Slashdot Mirror


ICANN Likely Finally To Approve .xxx For Porn Sites

shmG writes with this from the International Business Times: "The company that oversees Web addresses is expected to give the go-ahead on Friday for the creation of a .xxx suffix for websites with pornographic content, company officials indicated on Thursday. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which oversees the Internet on behalf of the US government, has in the past resisted creating a .xxx generic domain name system akin to those for .com and .net."

266 comments

  1. I've got dibs by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 4, Funny

    on fu.xxx

    1. Re:I've got dibs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck, most two/three letter combos will go almost instantly, probably before they are publicly available. Still, why not try for:

      goats.xxx
      whitehouse.xxx
      co.xxx
      ro.xxx
      bp.xxx
      xxx.xxx
      apple.xxx
      rms.xxx
      slashdot.xxx

    2. Re:I've got dibs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      you can have fu.xxx I want se.xxx

    3. Re:I've got dibs by psychicsword · · Score: 5, Funny

      Too bad you will never get any

  2. because .xxx is nothing like .sex by oneiros27 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Doesn't anyone bother to read the RFCs? (probably not, they're too interested in trying to sell domains to make money)

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
    1. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, the .xxx domain is probably pointless. The vast majority of adult sites aren't going to be moving so you still won't be able to easily filter based on that criteria. The doc you linked does mention a different idea that I could get behind though, establish a .kids which would be a semi-walled garden of child appropriate material. That allows the creating of a relatively safe space for children which would be relatively enforceable by knowledgeable parents without creating the privacy and legal concerns that everyone seems to have with a .xxx domain.

    2. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by audubon · · Score: 3, Informative

      The doc you linked does mention a different idea that I could get behind though, establish a .kids which would be a semi-walled garden of child appropriate material.

      That's been tried, via an administered second-level domain, .kids.us

      From the link, It's the first and only "youth-friendly" Web space to be established by the United States government, and it features advanced technical, policy and operational mechanisms that keep young people informed, entertained and protected online.

    3. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by Ash-Fox · · Score: 2, Funny

      When .xxx becomes available, I am going to start a U-rated picture colouring website on that tld.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    4. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought .kids.us was were 4chan went for loli...

    5. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by mea37 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just because it's an RFC doesn't make it accurate.

      The legal/philosophical issues are debatable; the author does a fair job of making his opinion on the matter clear, but I can't say I found it all that compelling.

      When the author tries to lay out technical issues, though, it just gets laughable:

      He mentions that there are thousands of languages and questions which one to use in choosing the label... well, how about the same one from which the other TLD abbreviations are taken? Do you think .com is meaningful in German, Russian, Chinese, countless Indian dialects, etc.?

      Pointing out that the protocol won't fully enforce the rule is not actually pointing out a technical hurdle. In the spirit of his "postal mail" analogy - It's illegal to commit fraud via U.S. mail, but the mailboxes don't stop you from doing it.

      Other people could point non-.xxx names at a .xxx site; true, but so what? If you have any sort of legal force behind use of the .xxx domain, you word it around the act of making explicit material available through a non-.xxx name; and then the person who pointed a non-.xxx name at the porn is liable, not the porn site's operator.

      And on and on with a parade of attempts to make something this guy doesn't want to see happen sound implausible. BFD

    6. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hear pedobear.kids.us has been a great success.

          Oh....

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    7. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by yeshuawatso · · Score: 3, Informative

      If anyone is too lazy to Google U-Rated, it's the UK equivalent of US Rated G. For a second, I was asking myself "What the hell is a U rating?" Google is your friend.

    8. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>"What the hell is a U rating?"

      Some kind of kinky Uterus subcategory?

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    9. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by deinol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a big difference between trying to force all porn sites to use .xxx (or any other specific term) and allowing people who wish to buy .xxx domains to do so.

      In other news, who cares?

      --
      Got Apathy?
    10. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by yeshuawatso · · Score: 1

      Ha!

    11. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by geekoid · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The adult industry would be smart to get behind a push to move material to .xxx

      It would be great PR.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what stops someone from registering nudeandbeingraped.kids?

    13. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by tepples · · Score: 1

      When .xxx becomes available, I am going to start a U-rated picture colouring website on that tld.

      Don't make it U-rated/G-rated; that won't bring in the bucks. Make it 34-rated like Paheal.

    14. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, the .xxx domain is probably pointless. The vast majority of adult sites aren't going to be moving so you still won't be able to easily filter based on that criteria.

      The .xxx domain definitely has a point. If porn sites don't move, you won't be able to filter them by domain. So, they will be forced to move by law, you know, for the children. That gives the government a legal cudgel it can use against anyone who hosts borderline material. This causes a chilling effect on healthy discussions of sexuality, advancing the agenda of the puritanical community.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    15. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by moderatorrater · · Score: 5, Interesting

      For a while new porn sites will be registered at both .com and .xxx, and the existing sites will still probably be primarily .com (although they'll register .xxx for brand purity). As a filter it will be meaningless, and as a tool for censorship it won't work. Legitimate porn sites tend to not try to get around filtering right now anyway, so the free speech concerns seem overblown.

      However, it does offer value to both porn sites and internet users. First, it's a namespace that you always know is porn, so if you're looking for porn this can be a useful tool. Filtering these sites is as easy as it can get, and as mentioned before most porn sites don't try to get around filters anyway. Porn sites now have a way of identifying themselves more fully for customers and they don't have to compete for .com names.

      Most importantly in my mind, this could be the easiest way to get people weaned off of .com as the only tld. .gov is useful for a small subset of sites, .org can be useful for some sites (although they almost all try to get the .com as well), and .co.uk is the .com of Britain. If they introduce .xxx and it takes off, it'll be a big step forward in making more domain names viable, and I consider that to absolutely be a good thing.

    16. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by surveyork · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure they've at least tried.

      --
      2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
    17. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What did children do to be locked up in a prison of mind? Or rather, do you want to teach them that they should expect such?

      Because, sorry, porn does not even interest kids before puberty (really, they simply don't care - no threat of lifelong damage or anything, its just that). And after puberty I think you should kind of have to realize it is a human urge that cannot be suppressed entirely without negative effects. Even more iportantly that at the time of puberty they are definitely getting some of the last opportunities on the path to maturity of mind.
      If you prevent them from learning about what's REALLY out there in the world (wikipedia, news, violence, porn and prostitution, inequality and unfairness...) and even to feel hurt by it, they may never in their life manage to deal with it.

    18. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by jmorris42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > If porn sites don't move, you won't be able to filter them by domain.

      Exactly. The law of unintended consequences. But in this case it isn't really unintended because a lot of people have been raising the alarm on the perfectly natural result creating an .xxx tld is going to have and the activists are sticking their fingers in their ears and humming really loud. By now they should realize what they are doing but apparently they are refusing to face reality. Idiots!

      This is going to become a nightmare within a year of the .xxx domain going live. Just watch. If anyone were thinking rationally we would make .kids, allow parents to lock a browser into that domain and stfu with all this "we must do it for the children" nonsense.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    19. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Informative

      > If anyone were thinking rationally we would make .kids, allow parents to
      > lock a browser into that domain and stfu with all this "we must do it for
      > the children" nonsense.

      They thinking rationally. They're just lying about their motives. Otherwise they'd just control their own children and mind their own business.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    20. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      I wrote "They thinking rationally."

      The word "are" fell out, somehow. Must be a Slashcode bug.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    21. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by FlyMysticalDJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Personally, I would think a fair number of adult sites would WANT to move to .xxx.
      I mean, obviously it will be banned at work, schools, libraries, so there will still be sites on .com for the people that are trying to grab that demographic, but if the majority of porn users are actually adults in their own homes LOOKING for porn, the .xxx domain would make it very easy to know where the porn is. And as a result the porn sites will move there to get more exposure to their best customers: people who want, can pay for, are legally allowed to consume, and are currently in a place where they can browse porn.

      That said, I am still against the gov't trying to regulate what is and isn't porn and requiring sites to move.

    22. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by TheLink · · Score: 1

      It's not pointless:
      1) It makes ICANN and friends more money
      2) It makes it easier to search for porn

      So yes I also doubt they'll move, but many will register .xxx domains just for 2) and branding.

