Slashdot Mirror
.xxx Domain Remains in Limbo
datemenatalie writes "CNN.com reports that the Inernet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is still awaiting the decision of an advisory committee regarding .xxx domains. According to the article, "ICANN announced in June it would move ahead with plans to evaluate establishing a sex-site domain, but the proposal hit a snag in August when the U.S. Commerce Department asked for more time to hear objections." ICANN's president Paul Tworney was unable to say when a formal decision might be announced."
General Franco STILL DEAD!
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
Does this mean I CANN't look at porn anymore???
:(
really 867993
Karma schkarma
Heja Sverige Friskt Humör!!
It's probably not necessary to even bother listening to more objections. No matter what they do, the various Christian extremist groups will be against it. No solution will be acceptable to them, except perhaps a complete ban on pornography, erotica, and any such material.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
How low can it go!?
oksala
Slashdot.xxx only for articles on device dissections like Xboxes and PSP with the cover off. Maybee even Source code... how sexy.
Get rid of that fscking stuff... Because you should just get your own anyway.
Give it to the people or we'll riot to get it!
well, maybe ever... if all sex sites had to have a .xxx tld, it would be *SO* easy to block it.... How can even the religious zealots be against that? If you have pr0n on something other than a .xxx site, you get a big big fine... this sounds too easy to ever be workable...
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Even though this would make the lives of concerned parents (etc) 3,000,000x easier by putting an e-red-light-district on the web to make either finding or filtering pr0n a non-issue.
What a stupid decision.
What are you listening to? (http://megamanic.blogetery.com/)
...even managed to slip in ProtestWanker at the end.
"CNN.com reports that the Inernet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)" And they say that ICANN is impartial. They talk like George Bush! Give it to the damn yurp-eens, that's what I say ;-)
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.
Why do we need a .xxx account?
If it is implemented, it will be two months until The Raging Arsemunching Mothers for Protection against Society (TRAMPS) will be requiring that all pr0n will be put on .xxx servers and not on anything else. Or anything that looks like it might link to something that MIGHT talk about birth control. And there, ladies and gentlemen, goes the internet as we know it.
And can I have some?
What are you listening to? (http://megamanic.blogetery.com/)
That is, if we can actually define porn. Beach pics? Lingerie ads? A hand, 6" one way or the other, is the line between porn, and sales.
Making the general internet purely a kid friendly zone would help with many concerns parents have, but I do not believe it is going to happen. What is the likelyhood that the bad people who share unlawful or illegally copied pornography will all switch over to the xxx domain? The only real reason I see in this is to protect children from accidentally stumbling across bad things.
.xxx domain (as if you needed one), but nothing will change in the .com world. People who want too will still view porn. People who don't will still complain.
.xxx domain, we should be generating a database of "acceptable and non-questionable" stable websites that would be acceptable for general viewing. Then educate parents on how too set up firewalls to keep their minor children away from the stuff. Next we can encourage parents to spend enough time with their children they will feel confident in their childs choice in the matter.
What's my prediction if this ever gets passed you asked? You will have an easier way of finding porn for sale by searching with the
In my opinion instead of pushing the
It's because religious zealots do not want just censorship. They want complete eradication of such material.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
naked limbo..
...limbo..
heh.. naked..
All these folks up in arms about their children possibly seeing even slightly "objectionable" material would most likely be best locking their children in a closet. Don't let them near a computer, let alone a computer hooked up to the Internet. Don't let them near a television. Don't let them visit the local video shoppe. Don't let them visit the library (there may be medical texts there showing penises, vaginas and anuses!). Don't even let them go to school, as little Jimmy might bring in the Hustler he found in his daddy's sock drawer.
If they were to keep their children locked up in the dark all the time, then they would never accidentally encounter anything objectionable.
Meanwhile, the rest of us could continue to enjoy freedom of expression.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Anyone care to enlighten this poor, ignorant Swede?
Because if it were, some dumbass religious zealots from a backwards country would be using their influence to stifle things they don't like... oh wait, never mind.
STFU about slashdot bias.
ICANN should stop considering new TLDs. In fact, it might be worthwhile to start phasing out some of the newer TLDs due to lack of interest.
Or rather, if it does pass it will still never become compulsory.
Disregarding the issue of different countries and differing standards of pornography, I'm sure some bright fellow will point out that several passages in the bible are explicit enough to qualify for the xxx classification.
...the .co.ck domain name. Really... http://www.google.co.ck/ I couldn't make it up if I tried.
I used to buy from newegg.com (old egghead?) but for the past while its prices are so much higher than from back even a while+ ago. For instance, XFi Elite Pro: newegg was about $400, zipzoomfly was about $360 (save $40). No brainer. For instance, pvr350 was about $180, provantage was about $130 (save $50). Gone are the mostly "free" 2-day ship. Newegg is using UPS, and 3-day isn't bad, but if you buy 10 items, each with $5 ship, that's $50, even if it comes in the same box! And it always ships from the west coast. Other resellers (of Ingram Micro, for instance) ship from regional centers so even ground can get there in a day or two.
Sorry to see it go, but Newegg, you're a rotten egg!
One click to all the pr0n when this is implemented: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&cl ient=safari&rls=en-us&q=site%3A*.xxx&btnG=Search :)
Will slashdot have to register slashdot.xxx just to block porn companies from doing same?
