New Vote on .xxx Internet Address Nears

Billosaur writes "ICANN is once more set to vote on the creation of the .xxx Internet address. Though the proposal has been voted down by ICANN's board twice before the group behind those previous proposals resubmitted after they 'agreed to hire independent organizations to monitor porn sites' compliance with the new rules, which would be developed by a separate body called the International Foundation for Online Responsibility.' Once more the proposal has led to pornographers and religious groups finding themselves on the same side of an issue, the porn industry worried that the domain would lead to government controls, the religious groups worried it would make access too easy and allow porn to expand even further onto the Internet."

Comments

Why not?

[ArcherB]

I fail to understand why we DON'T have .xxx domain names. If we did, we could lump all the porn sites together, making them both easier to find and easier to block. No one would accidentally stumble upon a porn site while looking for something completely unrelated (remember whitehouse.com?). This also gives the added advantage of freeing up porn sites to do more of whatever it is they wish to do. Gone is the excuse of "What about the children?" because blocking it would be so easy, than even an ISP could do it. Imagine, all you have to do is call your ISP and say, "Please block all html-based porn. Thank you." All your ISP would need to do is simply block all .xxx domain names. Your children are safe and porn operators have that much more freedom!

I don't understand how this is NOT a win-win for everyone! (Except for those that either want to block porn altogether and those that want to make it that much easier to "stumble on." F*ck both those groups!)

Re:Why not?

[solafide]

Because nobody will want only a .xxx domain. Let's say you're [pornsitehere].com and the xxx tld gets approved. You can't let [pornsitehere].xxx get snapped up by someone else and feed off the people expecting [pornsitehere].xxx to be the same as [pornsitehere].com. Thus the porn sites will now have 2 addresses: [pornsitehere].com and [pornsitehere].xxx.

Meanwhile the legitimate high-profile .com sites will also need a .xxx site: there will be misspellings, and imagine the bad rap that, say, Microsoft would get from microsoft.xxx being a porn site. So the legitimate .com site owners will have to buy up the .xxx domains too.

So now we have everyone buying a new .xxx domain name which points to their original site and keeping their own .com site. No porn site will move to being only .xxx because everyone is used to .coms, and no legitimate business will risk a domain-squatter in the .xxx domain. It's no easier to block porn as before, nor easier to find it. All this does is give the domain registrars more money and the DNS servers more headaches.

The only possible way of moving all porn to .xxx sites is by legislating it, and it's impossible to have a legislative solution that works, because people's definitions of porn vary. So porn will always be a presence on the internet, and you are still responsible for your own filtering.

Re:Why not?

[eln]

You're trying to segregate objectionable content so you can block it. This just can't work, because everyone's definition of "objectionable" is different. If we decide to do this to porn, what's next? A special TLD for violent content? Or maybe politically objectionable/inconvenient content?

The only possibly sane way to do this would be to have something like a .kids TLD, and then have kid-friendly sites voluntarily join it. Then you could make a "kid-friendly" browser by allowing access only to stuff in the .kids TLD. Of course, that would mean someone would have to constantly monitor sites on that TLD to make sure no objectionable content shows up. So, that's not really a perfect solution either.

The bottom line is really that you're trying to mandate a subjective standard through technology, and that sort of thing just doesn't work. You can get rid of the obvious stuff with existing filtering technology, but at the end of the day you still have to actually watch your kids if you want to make sure they stay away from stuff you find objectionable.

Re:Why not?

[Penguinisto]

"I know it when I see it"
-US Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter, defining obscenity (IIRC)

Therein lies the problem - what's porn? Nekkid chicks? Nope - half the Smithsonian's art collection would qualify. Is it nekkid people doing the nasty? Umm, nope - plenty of porn sites specialize in costumes and full rubber body suits. Sexual depiction? Well, there goes every health site which does 2d and 3d clinical cut-away renderings showing how human reproduction occurs.

Also - let's look at a state like Utah... the place is hella restrictive on what it considers "porn"; I could see the Utah state legislature mandating that ALL ISP's who do business there block the entire .xxx TLD from its citizenry. Adults, kids, whomever... everybody looking for pr0n gets the firewall in the land of Deseret. I suspect that more than a few counties and towns/cities/etc in the Southern US would happily pass similar laws (see also alcohol and "Wet Counties" vs. "Dry Counties") Care to be a multi-state or multi-national ISP having to add that selective and patchwork firewall burden to your list of things to do?

Just looks to be more trouble than it's worth on a macro scale, IMHO.

/P

Re:Why not?

[vivaoporto]

If we did, we could lump all the porn sites together, making them both easier to find and easier to block.

1) Will it be voluntary or mandatory? If it is voluntary, it will not work on principle, because every porn operator out there knows that the so called "blocks" will not be implemented only for children, but for everyone that is under anti-porn zealots internet jurisdiction, even who wouldn't mind to access this kind of content. Just see what happens now, the whole bias the media already has (both ways, liberal and conservative). Imagine it being imposed ISP level too, if you have no choice of ISP and the owner is against porn, he can simply impose his view. Now, if it is mandatory, it could work, but ...