      --
    23. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by miggyb · · Score: 2, Funny

      Clearly, sex and porn is a natural curiosity that all people go through during puberty. That being said, however, there's a huge difference between sex and online pornography, namely one is natural and one is artificial. While I wouldn't necessarily worry if I caught my 12 year old son masturbating, I don't think I (or society) would react well to finding out he has a bondage-preggo-Voltaire's-angry-glove fetish at that age.

      --
      This signature serves no purpose other than to help you see which posts were made by me.
    24. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Interesting
      the .xxx domain would make it very easy to know where the porn is.

      So you think people will search for porn by typing random domain names ending in .xxx?

      I personally use Google to find porn the same as I find anything else. I don't really care what domain it's in Except that .xxx will be blocked on just about every access point except those who have decided to "opt out", and who in their right mind would put in writing that thy want access to porn domains? Fine if you're a single guy, not if you live with your parents, wife, children. Not if you know that the police will very likely have access to such a list. If you have kids, you'll feel obliged to block .xxx anyway. The end result is that any porn company that put their main site on.xxx would be broke in a very short time.

      What you'll see there is a bunch of fake "free porn" sites that are full of malware and/or just bounce you to the real sites, probably on .com like always. So it's the last place I'll be looking for porn. It'll be as useful as all those stupid special use domains, like aero, biz, pro that are similarly only used by spammers and as placeholders for the real site.

    25. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by Golddess · · Score: 1

      The same (or similar) thing that stops non-government entities from registering a .gov domain?

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    26. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by EdIII · · Score: 2, Interesting

      it'll be a big step forward in making more domain names viable, and I consider that to absolutely be a good thing.

      Nooo, the exact same amount of domain names will be available. www.porn.com will, as quickly as possible, purchase www.porn.xxx. However, also as quickly as possible, www.dell.com will purchase www.dell.xxx.

      Every single business I know, including my own, will be picking up the .xxx domain. Do you really think Google is going to allow *anyone* else to own www.google.xxx? Of course not. I am not as big as Google, but I can't let my business name be trashed like that. No business would.

      For the same reasons people pick up the corresponding .net, they will be picking up the corresponding .xxx. The same amount of domain names will be available. This was just a way to make the people who run domain registrars, and ICANN buttloads richer in a short period of time. Trust me, plenty of those assholes or shopping around for luxury cars, second homes, and prettier mistresses right now.

      The .xxx domain could be a great idea, has less privacy and censorship concerns than most people think (and I am staunch advocate for privacy and anti-censorship), but it will never be implemented in the right way to be effective.

      This is going to be a clusterfuck of purchases, squatting, extortion, and trademark dilution lawsuits.

    27. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does everyone always see this as a "think of the children"?

      What about "Think of the adults". Now if I want porn, I'll know where to get it!

    28. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      Every single business I know, including my own, will be picking up the .xxx domain. Do you really think Google is going to allow *anyone* else to own www.google.xxx? Of course not. I am not as big as Google, but I can't let my business name be trashed like that. No business would.

      Agreed. My hope would be that the people who pick up vanity domains, hobby domains, squatters, etc would be less apt to pick up the .xxx unless it's applicable. Especially if they make the price higher or don't allow squatters to grab domains for nearly free.

    29. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by AbeW · · Score: 1

      I see this as just a commercial initiative by ICM registry. They decided to apply for a .xxx domain because they see a business case in it. Maybe they'll make it work, maybe it will fall into oblivion. Are there all kinds of consequences for allowing the domain - yes. But not allowing it for the wrong reasons is not the answer here. The internet is global infrastructure. Who gets to make the moral decisions there? Had a talk with several people at the last ICANN meeting in Brussels. 5 minute video taken from those talks here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTaCwBKQTAI&hd=1

    30. Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The free speech concerns come in when you realize you can't define "adult content" let alone "porn"

      Should wikipedia be forced onto .xxx? Theres plenty of nude pictures on there.
      Same with National Geographic.

      And any website that can ever host files (photobucket, tinypic, etc).

      What about websites that discuss sexual information either STD information or even the slightly less pure but still not porn sites that describe masturbatory techniques?

      And if you dont ban those, what about erotic stories?
      Movies with sex scenes?

  3. Obvious... by brian0918 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ICANN HAZ PORN?

    1. Re:Obvious... by Gertlex · · Score: 1

      That trumps the "Why ICANN no haz .XXX?"

    2. Re:Obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      ICANN HAZ PORN?

      you spelled PRON wrong.

    3. Re:Obvious... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe the correct spelling is actually pr0n.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Obvious... by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      doesn't matter.
      That's still a total /win

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  4. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hopefully, this is a sign that our policies are not dictated by the "Think of the children" crowd.

    1. Re:Finally by Kitkoan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hopefully, this is a sign that our policies are not dictated by the "Think of the children" crowd.

      To be honest, this could easily be made to be pro 'think of the children'. If suddenly it is designed that porn sites are to have the .xxx domain name then you can easily put on a very basic (even just OS Parental Controls) to just refuse to load .xxx domains. Its 'thinking of the children' as suddenly porn sites are easily identifiable and blockable since they all (in theory) be .xxx domains (like how most governments sites are expected to be .gov)

      --
      Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
    2. Re:FINALLY by Kitkoan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Finally there will be porn on the internet.

      Took them long enough!

      Wow... mom was right, you will go blind if you play with it...

      --
      Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
    3. Re:Finally by BobMcD · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hopefully, this is a sign that our policies are not dictated by the "Think of the children" crowd.

      To be honest, this could easily be made to be pro 'think of the children'. If suddenly it is designed that porn sites are to have the .xxx domain name then you can easily put on a very basic (even just OS Parental Controls) to just refuse to load .xxx domains. Its 'thinking of the children' as suddenly porn sites are easily identifiable and blockable since they all (in theory) be .xxx domains (like how most governments sites are expected to be .gov)

      And I'd think that even the porn people would be on board with this. The kinds of people that want porn blocked in certain situations are the same kinds that are willing to pay for it in other, more private situations.

    4. Re:Finally by ushering05401 · · Score: 1

      Your comment is consistent with most of what I saw growing up in the Catholic community in uptight O.C. California way back when. Religious conservatives are often a different breed from the Prohibitionists. The latter treat religion as a tool, the former honestly believe that an immature mind needs to be protected until the kid is old enough to understand the consequences of sin to their immortal soul.

    5. Re:Finally by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And I'd think that even the porn people would be on board with this. The kinds of people that want porn blocked in certain situations are the same kinds that are willing to pay for it in other, more private situations.

      Like bathroom stalls in airports?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully, this is a sign that our policies are not dictated by the "Think of the children" crowd.

      To be honest, this could easily be made to be pro 'think of the children'. If suddenly it is designed that porn sites are to have the .xxx domain name then you can easily put on a very basic (even just OS Parental Controls) to just refuse to load .xxx domains. Its 'thinking of the children' as suddenly porn sites are easily identifiable and blockable since they all (in theory) be .xxx domains (like how most governments sites are expected to be .gov)

      In an ideal world, I would agree with you. As soon as porn sites are forced to go to the xxx domain, the same crowd will then push for educational websites about sex education, birth control, STDs, abortion, sexual health, etc to be pushed into the .xxx domain. Why stop there, though? Then they will want any sexual speech to go to the .xxx domain, too. No sex jokes allowed on slashdot anymore unless slashdot goes to the .xxx domain, etc.

    7. Re:FINALLY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless it's mom doing the playing. Bet she never told you that one.

  5. i got dibs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    on se.xxx
    and sex.xxx

    and goatse.xxx

    1. Re:i got dibs by nacturation · · Score: 1

      I have dibs on Vin-Diesel-Is.xXx

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  6. So... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

    How long till slashdot.xxx is registered and what will it link me to?

    In all seriousness though, Will this cause a massive surge of porn hosts buying domain names that exist in .com or .net for .xxx (like google.xxx) so that people curious if it exists will stumble upon their porn site?

    1. Re:So... by snowraver1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      If google.xxx is what I think it would be, it could perhaps be the best website on the Internet.