Obviously this is something which could be abused by people who register in the xxx namespace.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Lawyer and ICANN blogger Bret Fausett is providing a steady stream of podcasts from Vancouver, including this one, which reviews the meeting in which the "non-decision" was announced. Apparently the staff at ICM Registry (the folks slated to run the .xxx domain) were completely blindedsided by Vint Cerf's announcement that .xxx had been tabled - which came right before ICM was to make a presentation on it.
RichM
Data Center Knowledge
That article didn't really provide any information reguarding reasoning for allowing or disallowing. Would xxx domains be reserved for porn sites only like a .edu or .gov? That would be rediculous. As a "religeous zealot" I wouldn't mind owning a few myself. If anyone could use em lets face it, having xxx in your name would drive TONS of traffic to your website you might not normally get and even though perhaps the individual is looking for adult content ya might have a good website with other content they are interested in. It could prove to help out in marketing a little bit.
And, I don't think having a .xxx added would make much of a differance. Chances are most currently established adult websites wouldn't 'move' their site over to a xxx domain, they'd just keep their .com and buy the .xxx too.
This dispute is a total waste of time. More choices for domains would be great!
www.sushibarnetwork.com
We don't let kids drive freely over real highways. Why are we letting them drive freely over the 'Information Superhighway'? Rather than forcing all drivers to 5 m.p.h., let us make a kid friendly bike-path.
If porn is on .com then your next religious zealot can always say "i was searching for web site on horse, and really , I clicked horseteen.com but it turns out it was not about teen riding horse lessons". Now if it is with XXX at the end they can't plausibly deny they clicked on it accidentally.
;).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I think this is one of the best ideas ever suggested.
.xxx content" and you have:
.xxx content".
.xxx registration as opposed to .com or .net. The .xxx idea is the same thing as putting all of your dirty magazines into ONE drawer instead of spread about among all of your other magazines.
Aren't you tired of every other result for a Google search of "computer upgrades" pointing to porn? Same goes for images if you search for "white house" or "AMD logo".
It makes pornography about 1000000X easier to filter out if you don't want to see it.
Simply set your web browser to "no
1. No more spyware trying to install on your computer from SOME discreditable porn sites. (yes I do realise that only very few porn web sites actually try to install spyware)
2. No "HORNY GIRLZ !!!!" banners.
3. No links that point to pornography that you don't want to see.
4. Google could make an option to eliminate all pornography from searches if desired.
Now, there are the people that want to access porn. Or who want to access it ONLY at certain times. (such as, after they're done looking for pictures of the AMD logo or white house).
Simple, just set your browser back to "do not eliminate
Yes, someone will have to define what pornography is in order to control the domain system. Someone get on that right away.
Don't get me wrong here, I don't want to restrict pornography from anyone really. There shouldn't be a mandatory price increase for
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
That domain is super-lame.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
But, if we can do that, can't we move all advertising to a .adv first because advertising annoys me a hell of a lot more than porn....
/. bug #926803 - Why I can post.
To be strictly accurate, I'd say that being against porn isn't to be against freedom. However, to be in favour of imposing your own views on everybody else through censorship and regulation is, in fact, to reduce others' freedom.
In truth, we all accept that freedom cannot be complete. That would be anarchy. I would be quite free to simply kill some fellow who irritated me (though I would not) and his friends/family would be quite free to return the favour. We all accept some restrictions on our freedom in exchange for a functional society in which we can go about our lives - the argument is about where the line where restrictions cease to be appropriate is. Much as we don't have total freedom of action, we've also relinquished total freedom of speech in the form of defamation and slander laws among other things. There is no black and white issue here, that's why everybody's arguing about where the line in the grey should be drawn.
For that reason, it's not inherently a contradiction to both support "bringing freedom" to Iraq, and taking it away from USA citizens, or vice versa. That doesn't make it correct or right, of course, on either side of the matter.
That said, I'm personally of the view that the US society appears to be on a move toward dramatic restrictions in personal freedoms of speech and action, combined with reduced guarantees of safety from Governmnent abuse of power. The same is happening in Australia, where I live, a county where the majority of the population favours aping the US, something that we do blindly and incompetently but continuously. Similarly, both countries are involved in Iraq, in a war that I can see the arguments for, but am unable to morally justify (what, we can just invade whoever we feel like because we don't like them?), and am apalled by the deceptions used in the initiation of.
As for porn, I just don't understand why anybody cares. Kids who want it have always got hold of it. I'm personally really disturbed by some porn, but overall I don't really see the harm, and would frankly prefer that a kid who's going to find it anyway be able to find some that's not really gross (violent, unwilling, etc). Of course, the people wanting to stamp out porn are the same people behind abstainance-only education, and look how well that's working. *sigh*.
if all sex sites had to have a .xxx tld, it would be *SO* easy to block it.... How can even the religious zealots be against that?
.xxx sucks from a technical standpoint. Using DNS to categorize sites allows anyone else to set up a non-.xxx address that points at the same address. .xxx is useless for blocking, for this reason. .xxx allows only a single bit of information to be encoded about a an entire domain (is it "adult", whatever that means, or not?) There are better, existing systems to embed metatags in web pages. These approaches are far more powerful ("contains REALISTIC_VIOLENCE and NUDITY" and lets the user or ISP choose how to filter based on these content flags), provide better granularity (you don't have to stick an entire domain in .xxx if it contains one adult page), and can't be bypassed as blocking systems just because someone uses a proxy or something similar.
