link that -appears- to direct you to one domain, but in reality directs you to another.
.kids domain sites, the extra keystrokes make a whole world of difference. of course, giving children unsupervised access to anything is a risk, but it -will- happen anyway, and the only logical answer to the problem is to simply educate our children
you miss the point.
If parents just hear "oh, the
The point you're missing is that since children will be more likely to have unsupervised access to