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    2. Re:So... by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The owners of Slashdot.org would most likely serve a C&D on whomever registers slashdot.xxx for the clear trademark violation. TLD owners like .TV and .CC used to brag about the major companies registering all their trademarks with them... when really all those companies were doing was making sure nobody else used their brands the wrong way.

    3. Re:So... by Threni · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Really you want a default null tld so Slashdot.org would just be slashdot. I don't care where a site is based, whether it's for profit or not. I want to just type:

      slashdot
      ubuntuforums
      bbc

      etc and not try and guess/remember whether they're: .com .net .org .co.uk .org.uk

      etc etc. The distinction is meaningless to me.

    4. Re:So... by BobMcD · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really you want a default null tld so Slashdot.org would just be slashdot. I don't care where a site is based, whether it's for profit or not. I want to just type:

      slashdot
      ubuntuforums
      bbc

      etc and not try and guess/remember whether they're: .com .net .org .co.uk .org.uk

      etc etc. The distinction is meaningless to me.

      The distinction doesn't exist solely to help you mentally organize sites. It exists because DNS reads from right to left, and it has to start somewhere. Otherwise there would be no way to organize them.

    5. Re:So... by vk2 · · Score: 1
      Really? Go Tell Barry - http://www.whitehouse.org/ [NSFW Alert!!]

      Really you want a default null tld so Slashdot.org would just be slashdot. I don't care where a site is based, whether it's for profit or not. I want to just type:

      slashdot ubuntuforums bbc

      etc and not try and guess/remember whether they're: .com .net .org .co.uk .org.uk

      etc etc. The distinction is meaningless to me.

      --
      No Sig for you.!
    6. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless I am mistaken, the default functionality of Firefox's address bar is to take anything that isn't a URL, perform a Google search on it and immediately take you to the first page. This is pretty much what you're asking for as Google is pretty good at picking the correct page.

      Slashdot brought me to slashdot.org
      ubuntuforums took me to ubuntuforums.org
      bbc took me to bbc.co.uk
      whitehouse takes me to whitehouse.gov

    7. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When has slashdot published pornographic material? How is this source confusion?

      I don't see the TM issue... Dilution? ehh...

    8. Re:So... by Knoeki · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can do that in firefox. Type a site like that in the addressbar. It'll use the google "I'm feeling lucky" thing 9 out of 10 times. The other time it'll show you search results.

      --
      [ irc.p2p-network.net -> #zomgwtfbbq ][ http://zomgwtfbbq.info ]
    9. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever.

    10. Re:So... by jopsen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmm...
      I suppose we should buy up .xxx domains matching our current domains and/or name and make them redirect...
      That might be pretty fun too... Or maybe just really creepy... Can't decide which it is...

    11. Re:So... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 3, Funny

      If google.xxx is what I think it would be, it could perhaps be the best website on the Internet.

      I'm pretty sure that will be 'googal.xxx'.

    12. Re:So... by RichardJenkins · · Score: 4, Informative

      Have you tried just typing those words into your browser?

      In mine (FF3.5) it take me straight through to the site using (I think...) Googles 'I feel lucky' feature. This way, typing in a keyword has a good chance of taking you to the site you want. If people could register single keyword domains like that, I reckon it would cause a net decrease in convenience as more and more single keywords take you directly through to someone's site.

      With email, it's usually copy/paste for me, or just entering the first part of an address I've used before. I guess it could be useful, but probably not useful enough to warrant the 'search by keyword taking you to someones site' issue above.

    13. Re:So... by Threni · · Score: 1

      > The distinction doesn't exist solely to help you mentally organize sites. It exists because DNS reads from right to left, and it has to start somewhere. Otherwise there
      > would be no way to organize them.

      Coding up a way of separating
      www.slashdot.org
      slashdot
      slashdot.org/dupe.html

      etc is trivial. Is the problem fixing it now that everyone is using the current system, because I can't see how it can possibly be a coding/parsing one. You could always have the browser add some prefix if a prefix were needed, so that I could type slashdot and it would become http2://slashdot, or www.slashdot.default, or whatever was desirable.

    14. Re:So... by XanC · · Score: 4, Insightful

      PROTIP: There's more to the Internet than the Web.

    15. Re:So... by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      A null TLD is absurd. If you had a null tld than the fully qualified name of the website would be "slashdot.." (with two dots at the end). Since by convention we do not require the last dot, the domain you would type into your browser is "slashdot." with that last dot absolutely mandatory. Unfortunately that would conflict with the fully qualified name of a hypothetical slashdot TLD, so it is a non-starter. What you want is a for people to just use top level domains to host their sites. That is quite possible. A top Level domain is a domain like any other, and can have an 'A' record associated with it. Indeed the website http://ac/ works just fine, being website for the Network Information center (NIC) for Ascension Island. (the site is also available at the more usual domain of http://nic.ac/ )

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    16. Re:So... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      A search engine that only searchs Vin Diesel movies?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    17. Re:So... by hackstraw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've been saying this for years. Most people don't know about the different TLDs, and because of that most popular sites buy up the other TLDs that match their domainname to prevent people from squatting there, and they redirect (or not) the traffic to their "proper" TLD. Take for example http://slashdot.org/ http://slashdot.com/ http://slashdot.net./

      I've always held that country code TLDs are of value. It sucks to do some online searching to buy something and end up at a .com address that is in the UK.

      Actually, I don't dare type a URL in my location bar that is not already in my history and/or bookmarks that is automatically completed. Too dangerous if you misspell the sucker. Google is the real DNS provider. Sometimes names aren't what they would think they are either. EG, its not bmw.com, its bmwusa.com.

      To belabor this stupid point further. WTF is up with .name and .museum ? TLDs have digressed from their original goal. To simplify and classify things. I mean, how is slashdot.org really a .org anymore? Its a commercial entity. What was ever the point of .net? .biz? And then countries sell off their TLDs like .to, .fm, and .tv, and those are rarely used.

      Google (or similar) is the authoritative TLD master, the rest is just novelty.

    18. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is trivial

      You keep using that word...

      I don't think you understood what he meant. In order to find "www.slashdot.org", your browser asks your DNS server "where is www.slashdot.org?" If it's cached, you get an answer right away. If not...

      1) Your DNS Server asks one of the root DNS servers who is responsible for .org (this is almost certainly cached though)
      2) Your DNS Server asks the server responsible for .org who is responsible for slashdot.org
      3) Your DNS Server asks the server responsible for slashdot.org for the address of www.slashdot.org.

      In order for your plan to work, the root DNS servers would have to personally know every hostname ever and what IP they're on. Sure, you could have the root DNS server tell you who is responsible for "slashdot" but it would still require the same amount of storage on the root server for the address, plus you get to spend more time asking a second server for the real address.

    19. Re:So... by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      Here is a list of TLDs that work as web addresses: (be sure to enter them with http:/// and a dot at the end or your browser might not make it to the site, firefox for example will assume it is invalid and try adding a 'www.' and a '.com' unless i have already been to the page by explicitly adding a dot.)

      http://ac./
      http://ai./
      http://bi./
      http://cm./ (there is no http server running at the IP this resolves to)
      http://dk./
      http://gg./
      http://hk./ (there is no http server running at the IP this resolves to)
      http://io./
      http://je./
      http://ph./ (Here I get an ASP error, which looks to be part of an asp dispatched virtual hosting solution.)
      http://pn./
      http://pw./ (there is no http server running at the IP this resolves to)
      http://sh./ (there is no http server running at the IP this resolves to)
      http://tk./
      http://to./ The shortest URL shortener in existence, having only 3 characters in the domain itself (and some browsers will work with only 2 of them)
      http://uz./
      http://wz./ (there is no http server running at the IP this resolves to)

      So using top level domains as regular domains is very possible.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    20. Re:So... by tabrisnet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      First, .net had a very particular meaning once upon a time. It meant you were an ISP or other network service provider (Google might even qualify). This is to be separate from IBM which sells stuff, but does not provide network services (that I can think of. and if you want to be a PITA, try Pepsi or Coca-Cola).

      Meanwhile, I think that perhaps we should have per-country DNS search paths, such that if you try to do www.google.com, and you're in the UK, you go to www.google.com.uk. (this would break with .co, due to Colombia).