.xxx sucks from a policy standpoint. We sorta-kinda can get away with saying "This is adult content, and this isn't" in the United States, because we've got a *somewhat* universal standard of acceptable content. Even then, there's friction (in San Francisco, it's been ruled legal to do nude yoga on a city street -- try doing that in the Deep South). But it's not nearly as much as the differences between countries and continents. Remember that this is not xxx.us -- this is a .xxx *TLD*. It applies to *everyone*. In the UK, it's considered perfectly harmless to show topless women on television. In the US, we consider that unacceptable and obscene. In some conservative Islamic countries, a woman in regular business wear (or worse, a bikini) would be considered completely unacceptable. How do you do a good job of reconciling all these various wildly-differing social values into that single bit of information? No matter what happens, an awful lot of people are going to find your classification completely unacceptable. A .xxx TLD promises *years* of culture wars and infighting.
.xxx TLD. First, there are a lot of people who simply don't have the technical background to understand the drawbacks of a .xxx TLD, but know that they want to be able to filter porn. They aren't familiar with the alternatives, and a .xxx TLD is easy to explain to them. The other group is the domain name registrars, which are absolutely salivating at the possibility of having people have to pay for a new domain based on the kind of content they are providing. Heck, get past the initial big step of getting people used to paying a domain name registrar tax to serve a particular type of content, and you can do it with all *kinds* of content. There's nothing that a domain name registrar would like better than something along these lines.
.xxx TLD. They may want to be able to filter porn, but they don't want a .xxx TLD.
A lot of reasons. I've posted scads of problems with it, but here are my two favorite reasons:
(1)
(2)
There are two main groups pushing for a
And that's why I really don't think that most people actually want a
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
There's a lot of commercial products [link to cybersitter] that do just that. Unfortunately, opinions on what's "acceptable and non-questionable" can vary wildly.
Absolutely, and quite often even the lists themselves are skewed to promote an "acceptable" view. I have at one point had the unfortunate task of doing technical support for systems containing similar products. Quite often they offer category based restrictions; but there is noticible gaps. The filter for "Religion" for example tends to only filter non-Judeo/Christian religions. "Guns" never includes *.mil. "Politics" did not block the Republican or Democratic parties. The topic at hand, "Porn", almost never provides an effective filter to the tremendous mass of porn, which tends to be harder to pin down; but educational material is always filtered because educators tend to spell their words properly and actually TALK about the subject enough to trigger a filter -- porn sites just show you pictures and are carefully worded to not include trigger words.
Those things don't work for shit. Parental guidance works, but takes effort and can't just be a $50 fire and forget purchase to eliminate a problem. Which probably explains why as a whole American Parents aren't doing it.
~Rebecca
"Yes, someone will have to define what pornography is in order to control the domain system. Someone get on that right away." Care to take a stab at it? What constitutes pornography vs. free speech, advertising, sex education, the economy (if this one confuses remember that all economic transactions are based on two willing parties at exchanging goods and services for money based on demand and supply - and one of the greatest driving forces of all human behavior is sexual). If you allow ANY non .xxx site to link to a .xxx site then the whole system collapses and a curious child can go from www.kidsplaysafe.org to www.kidsseehooters.xxx. If you create one internet that is completely segerated from another it will be a year until the government begins MANDATING that all children under 18 HAVE to be on the non .xxx server - after all its illegal for minors to buy pornography elsewhere isnt it?
Are you ready to explain that to a 6 year old?
So the purpose of censorship is to help adults deal with their own childhood censorship-induced fears and neuroses and inability to deal with them rationally, rather than to actually produce a benefit for children?
Paul Graham once wrote that the real point of PowerPoint is not to help present information in a memorable manner. It's to help presenters confront their fears of public speaking, since it means that the audience is looking at a projected square and the speaker is hidden in the darkness, rather than having to stand in the light in front of everyone.
I guess what I'm wondering is why you are capable of being aware of said content and dealing with it responsibly, but that you feel that hiding it from a kid somewhere will somehow help them become more responsible or a better adult. [shrug] You can lock someone in a box until they're 18 and then let them go, but they'll have the mind of an infant. When do you want to let them develop the ability to understand and deal with things? Right as you send them off to college? It *does* mean that you can pretend that they're still ignorant, but is that best for them?
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Totally unnecessary.
.biz TLD, then IBM needs to buy ibm.biz to avoid concerns that someone *else* might buy it.
Not from a registrar's point of view.
Their take (which is apparently correct) is that if they're selling database entries, then a business needs to buy subscriptions for *all* possible related entries. If they come out with a
It's completely necessary to enforce an ever-increasing tax against businesses. It's free money for the registrars -- why *wouldn't* they push for more TLDs?
It's sad that ICANN can't tell said parasites to shove off.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
whats the point of .xxx ?
.xxx just because theres nudity?
.xxx?
What if i want to show my buddy some hot chick? What if i want to put a naked girl on my website?
would i have use a
Whats the point of
Sounds like censorship to me.
This is the obiously American dumb way. Let's ban everything !!!! .... Good thing you have managed to make kids without having sex ....
What is with all this children see porn thing. tweleve and thirteen years old children smoke tabaco and/or weed and you ( dumb americans ) are worried they might see some pussy.
Even you manage to do this, you are forgeting that you have many other laws that teenagers simply ignore ( see marijuana smell in your child's bedroom ) and while you are chasing the consumers the dealers start selling heroin. So children should not see porn ha ?
