Slashdot Mirror
Plans For .xxx Domain For p0rn Scrapped
William Robinson writes "ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) has once again scrapped the plan for a new internet "domain" .xxx for pornography. Supporters of the .xxx address suffix argued that it would have helped to protect children and others from accidental exposure to internet pornography, particularly if stronger filters were used to screen out explicit material from other internet domains. Pressure from conservative Christian groups in the US, which has a veto over the internet addressing system, led the organisation last year to put off introducing a new ".xxx" domain for pornography on the internet. That drew international complaints that the US exercised too much power over the internet and added to a European-backed movement to shift control of the online medium to an international group."
I've not yet seen a reason to have the .xxx domain. I'm not opposed, per se, but I have a hard time understanding the point to it. It seems more like a fun hot button to oppose the US. If that's the case, cool, enjoy tilting at that particular windmill.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
I always wondered what made anyone think that this would be a success in the first place. Registering your pr0n site as a .com, etc would always be the preffered method, since you site would have a better chance of getting around filters. Just another instance of non-technical people trying to make technical decisions.
Because teenage pranks are fun when you're about to die!
Are you all ready for the barrage of thousands of comments about how much fundamentalist Christians suck. This obviously leads to conversations about how evil the Bush administration is. Naturally this will lead to a number of non-Americans saying how the States has too much power and is too conceited. And finally, this will be followed up by comments from Americans claiming to be the core of the world anyways so the rest of the world can go stuff it.
BR> Paint by numbers, brought to you by Slashdot.
Pressure from conservative Christian groups in the US, which has a veto over the internet addressing system, led the organisation last year
So, please tell me why they have a veto, and the progressive Buddhists do not?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Who gives a fuck? The Internet in my country was funded by my tax, and my country's backbone is the important one for me.
This "Oh, we did the initial research so we own everything that ever originates from that point" argument is pathetic. Did America invent roads? No!? Well then, I think the rest of the world should be able to tax American cars. What about railroads? Another non-American invention. Tax please!
The light bulb is another non-American invention. I think for that one the rest of the world should just refuse to licence it and people like you can go and live in the dark age you so surely deserve.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
I like all the subtle little messages in this article, further reinforcing the fundamentalist Christian conservative stereotype and implying that the Christians are the ones feeding fuel to the ICANN vs. Europe dispute.
.xxx domain decision any different than any other domain decision made by ICANN? Easy...it's a touchy issue with Christians. Christians who, by stereotype, are all conservative, and therefore are an easy target for the liberal media (yeah yeah, "liberal media", buzzword, I know).
.xxx domain decision at all.
Seriously, this debate already has enough touchy issues to keep both sides warring with each other. Looking at the situation objectively, I don't think ICANN can make any kind of intelligent decision now without sparking accusations from European protesters. So what, then, makes this
Personally, I see this article having little to do with the
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
A psychological phenomenon that refers to the bad feeling one gets when a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation from someone else. Religion usually falls in this framework when two people who are on opposite positions begin discussing and get further and further away from true understanding one another.
This doesn't fall under religion exclusively either, almost any aspects of life can become deeply held beliefs that we don't want to let go of when something new comes along to upset the apple-cart.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
And this will keep coming up until somebody realizes we can't force everything naughty into a ghetto.
.kids domain registrar'ed by a US company/NGO simultaneous with a law being passed covering what kind of content was allowed in .kids . Whitelisting is the only way to keep the pr0n out.
If they want a kid safe internet, they should put their efforts behind the
Not that they could agree on what falls on the "not pr0n" side of the fence.
CERN?
...atleast initially.
What would work best is pressure to use a .xx domain and .com domain where the .com redirects to the .xxx. The porn companies have worked hard on their brandname and image. They arn't going to give up a .com without a fight, but a simple redirect would allow the .xxx filters to still work while retaining the .com
Well, the problem with that is, does this count for ONLY porn? If so, who decides "this is porn, and this is not?" In New York City or Las Vegas or another major city, what constitutes as pornography will likely be higher than, say, a rural community in the Bible Belt. Whose definition do we use? And if it's not just porn, and it's just "offensive" sites, well, that's even worse.
.com to .xxx is mandatory. If it's not, and it's only encouraged, that leads to another problem. Say, for instance, I have an art site with nude models. It's not porn. It's nothing worse than looking at, say, Michaelangelo's David. But now some little boy gets on the big, scary Internet and finds my site. His mom walks in and sees it and blows her top. I'm at fancypantsart.COM! How dare I peddle my smut on a .com when I should know full well I need to be on .xxx like the other filth-fests. A few angry calls later, and I might be pressured to move my domain.
Of course, this is just if the switch from
It sounds good on paper, but it's ugly no matter how you look at it.
This I don't understand. Can somebody help me out? Why wouldn't they want to keep all of the porn sites in one domain, where a very simple filter could eliminate all of it from view? It's very simple -- Christian groups don't want porn "segregated" -- they want it to disappear entirely. Providing a special domain is an admission that porn has a legitimate place on the Net, and that concept is anathema to the folks who don't just want to avoid it themselves, but deny anyone else the choice to view it.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
Ok, for me this brings up a question and a couple points:
Where did the submitter get this "Christian Veto" thing if they don't (And I certainly hope they don't!) have one.
I find your arguments against the EU are completely unfair. The US doesn't WANT other countries to fund it, because that would take away from the absolute control the US currently has.