    21. Re:So... by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      The distinction doesn't exist solely to help you mentally organize sites. It exists because DNS reads from right to left, and it has to start somewhere. Otherwise there would be no way to organize them.

      And isn't that stupid? why do we have www.yahoo.com and mail.yahoo.com instead the more logical com.yahoo.www and com.yahoo.mail?

        Usenet is organized like this and it makes directions more readable, specially since then the path part is read left to right.

        Now I can understand why we'd want to have different TLD providers, but given treadmarks are effectively global now, why don't the different TLDs agree to redirect all traffic to the first domain registered under a name. Like, if I try to visit com.slashdot, and the com TLD find it doesn't have that, it could ask other TLDs for it and find it at org.slashdot. Why is this imp(ossible|ractical)\?

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    22. Re:So... by Fumbili · · Score: 1

      My vote would go to youtube.xxx

    23. Re:So... by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Good point. Why does google safe search have a setting that "blocks web pages containing explicit sexual content from appearing in search results" when what I want is a setting that blocks web pages that don't contain explicit sexual content from appearing in search results!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    24. Re:So... by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      Actually it is already like that. If you don't have a google cookie and you go to google.com for the first time it redirects you to your country specific google.cctld with the entire site written in your language. Now this is a bother for me personally because of the ridiculous ideas of some people who do the translation who have not heard that YOU DON'T TRANSLATE TERMINOLOGY. It takes me 3 times as long to do stuff i need because of bullshit translation and I end up switching whichever software or google.com for this instance back into English.

    25. Re:So... by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      So you're telling me that with decades of research in sharding databases, they couldn't come up with a simple way of hashing the topmost domain name that could not be resolved, then use the hash to resolve which root DNS server (group) has purview, and then apply that recursively?

      Really? This is as embarrassingly parallel as they get.

    26. Re:So... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > And isn't that stupid? why do we have www.yahoo.com and mail.yahoo.com
      > instead the more logical com.yahoo.www and com.yahoo.mail?

      You are free to code your browser to show them that way.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    27. Re:So... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Usenet is organized like this and it makes directions more readable,
      > specially since then the path part is read left to right.

      Right! Let's go back to bang paths!

      John Hasler
      ihnp4!stolaf!bungia!foundln!john

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    28. Re:So... by gringer · · Score: 1

      I'd just prefer a new .dot TLD for slashdot. It would provoke even more confusion telling people to go to "haycht-tee-tee-pee-colon-slash-slash-slash-dot-dot-dot".

      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
    29. Re:So... by pspahn · · Score: 1

      when I visit /. I type sla + enter, the browser does the rest.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    30. Re:So... by Threni · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > In order for your plan to work, the root DNS servers would have to personally know every hostname ever and what IP they're on. Sure, you could have the root DNS
      > server tell you who is responsible for "slashdot" but it would still require the same amount of storage on the root server for the address, plus you get to spend more
      > time asking a second server for the real address.

      No, because you could have a dummy tld of, for example, ZZZ, and so when you get a request to look up slashdot you add .zzz to the end (because there was no extension on the request, which is the bit which is easy to code for) so you end up with slashdot.zzz, then you look up slashdot.zzz to get the ip address. You're just not requiring the user to enter .zzz because it doesn't technically exist.

    31. Re:So... by Threni · · Score: 1

      Well, depending on where the solution is done this might or might not work only on browsers. But most people use a browser to read web pages, don't they? I'm guessing here I admit - I'll have a word with my parents and neighbours, but you might be right - perhaps telnet and wget etc are more popular than I thought. Who knows what the kids are into these days?

    32. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, guys. This whole story is about sex and internet and you talk about web browsers, telnet and wget ?
      Didn't know Slashdot changed that much...

    33. Re:So... by jollyhockysticks · · Score: 1

      in firefox you can do this already, pretty much, try it: in your address bar, type 'slashdot' and now hit ctrl+enter tada , it wraps the word you typed in 'www.' and '.com' works for slashdot / bbc although sadly not ubuntuforums i guess you could add a host entry for that if it really bothers you

    34. Re:So... by Von+Helmet · · Score: 2, Informative
    35. Re:So... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      That could be trivially organized otherwise, for example by taking the final letters. So for "slashdot" you'd first ask the root server for the "t" master server, and the "t" server for the "ot" server. That'd give you 26^2 = 676 domain servers which is far more divided than we have today.

      That is assuming you couldn't just make one namespace and do round robin, already the ".com" domain has something like 50% of all domain names. Getting rid of all the duplicates from everyone registering trademark.* should bring the rest down to the point where they could just be folded in.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    36. Re:So... by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      Hmm... I suppose we should buy up .xxx domains matching our current domains and/or name and make them redirect... That might be pretty fun too... Or maybe just really creepy... Can't decide which it is...

      It depends on what your site offers. For example, if you sell rubber gloves and garden hose you might see a boost in sales!

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    37. Re:So... by XanC · · Score: 1

      You're describing wholesale changes to the way DNS works, and then illustrating how that can be worked around by browsers. There's more than just browsers on the Internet!

  7. Open the floodgates.... by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With the new rules letting any company/group create a TLD if they've got the money and infrastructure, it's only a matter of time before we'll be going to Sprite.coca-cola and BigMac.McD.... so why not give the sex operators a red light district that's easily blockable. Sure, it won't block 100% of porn, but it's one rule that can block 100% porn with no false positives.

    1. Re:Open the floodgates.... by compro01 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but it's one rule that can block 100% porn with no false positives.

      Only if you make the assumption that your definition of porn matches their definition of porn.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    2. Re:Open the floodgates.... by soundguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. Who gets to define "porn"? Larry Flint? Fred Phelps? The Pope?

      --
      Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
    3. Re:Open the floodgates.... by Itninja · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is really only one definition of sexual pornography. Any media intended to arouse one sexually.

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    4. Re:Open the floodgates.... by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly. Who gets to define "porn"? Larry Flint? Fred Phelps? The Pope?

      Probably the same group that gets to decide what is a .org or a .net or a .com is. All these comparisons to "burger.McD" really don't hold water. Porn is not only the *reason* that internet access is affordable (early adopters paid the high access rates to pave the way) but it is still a large portion of the traffic on the net, including much of the bittorrent traffic.

      I wouldn't get too excited, most porn sites won't switch to a .xxx site anytime soon, as they know that all Nanny Software (c) will be filtering out everything *.xxx anyway.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    5. Re:Open the floodgates.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Um, no, that isn't an issue. Like the op said, it won't block 100% of porn by most definitions.

      But the point is, if only porn websites (that is, those that define themselves as porn) buy a .xxx domain, then you can be pretty sure that blocking .xxx would block porn and little else.

      I mean, defining the edge cases of obscenity is tough, but this is hardly an edge case - they're websites claiming to peddle porn! What more do you want?

    6. Re:Open the floodgates.... by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      The people buying the domain names under .xxx. If you aren't a porn site don't buy a .xxx domain name (since having one implies you are a porn site.) If you are, you can chose to buy a .xxx or not. If you do you're easily blockable, which is an advantage for public appearance (you are under .xxx, anyone who wants to block their kids' access can do so easily) and prevents some external entity from being needed to classify sites as porn-related/non-porn related. It also makes porn easier to find, just search to only show domains ending in .xxx. That's a benefit to income, since searching google like that is easy & makes finding your porn site easier.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    7. Re:Open the floodgates.... by LordNimon · · Score: 1

      That's not the point. If I have a site that I consider to be porn, and I want it to be treated like porn, I'll put it on .xxx. I wouldn't put a site on .xxx unless I want it to be considered porn.

      I seriously doubt we're going to have any web site *forced* to be put on .xxx even if the owner doesn't consider it to be porn.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    8. Re:Open the floodgates.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, then, if I was, say, for example, willing to testify in a court of law that, oh, by way of for instance, that it was my firm intention that this very post, say, was intended to arouse prevaricaphiles, such as, hypothetically, myself, then, by your definition, Slashdot would need to be forced into the .xxx domain the moment I posted it.

    9. Re:Open the floodgates.... by value_added · · Score: 2, Funny

      Exactly. Who gets to define "porn"? Larry Flint? Fred Phelps? The Pope?

      I believe it's defined in the context of "community standards", and then, presumably using a "I know it when I see it" test.