If Americans truly hold freedom of expression in high regard (as is often claimed by them)
We actually don't. The US is pretty religiously conservative. Religion is the largest source of objection to freedom of expression, regrettably enough. It always seems to be Southern Baptists out claiming that Harry Potter promotes witchcraft and needs to be removed from school libraries...
If you think about how Christianity works, it's not such a surprise. Back when Galileo started talking about the rest of the universe perhaps not circling around the Earth, Christianity worked very quickly to stifle him and keep him under house arrest until he died. The folks living large at the top of the religious food chain didn't try to just *defend* their ideas -- they knew that they were wrong, and that they were only going to win by suppressing competing ideas.
And then when Martin Luther translated the Bible into a language that commoners could read...he nearly was killed by good ol' Christianity. There was the risk that someone would have to actually *defend* ideas, instead of being able to just indoctrinate kids at a young age ("If you don't do what the priest says and give him money each week, you're going to BURN IN HELL FOREVER").
Christianity is steadily dying out in the United States. Christianity now claims 10% less of the population than it did a decade ago. Still a long way to go, though.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
4. Google could make an option to eliminate all pornography from searches if desired.
Isn't that exactly what the "SafeSearch" option is for on the preferences?
In a particularly eerie co-incidence... Catholic theologicans this week urged the Pope to agree that unbaptized children don't go to Limbo.
i can_Limbo.html
.xxx is there!
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1103AP_Vat
Just in time, apparently, now that
As an aside, the Marxist-Feminist author Andrea Dworkin's angry, angry, angry book "Pornography" is a good read for anyone wishing to become thoroughly disgusted (or at least, morally and intellectually challenged) by the barrenness and degradation of the pornographic enterprise in general. There's more than one side to the freedom question here.
Agreed. While I'm normally pretty quick to get mad about religious groups holding up the implementation of new technology, this is an exception. The .xxx TLD is a painfully stupid idea.
.com address because they had no other TLD available? This wouldn't prevent domain squatting by pornographers; they only squat at places you're likely to go to accidentally. National laws requiring pornography providers to serve only on *.xxx servers means that the entire legitimate industry would be monopolized by whoever controls that TLD. So now you're punishing the legitimate pornographers and supporting the bad ones. Using *.xxx blockers to shield children from pornography simply won't work; history and human nature suggests porn on the other TLDs won't be going away, ever. The entire concept of naming a TLD after a movie rating doesn't make any sense; why are we standardizing a form of censorship into DNS?
.xxx TLD seems like an idea absurd enough that only a religious zealot would think it up.
There is no reason the Internet needs to create discriminatory domains. Would anyone seriously argue that there is a shortage of porn-related domain names? To use an infamous example, does anyone think whitehouse.com would have tried to get whitehouse.xxx instead, but was forced to use the
In fact, the
2. If all US pron was to be put on .xxx domains, I for one would be the first to claim the now-free porn.com domain from within a non-US country and get rich by selling porn.
3. The definition of "porn" has been undecided and vague for about 500 years. Go and try outlaw "porn" to special domains, and see where medical images, scientific articles about reproduction and images of animals having sex have to go.
when i surf the internet and when my nine year old surfs, the things that seem to pique his interest the most are the "ENLARGE YOUR PENIS" ads. honestly, ads are ten times worse than porn itself. if all the bible-thumpers(i am in the south, there are more of them here) had such a problem with porn, why have they not said anything about some of these ads?
I say we put all religous content under a .god address. I'd like the option of blocking all such offensive material. As a parent I should be able to shield my children from such corrupting influences. I'm terrified that my young son will wind up in a chat room with a priest. They should be given their own web domains and leave the net to decent folk.
to register goatse.xxx?
I thought being "in limbo" was on it's way out?
where the comment ends and sig begins
We intentionally clicked on horseteen.com as a public service! To thoroughly examine it for any sign of the filthy, deviant and perverse pornography of which the Internet must be cleansed!
Can you recommend any other sites that we might also need to examine?
(And be quick about it - we're kind of in the middle of something here.)
The cleansing has already begun!
"What celebrity do you most resemble?"
"Mr. Ed"
there, I said it.
We actually don't.
Who the hell is "we"? Americans are not one homogenous group. In fact, we're one of, if not the most diverse nation ethnically, religiously, politically, philosophically, and every other -ly on the planet.
Religion is the largest source of objection to freedom of expression, regrettably enough.
In the same way that weapons are the largest source of murders, right? Religion is many things, and that some use it as a tool of oppression does not necessarily mean religion itself is the source of the oppression.
The largest danger to freedom of expression is people in power who stand to lose power, whether they are popes or presidents. Religion is sometimes used. So is patriotism. So is the public good. So is individual safety. So is fear.
It always seems to be Southern Baptists out claiming that Harry Potter promotes witchcraft and needs to be removed from school libraries...
Ah. So Southern Baptists claiming that Harry Potter promotes witchcraft are representative not only of all Southern Baptists, but also all Christians.
Back when Galileo started talking about the rest of the universe perhaps not circling around the Earth, Christianity worked very quickly to stifle him and keep him under house arrest until he died.
Christianity was used to stifle him by people in power.
If I use a hammer to oppress people, does that mean the hammer did the oppressing?
The folks living large at the top of the religious food chain didn't try to just *defend* their ideas -- they knew that they were wrong, and that they were only going to win by suppressing competing ideas.
Finally. Corrupt people in positions of power are the problem. Blind faith in religious organizations are the problem. Religion is not the problem.
