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!
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.
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.
...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
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 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.
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.
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.
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