    10. Re:Open the floodgates.... by compro01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you figure that trademark holders aren't going to buy up their .xxx domains?

      Do you also figure that the US Congress isn't going to try shepherding sites into the new TLD?

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    11. Re:Open the floodgates.... by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Well, okay... 100% of those who chose to self-identify as porn.

    12. Re:Open the floodgates.... by compro01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I seriously doubt we're going to have any web site *forced* to be put on .xxx even if the owner doesn't consider it to be porn.

      I have considerably less doubt about that eventuality.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    13. Re:Open the floodgates.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "so why not give the sex operators a red light district that's easily blockable. Sure, it won't block 100% of porn, but it's one rule that can block 100% porn with no false positives."

      That makes perfect sense ... until you realize that a lot of porn sites probably don't *want* to be blocked. At work, you obviously can't block a top level domain like .com because there are too many legitimate sites, but you can easily block all of .xxx. Why would a porn site want to make it easy for their customers to be blocked (be they legitimately accessing the material or not)? What makes perfect sense from an "I want to block it" administrative perspective might not make any sense from a "I don't want anyone to block my stuff" commercial sense. It would be like volunteering for lower traffic.

      I get the feeling that after all these years of hassle this new internet "red-light district" is going to be set up, but hardly anyone is going to set up shop there or want to visit it. "You can build it, but that doesn't mean they will come."

      Yes, yes, I know. The jokes write themselves.

    14. Re:Open the floodgates.... by Itninja · · Score: 2, Informative

      First of all, it's not my definition. It's the dictionary definition.

      Secondly, if the owners of the site (not one of thousands of contributors) intended its' contents to be sexually arousing, then yes. It's all about the intent of the creator/publisher. So Flickr can have little kids in bathing suits frolicking in a pool and it's nothing. But if they had a section called 'preteen hotties get wet'' then it's meets the 'porn' standard.

      It gets a little tricky though when the creator or publishers' intentions are not very clear (nudists sites for example)

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    15. Re:Open the floodgates.... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Won't work, because no porn site wants to be blocked from e.g. offices. Possibly they'll register both and redirect .xxx to .com.

    16. Re:Open the floodgates.... by Xenious · · Score: 1

      and if you want someone else deciding when to block it for you to "protect you"

      --
      -Xen
    17. Re:Open the floodgates.... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      but it's one rule that can block 100% porn with no false positives.

      Well, I for one intend to start a U-rated picture colouring website on the .xxx tld. So, this statement would be wrong.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    18. Re:Open the floodgates.... by chargersfan420 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Very close. According to Bill Hicks, the Supreme Court defines pornography as "any act that has no artistic merit and causes sexual thought." "That sounds like every advertisement on TV to me."

    19. Re:Open the floodgates.... by matzebrei · · Score: 1

      Many companies subscribe to filtering services that already blacklist porn sites, simply for risk-reduction / lawsuit avoidance.

    20. Re:Open the floodgates.... by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > I seriously doubt we're going to have any web site *forced* to be put on .xxx even if the owner doesn't consider it to be porn.

      Oh really. Just wait until a crusading anti-porn AG is in office. Considering how fast Obama is sinking the pendulum will very likely swing in '12 and we will have one.

      Now the Courts are shooting down most of the "for the children' anti-porn on the net laws because they rightly resist treating everyone like a child. But wait until a law hits imposing harsh penalties for exposing children to porn with an exception for sites on the .xxx domain which, of course, all browsers and firewalls will block by default. Care to bet that law wouldn't be upheld? Are you sure? And the second a massive judgement or three gets handed down on some high profile .com sites you can bet yer rent money there will be a stampede into .xxx by every site operator within the reach of US law. Let the wheels grind a few years and pretty much any controversial content will end up in .xxx. Where few will be able to actually see it.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    21. Re:Open the floodgates.... by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The group that decides whether you get a .com, .net. or .org is... whomever's paying and taking the registration fee. Many for-profit groups register all three for protection of their brand. Other domains, like most geography-specific domains require you have a tie to that area, although some lucky countries got American-valuable domains like .TO, .TV, and .AM and opted to just collect the fee. Government domains like .gov and .mil are closely regulated for official US Government use and publications.

    22. Re:Open the floodgates.... by cynyr · · Score: 1

      a few "extreme" examples for illustration, Nuns, Vickers, Police officers, whippings, beatings, children, M/s, blueberries, feet, chocolate, etc.
      You get the idea, your "to arouse one sexually" isn't the same for everyone, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fetishism exists, and it's rather interesting if you look into it from a psychological point of view, but who gets to say "that photo of a nun at mass is porn"?

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    23. Re:Open the floodgates.... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      All porn is designed to arouse you sexually. Everything designed to arouse you sexually is not porn. Take this pic (Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition). Is that porn? No. Is that arousing, is it sexy? Yes. Amd some people are so twisted, they consider anything less than this arousing (Burqa). Is a mini skirt intended to arouse one sexually? Well it's intended to show off more flesh than a regular one, and quite many find that arousing so you're using a very dangerous definition. Porn is much more direct. At the very least explicit nudity with intent to arouse (i.e. not breast cancer documentaries or nudists or whatever) or the inexplicit sex acts found in soft porn. But no matter how much booty shaking a woman does, it'll never amount to porn.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    24. Re:Open the floodgates.... by Johnno74 · · Score: 1

      There is really only one definition of sexual pornography. Any media intended to arouse one sexually.

      The best definition of porn I've heard is anything you lose interest in after you orgasm.

    25. Re:Open the floodgates.... by Mark+Hood · · Score: 1

      And that every other country in the world agrees....

      --
      Liked this comment? Why not buy me something nice
    26. Re:Open the floodgates.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So will Defcon's registration site be defcon.xxx?
      Can you think of a better way to keep the corp types out?

      I figure the most active domain in the .xxx domain inside a year will be a script kiddy, non porn site that has the worst of the *chan boards without any illegal pics.

    27. Re:Open the floodgates.... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      ... as interpreted by nine individuals selected at random intervals in time by whichever side of two warring factions happens to have a slight edge at the moment.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    28. Re:Open the floodgates.... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      some people are so twisted, they consider anything less than this arousing

      Pooooooorn!
      Porn! Porn! Porn! Porn!

      Naked toes! Do you realize how many people have foot fetishes?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    29. Re:Open the floodgates.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're such a tease. You start wandering off topic with phrases like say, for example,, "oh, by way of for instance," and "such as, hypothetically," and then you get straight back to business. Your post is akin to the "Victoria's Secret" catalog of prevaricaphilic porn.

  8. XXX domain as a tool for censorship by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope this doesn't encourage would-be censors to restrict the kinds of content allowed in non-xxx domains. Not all content fits neatly into an XXX designation, and even if it did it is simply not right to restrict XXX content to XXX domains. Having an XXX domain has always struck me as either pointless (insofar as XXX content might continue to be hosted on non-XXX domains) or otherwise a really bad idea (insofar as no XXX content may be allowed outside of XXX domains).

    --
    "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    1. Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship by PhrstBrn · · Score: 1

      I hope this doesn't encourage would-be censors to restrict the kinds of content allowed in non-xxx domains. Not all content fits neatly into an XXX designation, and even if it did it is simply not right to restrict XXX content to XXX domains. Having an XXX domain has always struck me as either pointless (insofar as XXX content might continue to be hosted on non-XXX domains) or otherwise a really bad idea (insofar as no XXX content may be allowed outside of XXX domains).

    2. Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship by PhrstBrn · · Score: 1

      Yep, /. cut off my post. There was something there after the quote, but it's not anymore. Strangely enough, it was in the preview. I don't care enough to re-type it out.

    3. Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I hope this doesn't encourage would-be censors to restrict the kinds of content allowed in non-xxx domains. Not all content fits neatly into an XXX designation, and even if it did it is simply not right to restrict XXX content to XXX domains. Having an XXX domain has always struck me as either pointless (insofar as XXX content might continue to be hosted on non-XXX domains) or otherwise a really bad idea (insofar as no XXX content may be allowed outside of XXX domains).