And then when Martin Luther translated the Bible into a language that commoners could read...he nearly was killed by good ol' Christianity. There was the risk that someone would have to actually *defend* ideas, instead of being able to just indoctrinate kids at a young age ("If you don't do what the priest says and give him money each week, you're going to BURN IN HELL FOREVER").
Martin Luther was a Christian. Do you think Martin Luther would blame Christianity or the power structure of the Catholic Church?
Christianity is steadily dying out in the United States. Christianity now claims 10% less of the population than it did a decade ago. Still a long way to go, though.
The publication you cite does show a 10% decrease in the percentage of Christians among the total population.
However, these statistics hardly support your claim that "Christianity is steadily dying out". According to the publication, self-described Christians actually increased in number by 5% and are still a whopping 76% of the total population.
If it was about censorship the rightwingers would be for it. It's about freedom actually so they are against it. The point is a .XXX domain could easily be blocked on computers so children couldn't cruise them. The porn industry wants this very badly because it can get rid of most of the arguments against them. The Christian right doesn't want them segregated into their own part of the web they want them out of business all together. You have to remember what concerns them isn't their children seeing it it's you seeing it. It's about control and censorship. If porn companies have their own domains the right wing looses it's biggest argument about banning them all together. The plus for you and your site would be if you want to post adult material without being harassed simply post it under a .XXX domain and you'd in theory be safe. Art is a tricker subject. That is subjective. Porn may be impossible to define but it's fairly obvious what upsets the Christian Right. Ideally all women's clothing should come up to the chin and down past the ankle the way God intended.
Here in Japan, it's perfectly legal to look at pictures of nude fifteen year old girls, but if you show an erect penis or explicit penetration, it's illegal. Photographic depictions of pubic hair used to be illegal too, but that changed a few years ago.
Basically, most anything that gets sold as "porn" in the US would be illegal here, but magazines selling what the US might consider "child porn" can be bought at any convenience store.
In the UAE, Flickr is apparently banned as being a porn site.
After Janet Jackson's withered teat was unleashed during the SuperBowl, religious conservatives of all faiths begged to have their eyes gouged out with a sharpened stick, but that may have been just a matter of good taste...
Why doesn't the US just take over the "XXX.US" domain, shovel all of their porn into it, let the Christian conservatives cover it over with landfill and shut the hell up?
-- My Weblog.
I'm blown away by the submitter's website
XHTML strict? Ok, I guess that's a good habit but how did you come to the conclusion that you need seperate(sp?) style sheets for screen and print?
...
And now I'm stuck wondering why I wanted to see the source in the first place :(
Think of someone with average intelligence. Now think 1/2 the world is dumber than that guy.
"I disapprove of what you f*ck, but I will defend to the death your right to post pictures of you f*cking it."
"Vidi, veni" - Caesar
May Peace Prevail On Earth
And MOD GRANDPARENT -1, Troll. I don't know how the grandparent poster got modded as highly as he did. In BOTH of the mentioned cases, it was the Catholic Church doing the oppressing, not his anthropomorphized "Christianity". The parent poster is right- bad people use religion to do bad things. That doesn't mean it's the fault of the rest of us that may practice that religion the way it was meant to be practiced.
People act like this will remove porn all together. I would love to see it gone (mostly because it preys on the young kids that are on the net) and having it moved to a central location helps parents, students, and the general public guard themselve against it, while still allowing those who have the proper permissions to see their smut. There should be guidelines on what defines a porn site, and not just a forcing a site like uselessjunk.com, that shows a smattering of everything, to be added to a xxx TLD.
It's not censorship if we don't call it cencorship.
There are some good Sex Museums out there... like the one in Amsterdam. Would it go under museum.xxx or xxx.museum ?
Just wondering?
Yes, it is stupid... I also want a .KKK domain so we can easily block all hateful references made by the KKK.
.KKK today!
It would not reward the KKK and make their organization famous with a TLD, I promise.
Rather, it will keep our minds pure, because anyone posting dirty thoughts, will have to go there to do it!
Support
There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
If that doesn't turn your crank, I suspect a modern translation of Song Of Songs might turn out racy enough to qualify as erotic literature. Better get biblegateway.com moved to biblegateway.xxx
I'm a Christian BTW, and I don't think porn is a terribly good thing, but then I don't get to be in charge of what a whole load of non-Christians want. I also don't think that a .xxx tld would do a damn thing to fix the problem.
Ah, yes, your "freedom"
San Francisco is one of the most free cities anywhere, using your type of "free".
The people there are free to poop in the street. Thats very free indeed! Luckily where I live, people are not that free yet.
Though many want to be that free... many want to be free from clothing. Free from having to choose the correct gender bathroom.
Imagine such oppressive societies, when you are "locked" into one religious fundies gender role all your life. You really just want to have the freedom to choose a different gender bathroom, or poop in a trash can even!
I'm sorry, you lose! That post was just too damn pithy for the slashmod thought police.
According to the logic found above, if a=b and c=d, then e=f.
Pull your head out!
I have plenty of other arguments, but it's late.
I'm not quite sure how adding two 'x's to goatse.cx actually helps anything.
Not sure where this domain is, now that there is officially no limbo.
That's right, according to the Vatican, there is no Catholic basis for limbo. No limbo? Turns out it had the theological sophistication of Kryten asking "Then where do all the calculators go?"
Although, considering that 'original sin' is the probably-longest-running protection racket, religious content pushing it should be under *.mob.
