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
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!?
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/)
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.
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.
It's a metacomment. He is using an old SNL skit to make the point that this article is of no newsworthiness.
"ICANN still waiting for answer"?? What kind of story is that? Unless there is a movement in either direction, reporting on the continuing waiting is worse than reporting on people lined up for Star Wars openings. At least we can laugh at those idiots.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, it is definitely a fine example of 'nothing to report here' headlines.
I work at a newspaper managing the shovelware from print to online and we do that shit all the time...it blows my mind. They simply cannot get past the idea that todays readers want informative news even if theres less of it instead of just filling the page up with random shit.
Apparently slashdot didnt get the memo.
"Censorship"? No. Not showing *everything* to a kid until you, the parent, determines that they are ready, yes.
If filtering out content that you consider objectionable (even if you intend to stop doing so two decades in the future) isn't censorship, I'm curious as to what your definition of the word is. Mirriam-Webster says "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable".
If you haven't noticed, there is a huge, wide range of maturity between 0 and 18. Maybe when you have children of your own, you'll realize this.
And how do you think that mental maturity is reached, if not through experience?
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
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 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.
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
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.
There are some good Sex Museums out there... like the one in Amsterdam. Would it go under museum.xxx or xxx.museum ?
Just wondering?
I'm not quite sure how adding two 'x's to goatse.cx actually helps anything.
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.
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
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.
"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.