    4. Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship by camperdave · · Score: 1

      The blockquote tag is a bit tempermental. It doesn't always behave like you'd think it should behave.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    5. Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship by gman003 · · Score: 1

      Since retroactive bans are generally looked down upon, sane countries wouldn't try to ban porn from non .xxx domains. Insane countries, like Iran or maybe even China, might give it a shot, but here's the thing:

      No government controls the Internet. America has the most influence, undoubtedly, but even they can't mandate something like that.

      Really, the most any government will do is block access to the entire .xxx TLD. Since those that would do so probably are already, the only real effect would be making certain porn sites more obviously pornographic. A URL like, say, aerisdies.com doesn't look like a pornsite. It looks like a Final Fantasy fansite, probably focused on a certain character's death. If you visit it, however, you see that it's a pretty large collection of anime porn.

      That's the only goal. Making porn a bit more obvious. It makes it easier to block, but it also makes it a bit more available. If you were just browsing randomly and saw a URL, you might go "Hey, an .xxx site. I could use some porn about now. *click*". That's all it will do. Make porn stand out as porn.

    6. Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship by compro01 · · Score: 1

      That's all it will do. Make porn stand out as porn.

      Maybe, maybe not. Depends what trademark holders do/are allowed to do. What do you figure will be at, say, coca-cola.xxx or mcdonalds.xxx?

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    7. Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      I'm disturbed by how easily you remember anime porn sites, yet still bookmarking it...

    8. Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship by Ankle · · Score: 1

      solution: all tlds must be porn sites
      simple - everyone's happy

    9. Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship by gman003 · · Score: 1

      I used to be part of that community, and every month or so, someone would show up on the forums, asking how to patch FFVII to keep Aeris alive past Disc 1. For some reason that popped into my head when writing that comment. I don't even know if the site's still up.

    10. Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship by gman003 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Most likely, nothing. They'll probably just register the domain and leave it empty, or make it redirect to a .com. I just tried mcdonalds.tk, it loaded a blank page. By extension, they'll do the same to .xxx. So that will get blocked by a blanket ban, but it won't really affect anything. How often do you go to slashdot.com?

      I don't foresee many false positives. Besides a few puns like ro.xxx, I think anything in .xxx will be porn.

    11. Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      and even if it did it is simply not right to restrict XXX content to XXX domains.

      Why? The TLDs were designed to break up the WWW based on categories. Ok, so the US never really enforced the other TLDs, but other countries haven't been so lax. In Australia, you need to be a registered business (which is not hard - costs nothing, takes one phone call) to register a .com.au. You need to be a registered charity or non-profit to register a .org.au, a certified educational institute for .edu, etc (we do drop the ball with .net). I don't see any problem requiring pornographic sites onto a .xxx domain - and yes, legally there are fairly clear distinctions on what is pornographic. When edge cases come up, they tend to be discussed pretty publicly (see Bill Henson). The problem starts when you get government-level censorship of that particular TLD, but the problem is censorship, not categorisation. Trying to prohibit something because it may make censorship easier is like just as much a slippery slope as arguments in the other direction.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    12. Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 1

      Why? The TLDs were designed to break up the WWW based on categories. Ok, so the US never really enforced the other TLDs, but other countries haven't been so lax.

      The difference between com, net and org domains was originally a matter of organizational structure rather than content.

      I don't see any problem requiring pornographic sites onto a .xxx domain - and yes, legally there are fairly clear distinctions on what is pornographic.

      Even if these "fairly clear distinctions" existed, there's still the matter of websites that host both pornographic and non-pornographic content. Some websites may be primarily pornographic in nature and therefore fit neatly into an xxx domain, but others may be primarily non-pornographic and might not be well-suited to splitting apart at the TLD level.

      The problem starts when you get government-level censorship of that particular TLD, but the problem is censorship, not categorisation.

      To prevent pornographic content from being hosted outside of xxx domains is itself a form of censorship, and TLDs are hardly the best way to categorize content.

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    13. Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship by icebraining · · Score: 1

      a certified educational institute for .edu, etc (we do drop the ball with .net).

      Wrong, Australia doesn't control either. Both are controlled by US institutions. .net is controlled directly by the ICANN, and operated by Verizon.

      As for .edu:

      Starting on October 29, 2001, only post-secondary institutions and organizations that are accredited by an agency on the U.S. Department of Education's list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies are eligible to apply for a edu domain. Most such agencies accredit only US institutions, so very few non-US institutions qualify, and edu remains almost exclusively a top-level domain of the United States.

      Australia only controls domains ending in .au

    14. Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Yeah, so I got lazy after posting the first few .aus. My meaning's clear when you don't snip off half my sentence in a quotation.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    15. Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      To prevent pornographic content from being hosted outside of xxx domains is itself a form of censorship

      Just like shelving all the fiction books together in the library is? I think you have a very wide view of censorship.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    16. Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I hope this doesn't encourage would-be censors to restrict the kinds of content allowed in non-xxx domains.

      Of course it will. There is no other reason for it to exist.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    17. Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually go to Slashdot.com every time I visit the site, I don't remember when I first discovered the site, but all I remembered was the name Slashdot, I just got lucky that when I assumed .com, that Slashdot did indeed own it. And because I originally typed in Slashdot.com, that's what got saved in the Firefox address bar, and then in turn is the first thing that comes up when I type "s." So, I may be one of the few, but some of us DO visit Slashdot.COM

    18. Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      /facepalm

      He clearly means .net.au, .edu.au, org.au, gov.au etc...

      We also have some odd ones like id.au and asn.au :)

    19. Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      Personally, I wouldn't have minded a .art and .xxx TLD a long time ago... it would be easy to say nudity is relegated to .art, .xxx and .edu .. not porn specifically. I think that adding .aero and .museum were stupid moves at the time... it's a little too late for a new .xxx tld imho. I still think there's more room for a .art tld over .museum which is rather limited.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    20. Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship by pinkushun · · Score: 1

      37% of the net is porn already, many won't switch for a long time. New sites will pick up on this quicker, probably.

    21. Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      I hope this doesn't encourage would-be censors to restrict the kinds of content allowed in non-xxx domains. Not all content fits neatly into an XXX designation, and even if it did it is simply not right to restrict XXX content to XXX domains. Having an XXX domain has always struck me as either pointless (insofar as XXX content might continue to be hosted on non-XXX domains) or otherwise a really bad idea (insofar as no XXX content may be allowed outside of XXX domains).

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    22. Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 1

      Just like shelving all the fiction books together in the library is? I think you have a very wide view of censorship.

      What a ridiculous analogy. I don't see any TLDs being proposed for other categories of speech, do you? It's only XXX that's being singled out for special treatment, because it's porn.

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    23. Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Hey, you were the one who said restricting XXX content to an .xxx TLD was censorship. If we're competing for ridiculous analogies, you win, with an extra side of hyberbole.

      And yeah, it is being regulated because it's porn. We as a society have already decided that - which is why its illegal to sell it to minors.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    24. Re:XXX domain as a tool for censorship by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 1

      Hey, you were the one who said restricting XXX content to an .xxx TLD was censorship.

      Restricting XXX content to the xxx TLD means prohibiting its hosting under other domains. It is, quite unambiguously, a form of censorship.

      And yeah, it is being regulated because it's porn. We as a society have already decided that - which is why its illegal to sell it to minors.

      Yet it isn't illegal to host it online, even if minors can get to it. A mandate to classify all pornography under an xxx domain would be more restrictive than the current system and would force makers of pornography to deal directly with the xxx domain's registrar and accept whatever rules the registrar decides to impose. That is not acceptable.

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
  9. FINALLY by decipher_saint · · Score: 4, Funny

    Finally there will be porn on the internet.

    Took them long enough!

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
  10. If I operated a porn site... by TheRedDuke · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't want a .xxx suffix - it would make it even easier for firewalls and parental controls to filter/block my site's content. If anything, I'd register it as a supplement to my .com or .net URL.

    1. Re:If I operated a porn site... by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Parental controls filtering your site isn't a bad thing. Kinda seeing your site is bad press, and the reality is most kids don't have the money to spend on porn anyways so they're likely to get theirs from the free sources. Many sites used to (and I'm assuming still do) put intentional meta tags on their site to be filtered by parental filters like CyberSitter and NetNanny.