It is the only way to get at least some semblance of sanity to this domain. What the US finds pornographic, the Japanese don't. What the Japanese find pornographic, the US don't. There may, for the US, be the need to have the state level defined xxx domain too. What counts as depravity in one state is fine in another.
Virri with mime types?
Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
to the new sites, otherwise I'll have to quite my job to update all of my bookmarks!
But what is pornography, really? If you go to Japan, just showing genitalia is considered hard porn (while pissing onto somebody is not), in some Islamic countries showing a woman's hair is unconceivable, for me, there is art in pictures of naked women (e.g. http://domai.com./ You will get loads of different responses wherever you go, and considering that the US and Europe claim to me multi-cultural places, appeasing everybody will be next to impossible, or at the very least will place most of the websites portraying skin on the .xxx list.
This would be alike creating a "Red Light District" on the internet to try and ostracise content and people involved with that. On a local community level, this has (and I have serious doubts on this) marginally worked for millenia, but in the internet, unless we had a uniform culture everywhere on earth (god forbid), with every single internet user agreeing on the definition of every single aspect of society (freedom is irrelevant, self-determination is irrelevant, you must comply, stand down and be assimilated), I would brand this delusional at best.
www.meneguzzi.eu/felipe
All other things aside, I'm sick of newsites claiming that porno websites would be reluctant to give up their .com address and end up using both .com and .xxx
.com send a 302 redirect to the .xxx site. .xxx's they're safe, and I can still go to www..com
Fine, use both, and just have
Then if people filter out
It's turtles all the way down.
First one, here goes... wouldn't lumping all "objectionable material" into one place make it more tantalising for kids? Part of the thrill of being young is pushing the boundaries, and knowing that there's a place where everything is porn is going to make sure that the kids will know it's there, that all they have to do is find an unblocked computer or find a way around the firewall (single key to unlock *all* porn, yay!) and they'll be the coolest out there for doing something they've been told not to. After all, it's not going to be "You're 18 now, and here's something you've never been told before : .xxx is full of pictures of naked women." Prohibition tends to make things more desirable, not less.
Why is it acceptable in this society to treat children like the USSR treated adults? Herd 'em, propagandize 'em, defang 'em, and set 'em to work in huge collective institutions doing things both they and you know are dumb and meaningless. Seriously, these aren't some other species. They are the folks that, when they are 18, will hate you so much they'll elect the American Nazi Party just to piss you off.
Seriously, if under-18's want to jack off (or jill off) to nudie pics, what harm does it do anyone?
I like how you tried to partially censor the work fuck but only blocked out one letter. Like that's going to do anything. Much like trying to make an .xxx domain is not going to make a dent anywhere.
In a 2003 IETF draft on the subject, Donald Eastlake discussed many of the philisophical, social, political, and technical difficulties with a http://bgp.potaroo.net/ietf/idref/draft-eastlake-x xx/ .sex domain would hardly .sex or .adult top-level domain."
Here's an excerpt discussing different moral values in different societies:
" In the U.S.A., obscenity is defined as explicit sexual material that,
among other things, violates "contemporary community standards" -- in
other words, even at the national level, there is no agreed-upon rule
governing what is illegal and what is not. Making matters more knotty
is that there are over 200 United Nations country codes, and in most
of them political subdivisions can impose their own restrictions.
Even for legal nude modeling, age restrictions differ. They're
commonly 18 years of age, but only 17 years of age in one
Scandinavian country. A photographer there conducting what's viewed
as a legal and proper photo shoot would be branded a felon and child
pornographer in the U.S.A. In yet other countries and groups, the
entire concept of nude photography or even any photography of a
person in any form may be religiously unacceptable.
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Northern Nigeria, and China are not likely to
have the same liberal views as, say, the Netherlands or Denmark.
Saudi Arabia and China, like some other nations, extensively filter
their Internet connection and have created a government agencies to
protect their society from web sites that officials view as immoral.
Their views on what should be included in a
be identical to those in liberal western nations.
Those wildly different opinions on sexual material make it
inconceivable that a global consensus can ever be reached on what is
appropriate or inappropriate for a
"As for the future, your task is not to foresee it, but to enable it." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Ok, let's say we make a .xxx TLD...
.xxx?
.xxx TLD, you put ICANN (and by extension the US) in charge of defining 'what is porn?' on a GLOBAL level.
.xxx TLD. I'm all for a .xxx.us or .xxx.uk. Leave it up to the individual countries to decide how they want to handle porn sites. Just as easy to block for parental / corporate controls, but the content is dictated by local regulation.
What country's rules should be used for defining what should and should not go into
US? The US is not the whole of the internet, unlike many people assume. And as puritanical as our views on porn are, they're nothing compared to say... Brazil.
Basically, by making a
That's why I am opposed to a
I'm not crazy,I'm actively irresponsible.
Why go for .xxx domains, anyway? The obvious domain choice for porn would be .cum
ba-dum-CHING.
Thanks. I'll be here all week.
...but i wanted cowboyneal.xxx !
This is my opinion. Everyone has a right to my opinion.
In other (actual) news, LIMBO itself is in Limbo as the Vatican decides if it ever existed.
Ever dream you could fly? Get up from the Flight Sim. I Fly
I would've expected that .xxx domains would have ended up in a worse place than Limbo... like Hell?
I think that we should go a step further and require that pornographic websites use .xxx only. This works for everybody. If you're looking for porn, it's easy to find. If you object to porn, it's easy to block.