2) How will you define porn? Is it sensual posing? Partial nudity? Full frontal nudity? Simulated sexual intercourse (softcore)? Pixelated sexual intercourse? Uncensored sexual intercourse? Is it only for pictures? Movies? Radio podcasts? Will it include foreign porn? Are written stories going to be censored? If so, only the online version or the good old printed book too? How will the foreign ones be translated? And, the most important question: Who will define porn? Who will catalog every internet content and create the blacklist and the whitelist? Who decides what is an acceptable expression of art and what is filthy debauchery?

People have to understand that you cannot both regulate artistic expressions (whatever kind it is) and have free speech at the same time. The judge that stroke down the COPA understood that you cannot deprive the whole society of its liberties in order to protect the children, specially because they will grow and become adults someday, and they will be entitled to those freedoms too, unless we take it away from them. If you are concerned about your children browsing habits, there are already software available out there. There is no reason to legislate everybody to suit to your personal needs.

Re:Why not?

[fyngyrz]

So who decides what goes in the .xxx domain?

<SARCASM>

.xxx is for offensive material. Filth. Vice. You know, like Christian and Islamic websites. Surely we need to protect the children from this. They might grow up to be suicide bombers or abortion clinic bombers; get on television and lie to old people in a blatant attempt to extort money from them in return for "prayer." Or they might build on land in your town, claim they don't have to pay taxes, and saddle you and your neighbors with the portion of the tax burden they should be paying. Or they might encourage censorship, even online "ghettos" where material that doesn't fit into their ridiculous mythologies goes to be blocked by ISPs they control through PACs and other unsavory influences.

Yes, I think we need to move all religious content to a tld such as ".xxx" or ".lie" or ".myth" so we can easily block it. As for sex, no need for that. My kids know sex is perfectly OK, and lying about superstition is not — they're smart kids. No need to lean back towards the dark ages. I was happy for them when they had their first sexual experiences. I'm just as happy they've managed to avoid being conned by these superstitious dimwits, but you know, not all kids are as smart as mine. That is why we have to put religion in its own tld. It must be blocked because I don't like it!

</SARCASM>

they're not that different.

[User 956]

Once more the proposal has led to pornographers and religious groups finding themselves on the same side of an issue

Yeah, they both use the phrase "oh god, oh god" on a daily basis.

I'll tell you why not.

[uberjoe]

The problem is that there is no way to define what IS and IS NOT porn.

Re:I'll tell you why not.

[Cid Highwind]

Classifying any given email message as "spam" and "not spam" is fairly easy to do, too. Somehow I don't think that ICANN requiring all spam to be sent from mail servers in some newly-created .spam TLD would change anything at all to the stream of mortgage offers, penis pill ads, and stock scams that fill my inbox every day. My advice to the anti-porn crusaders^W^W .xxx TLD advocates: Have fun playing whack-a-mole with porn sites operated through the same type of tangled web of international ownership and hosting as spam and phishing sites. A decade of fighting with spammers teaches us that forcing a business that operates on the fringes of legality to comply with onerous new policies is very hard.

expanding porn?

[PlusFiveTroll]

...allow porn to expand even further onto the Internet.

Is that even possible... I mean unless Disney starts up an XXX line porn is pretty much everywhere already.

Strange, but...

[Penguinisto]

...wouldn't open proxies (and even to an extent anonymizers, depending on setup) obviate the whole ISP blocking of ".xxx", or any blocking software that parents/preachers get put on to avoid making it too easy to access?

Besides, considering the outright abuse of .org, .com, and .net, what's to stop ".xxx" from being turned into a mush of sites which may have little or nothing to do with porn? After all, I can think of lots of groups that would love to have an .xxx extension, just for the cool factor (bloggers, artists, and not-so-intelligent l33t h4x0r sites just as a ferinstance). Unless they have some intensely strict rules w/ the registrars - more than what they propose for it (e.g. give 'em the rules required to get, say, a ".mil" extension), it won't be just for pr0n - at least not for very long, IMVHO.

Don't even get me started on the domain-squatting and name-grabbing/auctioning, either... it'd make the Oklahoma Land Rush of the 19th Century seem tame by comparison.

Considering all of that, ICANN can prolly say "nope" yet again and call it good, for all the good it'll do. Seems like a headache all-around; and when both porn industry and fundies BOTH get all ate-up about not having it, you know something's inherently wrong with the idea.

/P

No Compelling Reason

[Frosty Piss]

It's just a real estate grab that has little or no practical use in managing porn on the Interweb. It's not like all these sites will give up their .com / .net / .org names, and I'll bet within 24 hours (probably a lot less) of .xxx going "live", there will be no names worth buying left. Land grab, pure and simple, there is really no compelling reason to have the .xxx TLD.