      Just personally, I don't really have a problem with the .xxx domain idea. Having a designated place for porn is a non-issue for me, as long as there's no one trying to say what can and can't go on the .xxx domain.

      Compare to strip clubs - I really don't care if city ordinances require them to be out in the boonies - people who want to go there typically are willing to travel to where they are, as long as there is SOME place they're allowed to be, and most importantly, that the people who obviously aren't interested in attending such locations keep their noses out of what goes on there.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    2. Re:If I operated a porn site... by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Compare to strip clubs - I really don't care if city ordinances require them to be out in the boonies - people who want to go there typically are willing to travel to where they are, as long as there is SOME place they're allowed to be, and most importantly, that the people who obviously aren't interested in attending such locations keep their noses out of what goes on there/

      This!

  11. It's all irrelevant by PhrstBrn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nobody will use it. Using .xxx will allow every administrator to just wildcard block the .xxx domain, and I doubt its in the adult industry's best interest to use it.

    It's almost baffling that the "oh, think of the children" crowd doesn't want this. I would think it would be of their interest to "force" (which I doubt could ever happen) adult companies to use the .xxx domains to allow this "dirty content" to be easily censored, and create a "red light district" of the internet, which you could just easily block with a simple wildcard filter. Fortunately, most of the censors are idiots and would rather put their head in the sand than acknowledge it exists and there is no way to get rid of it, since there will always be demand.

    Either way, whatever ICANN approves or disapproves the usage of .xxx domains, it won't make a difference either way. The internet will be full of porn, everybody who wants it will be able to get it, and .xxx will continue to be unused, whether it's available or not.

    1. Re:It's all irrelevant by jkauzlar · · Score: 1

      +10 insightful

    2. Re:It's all irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that the "think of the children" crowd would prefer if most *science* sites moved to .xxx, as we can't have little Johnny reading about evolution! Next thing you know, he'll be a fascist communist socialist Nazi atheist Mooslem just like the President!

    3. Re:It's all irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know this is going to sound weird around here. But sometimes I do not care to look at porn.

      Right now many sites use 'ambiguous' names to lure me with tame sounding name. Putting it into the xxx domain tells me 'not what I am looking for' OR if i am looking for porn 'thats what I am looking for'.

      I like boobies as much as the next guy but when I am looking for the tech specs on some mother board I do not want the distraction.

      Just throwing everything into .com is not working. The meaning of .com is being abused.

      It is not that I cant cope with it. It is just freeking annoying is all. Segmenting it a bit cant hurt at this point. I am just worried how segmented people will make it... :(

    4. Re:It's all irrelevant by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      It's almost baffling that the "oh, think of the children" crowd doesn't want this. I would think it would be of their interest to "force" (which I doubt could ever happen) adult companies to use the .xxx domains to allow this "dirty content" to be easily censored, and create a "red light district" of the internet, which you could just easily block with a simple wildcard filter. Fortunately, most of the censors are idiots and would rather put their head in the sand than acknowledge it exists and there is no way to get rid of it, since there will always be demand.

      What baffles me is how some of you tend to think the internet is controlled by a single filter. Can you not imagine a kids computer in the living room with '.xxx' blocked and one in the bedroom without such limitations?

      OF COURSE there will always be demand. But segregation of this type allows for something the customer very much wants in the way of limits via age, appropriate setting, etc.

    5. Re:It's all irrelevant by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Porn isn't commercial now? Seems like it's a pretty well-funded industry to my amateur eye... I agree that having a .xxx TLD will be nice, but I can't really see that .com is being abused in any way.

    6. Re:It's all irrelevant by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Of course, coca-cola.xxx is not ambiguous at all.

      Or do you think trademark holders won't buy up those domains to cover their bases?

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    7. Re:It's all irrelevant by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      Right now many sites use 'ambiguous' names to lure me with tame sounding name. Putting it into the xxx domain tells me 'not what I am looking for' OR if i am looking for porn 'thats what I am looking for'.

      How often does that happen to you? I can't think of the last time I accidentally ended up on a porn site. Most of the time I've seen porn without intending to do so involved someone's prank or visiting questionable sites that paid their traffic bills with porn site ad banners.

      Along those lines - I've always been suspicious of the "...and when I walked in to the room, I found Little Johnny staring at the screen in SHOCK at the naked ladies that somehow showed up on his screen completely by accident" stories.

    8. Re:It's all irrelevant by Linker3000 · · Score: 1

      +X insightful, surely?

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
    9. Re:It's all irrelevant by MetalAngel · · Score: 1

      that's why nobody wants to own porn.com...
      it is so easy to filter.

    10. Re:It's all irrelevant by wilder_card · · Score: 1

      Of course it will be used. Registrars will make ***loads of money as people like amazon and google buy up amazon.xxx and google.xxx just so someone WON'T put up a web site on them. Did you really think this was about anything but money?

    11. Re:It's all irrelevant by Gavrielkay · · Score: 1

      The "think of the children" crowd prefer to have porn right out there in the open where they can get away with saying their favorite phrase. If porn were locked away onto an easily blockable domain they would lose their clout in trying to ban it entirely. I'm totally convinced that most of these folks want to ban porn outright, not simply keep children from seeing it. They need the sympathies of parental minded folks who might put "protect the children" ahead of freedoms for adults when voting.

    12. Re:It's all irrelevant by nacturation · · Score: 1

      that's why nobody wants to own porn.com...
      it is so easy to filter.

      I'd give you $50,000 for porn.com.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    13. Re:It's all irrelevant by aug24 · · Score: 1

      .xxx will continue to be unused

      I think it'll be used. I just doubt the matching .com will be given up.

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    14. Re:It's all irrelevant by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

      tbh i don't think porn companies have anything to lose even by exclusively using xxx domains, they're already filtered at most work places and if they aren't forced to go onto xxx then there's no reason to make dumb laws about trying to block it for kids.

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
    15. Re:It's all irrelevant by Archon-X · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the company [ www.pimproll.com ] that dropped 2M + on porn.com would disagree

    16. Re:It's all irrelevant by Alsee · · Score: 1

      It's almost baffling that the "oh, think of the children" crowd doesn't want this.

      They are opposed to it because they give a fuck about kids (well except for those of them that actually are fucking kids while publicly crusading on morality). They want to shove their noses into adult's bedrooms. They want to criminalize porn in general. They want to criminalize porn for adults.

      As they see it establishing a .xxx domain legitimizes porn. As they see it establishing a .xxx domain undermines their cause. They believe porn harms adults. They talk of "protecting children" as a more mainstream-tolerable sham for "protecting immoral adults from porn".

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  12. Joking? Satire? by AnonymousClown · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't want a .xxx suffix - it would make it even easier for firewalls and parental controls to filter/block my site's content. If anything, I'd register it as a supplement to my .com or .net URL.

    Wait. Are you joking? Satire? At this time of day my satire and joke meter doesn't work.

    If you're not.... Why can't you or anyone else respect the wishes of someone who wants to block that kind of content from their machine?

    This idea for a .xxx domain is a brilliant idea! Folks who don't want it can easily block it and it will also make the "think of the children" argument moot when folks start crying "Let's regulate the internet and remove the porn!" We can point out that the "internet" has come up with its own solution and there's no need for any regulation on that point. The marketplace solved the problem on its own.

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    1. Re:Joking? Satire? by jkauzlar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Step 1) Introduce tld .xxx

      Step 2) Pass law that says, any site with porn must be in .xxx tld

      Step 3) Block .xxx domain

      Step 4) Totalitarianism

    2. Re:Joking? Satire? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      You jumped from government powers to individual choice and back to government. Why?

      Just because your employer blocks .xxx, it doesn't mean your government will do so. Or if it does, may I recommend you emmigrate to a country with freedom of speech.

    3. Re:Joking? Satire? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      The problem is that there are thousands upon thousands of porn sites that do not have, and may never have .xxx domain names. A dns filter for .xxx domain names will not block them. This is not a solution. It is a publicity stunt. If you want a solution, then you'll need to enforce a policy of requiring a standardized adult content meta tag, and get all jurisdictions to comply.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:Joking? Satire? by stoicfaux · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You missed a step. Politicians start to define what companies must use a .xxx domain. In the US I can easily see some politician putting forth a bill requiring that gay dating sites, abortion information sites, and sex education sites must use the .xxx domain.