I once expressed this opinion on /. before, and an operator of a pornsite said that this would kill his industry. Sorry, man, that's just absurd. I suspect that there's more regulation on porn now than there was 50 years ago, and we're definitely in the midst of booming economy for porn.
Anti-porn advocates need to realize that porn is not going away. Porn purveyors need to realize, likewise, that many people find porn to be extremely objectionable. We need to find a happy medium. I think .xxx is a step in the right direction.
The barenness and degradation of the meat packing industry is stomach-churning. I still love steak.
The barenness and degradation of the garment industry (mostly in third world countries) is terrible. I'm not volunteering to go naked (usual /.'er dimensions).
If you have a problem with industry practices, work to change industry practices rather than attacking the product. Most people attacking porn object to the product, and pointing at bad industry practices is just a red herring. Many cities have tried to ban strip clubs, because so much violence and drug use happens in and around strip clubs. Biker bars, they're kosher.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
If it is in Limbo then it is likely to gone for good. The Vatican seems to have abolished it.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Of course I've yet to hear a valid argument explaining why .xxx is better than .safe .safe domains would only be issued to people who could prove their website met and maintained certain requirements, parents could only allow access to .safe and could even restrict by country.
.xxx and 1000's of appeals and hearings around the world by people who are quite rightly pissed off that they are being forced to move for no real reason, or forced to move their non-porn site into the .xxx TLD. What about sites dealing with sexual health etc? Its completely rediculous to propose that people should be forced to move TLDs. Meanwhile the system would be useless until everyone had crossed over, you couldnt just block .xxx and hope for the best until every site had been re-located. Unless you _do_ force people to adhere to this system, the entire system is totally useless and only serves as yet-another TLD, in which case who even cares? why is there even a debate? if you don't like .xxx dont go there!
It would take years to force all sites to move to
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2147050/icann-go es-floppy-porn-domain
.xxx domain being dropped from the agenda... and I quote "EU commissioner Viviane Reding is said to have called the head of ICANN Paul Twomey and threatened to withdraw all the EU's representatives unless the issue was pulled."
The article talk about the
Looks like it was the EU's fault, not the typical scapegoat "various Christian extremist groups"
-everphilski-
Once again, we get into the discussion of "who decides?".
.xxx? .xxx? .xxx? .xxx?
.xxx but the obvious ones are the easy part. Figuring out where that "line" is, is the more diffcult part.
Are condom commercials required to be in
Are lingerie ads required to be in
What about a side-shot of a breat? Does that have to be in
How about a topless woman? Seems ok in Europe. Does that have to be in
What about medical sites on reproduction?
Obviously, your horse-fscking sites will need to be in
So, again, I ask: Who Decides?
to get back the whitehouse.com domain!
I think it's about time we're able to know that only one TLD on the Internet will contain Vin Diesel content.
-- Of course I'm paranoid. I'm a sysadmin.
I may be replying to a troll, but ...
Intriguing comment about potentially "explicit" Bible passages. I'm a Christian, though certainly not a Bible scholar. I'd be very curious to know what sorts of material could qualify for such an "explicit" label under the most liberal interpretation of that word. We know there's violence, of course, but what is there that could possibly qualify as sexually explicit, or even suggestive?
Truly curious to know. Anyone?
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
The lead story (at the time of this post) is that ICAAN "is denying that it gives the US government too much control over its operations" and here we have a delay in the decision to implement an .xxx tld because "the proposal hit a snag in August when the U.S. Commerce Department asked for more time to hear objections."
How much control is too much?
In a free market why *wouldn't* they immediately create a .xxx domain? I can see the money just pouring in.
-- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
"Critics such as the Family Research Council, a conservative U.S.-based religious group, complain that creating the .xxx domain would only legitimize the porn industry..."
Legitimize the porn industry? I'm pretty sure if you look at how much money the porn industry generates today its hard to say its not already legitimized.
Reality is a big nasty dragon. Fortunately I don't believe in dragons.
you illiturit bastage.
"Explicit sexual acts" isn't clear enough? Search for porn on the web and i DOUBT you'll find a porn website NOT having "explicit sexual acts".
This "we really don't know what pornography is" argument is pure bull.
Porn isn't impossible to define. Porn is simply whatever the viewer sees it to be. Porn can only be defined on a subjective basis, not an objective one.
Each person has a different idea of what porn is:
For some, porn is hardcore beastiality horse banging. For others, porn is erotic sex involving one or more participants. For others, porn is a male or a female tied up, being whipped. For others, porn is a hot chick in a skin-tight bikini, with a camel. For others, porn is a female crushing wine glasses in high heels. For others, porn is an automobile crash. For still others, porn is seeing some guy getting his nuts kicked squarely by a beautiful female. Not a single one of these examples is "made up".
I guarantee you, that there is probably more than one person out there where porn is women's clothing up to the chin and down past the ankle. Hell, I wouldn't be suprised if there wasn't "burka-porn" out there. Perhaps these extremist Christian conservatives are simply waaay kinkier than we think?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
"Who said the US was attempting to do any such thing? Because the US Commence Department asked for more time to hear objections?"
.XXX
.xxx was shitcanned. Note the DOC has a new administrator. I would not expect .xxx to be in the lagacy root under a Bush administration.