You also complaining about the EU "already admitted that they would allow countrys to limit control by their own people, exactly what they accuse the US of being capable of". If I am readin that statement properly, there is a HUGE difference between what the EU wants and what the US is doing. The EU wants individual countries to have the right to exercise some levels of control. The US wants to IMPOSE their brand of morality on the rest of the world.
I have to say that the way the US treats other countries, I can hardly blame the EU for wanting the US to give up some of its power.
Ignoring the fact the grandparent didn't mention anything about a "tax", the parent still is a non-sequiter. America has it's own railway and highway system, it didn't augment an existing system built by another party. If you wanted to compare apples to apples, your country would have invested it's money in a separate internet system that it could control as it sees fit. If your country didn't accept the control authority of the existing internet, it should not have invested in it.
Er...maybe I'm appearing to be an uninformed dumbass here, but I'd really like to know who these "conservative Christian groups" who opposed this might be. The moment I read that, some red flags went up:
1. The original story is published in the Financial Times (London). A nice publication, but this stiry is lacking on the details. It's not likely the NY Times or WaPo would get away with that too frequently. Name names.
2. In today's political and media environment, it frequently appears that tossing up "conservative" and "Christian" (especially in the same sentence) is an easy way to create some kind of nameless, Luddite, Dark Ages bogey man. I'm conservative and Catholic, and I don't have a problem with this. Nor do a number of fellow conservatives and Christians that I know. I realize that my circle of acquaintences is pretty limited, but just who are these nameless "groups"?
3. What is this "pressue"? A letter writing campaign from some pro-family church-based group? I would call that the right to express one's opinion. Does this mean there was no "pressure" from non-conservative Christian groups to crate the domain? Alternatively, was there any pressure against the domain from adult content providers? I see a number of reasons why they wouldn't want this (some expressed in the replies here), so doesn't their opinion also have some sway with ICANN?
4. Just because a bunch of people write some letters, send some e-mails or make some phone calls doesn't mean there's "pressure" to do something. Once again, people express their opinions, which is a right. How many times have similar campaigns failed against some TV show that some groups found offensive?
5. How certain are the reporters that these groups are completely "conservative" or "Christian"? I'll bet I could find someone in my circle of liberal, Jewish, agnostic, athiest or libertarian friends that take the same position.
I'd prefer some reporting with factual substance. Not some drive-by shots at some straw man.
Joe Dougherty, Florida, USA
The words I thought I brought, I left behind. So, never mind.
That poorly constructed sentence is saying that the US has veto power not the conservative Christian groups.
Actually, the Internet was developed to combat the USSR by the decidedly American DOD. It was created by Americans, for Americans. Obviously it has since expanded into something else entirely, but America invented, developed, and spent 30+ years laying the groundwork for it starting back with ARPA in the 60's - it wasn't until CERN in 1991 that the idea of a global network was even brought up.
What, me? Never.
No one seems to understand this topic so I'm going to do my best to bring you all up to speed.
.xxx.
.xxx domain would cost in the neighborhood of $60 to register. Some of this money goes to ICANN obviously, but the rest will be used to make sure the site complies with the rules and regulations associated with the aggrement that goes along with a registration. For example, the sites may not use any models under the age of 18, they must follow some best practices such as not having annnoying popup ads that can not be closed, etc. .xxx is not attempting to remove porn from .com or any other TLD, it will simply be another domain a site can register. However, as part of the agreement, all other doians owned by the company that registers the domain must also comply with the standards and practices required of the .xxx domain. A .xxx domain will also only be able to be purchased by a company with a legitimate adult business. For example, suicidegirls.xxx would be a valid registration, but disney.xxx could never be registered because there can not be a porn business named disney.
.xxx, despite the fact I know those involved, but I see no reason why it, or any other TLD for that matter shouldn't be approved. The catholic league or what ever specific christian orginization is against .xxx doesn't have any idea the benefits it will have as far as cleaning up the internet and ultimately protecting children from adult content.
As a point of interest, I have attended ICANN conferences, and I know personally members of various ICANN subcomitees, as well as know personally the two gentlemen behind
A
Also as part of the agreement, the business myst have an actual person as a contact, with a valid phone number.
They must also rate their site with ICRA, a web standard meta tag that most filtering software uses to determine the content of a site and whether ot not it is sutible for the filter to show.
I'm not personally affiliated with
> My, that slope sure is slippery.
.xxx TLD and everything outside it that isn't Disney's version of reality will get their butts sued. And if you don't believe Congress won't force the default position of the ISP filters the second they would A) be affordable and B) effective hasn't been following the continual efforts of Congress to 'protect the children' from the 'evil, wicked and outright depraved Internet.'
.kids and force disney.com into it.
No, just a realistic appraisal of the legal and political climate in the US, as observed by a native who has followed politics for longer than the average slashdotter has been potty trained. I'm not even a crazed leftwing moonbat who sees a police state hiding under every rock, I'm a libertarian leaning small government Republican. But I know what Congress is capable of though, and have to speak out even when it would be Republicans leading the charge.
The only thing that keeps the trial lawyers at bay now is the reality that there IS no effective way to keep objectional content in a dank corner of the Internet so you can't sue every time your little hellion sees something naughty and our 1st Amendment won't allow the whole Internet (as viewed in the US) to become a big freaking Barney masturbertorium. But you give em a
If we just have to have a segregated Internet create
Democrat delenda est
The main reason that we'll never see a .xxx TLD is for these reasons:
So today, we've basically got a huge can of worms with this situation, that no one wants to touch. Sure, if .xxx existed originally, I think most p0rn site operators would have registered in that domain (it makes sense). But nobody's going to go back.