.xxx could have been deployed years ago (modulo some testicular augmention the ICANN board lacks, they could use them on the rare occasions they're awake)
Let's look at what actually happened:
A religous organization that had the ear of George Bush walked into Carl Rove's office. They had a shopping list of three things, 1) stem cell research, 2) same-sex marriages 3)
Rove went "Uh, about that third one, lemme make a phone call" and
And that, ladies and germs is what's wrong with the technical adminstration of names and numbers in the TCP/IP protocol suite. We've hit the seventh layer of the protocol stack - the political layer - and the ooze, scum and congealed evil is dribbling down into the lower layers and making a mess.
A large and well funded ICANN makes noise.
Is this the 3 or 4 guys operating in the light that used to do the very job icann does now? And for $15,000/yr as a part time task, not as a $15+M boondoggle? No. Instead there's physical meetings, bars, 5 star hotels, hookers and enough booze to fill a football stadium. Oh, and it's never 4:20 at an ICANN meeting, these boys are old school. A map of ICANN meeting locations reads like a book of the great beers of the world.
So no, this is not the online sythesis of ideas among the worlds brightest technologists to solve technical problems associated with adinistration of names and numbers. It's a slow moving government sponsored toga party parody of itself. It's face to face, real world, behind closed doors where people who know nothing, do nothing modulo the occasional very expensive press release.
Ironically ICANN was created to give legal personality to IANA - that had none, it couldn't sign anything. Imagine if Jon Postel were alive today: he would get nothing done with ICANN in the picture.
If you primary the root for yourself you're immune to this nonsense and other minor annoyences like the legacy root servers dropping packets.
http://cr.yp.to/dnsroot.html
Need Mercedes parts ?
All of Christianity is not Catholicism, as much as the pope would like it to be. It's not true. A minor correction that doesn't invalidate your point, but it needs to be said. I'm not sure about Eastern Orthodox history of persecution, but the Catholics have a dark past.
Not sure how the limbo position would work exactly but it sure sounds like fun.
It's interesting to me that you bring up Voltaire. It reminded me of something at the heart of the problem with the .xxx domain.
.xxx sites, the same as their predecesors were listed with pr0n back in the 16th century?
I studied this a few years ago, so my memory is a hint foggy in the way of book titles. Way back when, France would try to censor what was being read for the sake of its citizens. Officals would look for books being snuck in that fell under the catagory of "philosophy." This included everything from outright pr0n to the writing of revolutionaries. Quite a few gems from the time seemed to combine explicit acts with clergymen and royals. In essence, anything that might make the higher-ups look bad was banned.
My point being, will the revolutionaries of tomorrow be forced onto
Or will people still get around it as they did then--sneaking the illicit pages in by embedding them in the middle of bibles and other approved books, er domains?
...I still think the suffix should be .cum, rather than .xxx
This message printed on 100% post-consumer recycled electrons.
i thought that the Church just decided to get rid of the concept of limbo. now, that'll be /limbo/ if it's in a place that doesn't even exist.
we need a new noun.
dude, are they like not teaching punctuation in high school these days?! Do you really expect me to read that hunk of shit you just posted above without one f'ing paragraph?
You know, I really wouldn't even care so much had you bothered to just place a line break in there somewhere, mid sentence even, just to impress the hell out of me and show that you at least tried
to
comprehend the
concept...
like you said, .xxx would be global. the standards of what is x-rated are not the same globally, even within the same country. there are lots of "posing only" sites that considers itself art and natural, etc. what of the naked babies in diaper ads? what of the native africans walking around the villiage which is their custom? Or the health site that shows learning aids of breast feeding or a baby being born.
i therefore think the use of .xxx should just be RECOMMENDED, not enforced. Schools, libraries, work computers, and so on could block .xxx with no harm done, while developers can publish .xxx sites without fear of violating anything. nude "art" doesn't belong in libraries and such anways, too easy for kids to glance over and see.
can't really force all pr0n or nude art sites to switch to .xxx because of different standards, and can't force regular websites to not use .xxx. Just recommend, the same way .com is supposed to be commercial, .org is for organizations, etc, but not really enforced.
If .xxx domains existed, then governments could require adult sites use them or face fines. Exeptions to this might be personal websites like profile and dating sites which, if an adult tag is made up, could be put into special areas which would also could be filtered out by parents. In this way, parents can filter out .xxx and adult tagged pages. The responsibility for keeping kids safe from porn is put into the parents hands and not the goverment, and adult content is available to all that wish to see it. If whole countries don't want porn then the filters can be added to the servers within that country. This filtering setup can be used from the country level down to the individual computer level.
.xxx domain would be a great way in which to manage content on the web and making parents take responsibility for what their kids have access to at home.
Bottom line, adding a
...it cant remain there for long... no more limbo
always mosh clockwise
I like the intent of the .xxx TLD, but I think there's a better solution. Technically, it may be a challenge, but conceptually I think it's the best choice.
Just allow people to create public white/blacklists. But instead of an administrator approving or disapproving content, an applicant to a whitelist would agree to the terms of the list and be automatically accepted. But if they subsequently violate the terms of the list (for instance, posting a picture of a naked penguin) they'd leave themselves open to civil litigation. As a domain registrant, you'd choose any number of whitelist agreements and would have to face the list owner over any violation.
When signing up with an ISP (or setting up or subscribing to a DNS), you would indicate whether you want no restrictions, or a combination of white/blacklists. The many lists could evolve into consortium/hierachies whereby perhaps just choosing one of a handful of options (one might be "Everything but goatse") would usually be enough to define what you want.
To borrow a motto from the NRA: Registration is the first step towards confiscation.
and what about cp?