      Soon followed by lawsuits against ISPs for not blocking the .xxx domain.

      And just so they don't fall out of the spotlight, the RIAA/MPAA require that any site that sells music or movies is required to use a .validIP suffix. Any music or movies downloaded or made available on a non .validIP site will automatically be assumed to be willfully engaging in copyright violations.

    5. Re:Joking? Satire? by johanw · · Score: 1

      [quote]Why can't you or anyone else respect the wishes of someone who wants to block that kind of content from their machine?[/quote] As long as I can be sure that the blocking software is installed by the same person using that machine, OK with me. But I somehow have the impression that most of this software is run by people to censor the net for others, and that is not something I would cooperate with.

    6. Re:Joking? Satire? by jkauzlar · · Score: 1
      Step 1 is not so bad, but step 2 is where the problem begins. From there, it's only a matter of time before step 3 happens, because few politicians will go on the record as supporting porn.

      Furthermore, step 3 might not be blocking the websites (which would be in direct violation of the first amendment), but requiring that anyone accessing them obtain a gov't issued license enforced by ISPs, etc.

      And replace .xxx with any type of content and that type of content can be effectively banned using the same process.

    7. Re:Joking? Satire? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      That might be possible, but not in this country, clearly.

    8. Re:Joking? Satire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why can't you or anyone else respect the wishes of someone who wants to block that kind of content from their machine?

      I was going to post something like "A .kid TLD would do exactly every little thing you suggest, except it would have the added benefit of keeping assholes like you from fucking up the internet for the rest of us", but then I gave up hope.

    9. Re:Joking? Satire? by Nadaka · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The number of countries with freedom of speech and the extent of that freedom in many countries is reducing every year. I fear that the concepts of freedom, liberty and democracy were nothing more than a passing fad and will be out of style within my lifetime.

    10. Re:Joking? Satire? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but agreement upon a time and place for pornography happened ages ago. Well before the beginning of said lifetime.

    11. Re:Joking? Satire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more importantly, is 4chan going to be in .xxx or not? how about wikipedia?

    12. Re:Joking? Satire? by damnfuct · · Score: 1

      wikipornia.xxx

    13. Re:Joking? Satire? by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      sounds good to me, might need to work on the name but i'd like to see that happen.

    14. Re:Joking? Satire? by nacturation · · Score: 1

      wikipornia.xxx

      No... it's wankipedia.xxx

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    15. Re:Joking? Satire? by impeach · · Score: 0

      You are correct on all points - absolutely certain of it. Some years back government disappeared the owners of a 50-year-old nudist resort I lived in. Then a man suddenly appeared that said he was going to divide the resort in half - with half for clothing only. When that failed to destroy the resort, he resorted to terrorism and succeeded in destroying it. The courts backed him. This will be no different.

    16. Re:Joking? Satire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totalitarianism, I dont think so. It this equivalent of putting the playhouse behind the counter or in covered racks (no pun intended). I totally agree that the site should be all in o.e domain which to a degree is in spirit with the original classifications of the domains such as .education, .org, .don etc. Everyone would benefit and no one would be hurt by this. No one is suggesting taking it off the net, just grouping so parental Nd other can block wholesale if they choose for themselves.

    17. Re:Joking? Satire? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Yes, but ICANN HAS PORN!

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    18. Re:Joking? Satire? by newviewmedia.com · · Score: 1

      .xxx if it's approved will be run by a private for profit corporation. Many porn sites would have no reason to move over to this new domain because .com and .net are their bread and butter with massive marketing seo campaigns already pointing to their current domain. Forcing all porn sites to move to .xxx would essentially create a private monopoly and would be fought tooth and nail.

      --
      www.newviewmedia.com
    19. Re:Joking? Satire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming the .xxx tld is going to be the cheapest, I hope I'm not /forced/ to put porn on the domain to use it.

  13. Why did this take so long? by tomzyk · · Score: 1

    So, why have they been rejecting it for so long?

    If the religious fanatics say "sex is immoral", well, it's not like there's gonna be any MORE pr0n online. It's just giving them a different web address to use.

    And by using .xxx it will make censoring it on your home computer(s) a LOT easier for parents who don't want their kids looking for any of it.

    Or has it always been big corporations that have been opposing it, so that no one buys up coca-cola.xxx or something?

    --
    Karma: NaN
    1. Re:Why did this take so long? by Kitkoan · · Score: 1

      Or has it always been big corporations that have been opposing it, so that no one buys up coca-cola.xxx or something?

      Rule 34 in the making right there...

      --
      Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
    2. Re:Why did this take so long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, why have they been rejecting it for so long?

      It's been rejected so long because the only problem it solves is domain registrars' low revenue.

    3. Re:Why did this take so long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To sum it up, you're going to have a heck of a time enforcing it with all of the jurisdictions throughout the world. There is no way you're going to get all the porn sites over to .xxx, especially because they won't want to.

      Secondly, the definition of porn varies wildly. My standards of porn are much less strict of somewhere like the Middle East which probably considers 80% of the internet porn.

    4. Re:Why did this take so long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem lies in defining porn. In some countries, Maxim Magazine counts as porn. What about in England, where TheSun (a 'news' magazine) includes topless women on their popular Page 3 segment? Do all these magazines get forced onto .xxx? If not, then .xxx is useless for any country where these are porn.

      Even in the USA, our Supreme Court was unable to fully define pornography in a congruent way. For all intents and purposes, our definition is still "I'll know it when I see it."

      What is more likely to happen is that each country will try to force all their undesirable content onto .xxx "for easy filtering." Which, in all truth will be utterly useless because each country has different laws, but worse will allow progress down the slipper slope of filtering for more and more countries.

      In the best case, this new domain will allow people to find porn easier. In the worst case, it will stifle the economic growth potential of the entire internet and even lead to a chilling in the progress of human tolerance.

      Still want it?

    5. Re:Why did this take so long? by PatPending · · Score: 1

      Rule 34 in the making right there...

      OMG--there really is a wetriffs.com web site

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
  14. A Brave New Era by Favonius+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is the best improvement of the internets I've heard in years. Hunting for porn should be greatly enhanced if it's address is centralized! I wonder if those military guys who invented internets ever realized what would become of their tech.

    --
    "Men willingly believe what they wish." - Julius Caesar
  15. Worst. Idea. Evar. by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

    This will not work. at least, not the way they think it will.

    What is the reason for a .xxx domain. Ostensibly, to allow people to filter out 'porn'. Simply block the domain. A lofty goal, but it can't work this way.

    1. Would a site be 'required' to register in that domain? Well, redtube.com wouldn't go away, they simply add redtube.xxx
    2. One mans porn is another mans vacation pics.
    3. Who would be the internet police? Fred Phelps? a Sharia imam? Owner of a Barcelona gay bar? Who decides?
    4. Is this required? If I have some beach pics that include a girl in a tiny bikini, does that count? In that case, every photo sharing website counts.
    5. There is always Rule 34.

    1. Re:Worst. Idea. Evar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you mean "one man's vacation pics are another man's porn" and not the other way :) I hope your vacation pics might not be easily mistaken for porn

    2. Re:Worst. Idea. Evar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Not at first.
      2. So?
      3. Fred Phelps, a Sharia imam, and an owner of a Barcelona gay bar would not be the internet police. A new committee would decide the edge cases.
      4. Not at first. No.
      5. Irrelevant.

    3. Re:Worst. Idea. Evar. by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Vacation pics might easily be mistaken for porn. Vacation in Spain/France/Italy...pic of your family...random topless girl in the background. Poof, porn (in some peoples opinion).

      A .xxx that is supposed to be able to allow people/parents/governments to filter out boobies fails, because it won't catch quite a lot of what is visually no different from explicit porn...e.g a naked boobie or even just a skimpy bikini.

  16. RFC 3675 (noted above) by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The simple biggest problem is that the US is not the only country in the world that uses the WWW, and there is widespread cultural variety in acceptable standards. It's significant that the British BT company supports these TLDs, because BT is a backward, insular corporation - if it hadn't had competition from cable, the UK would still be on dial up. Any proposal supported by BT is automatically a bad idea.

    It's also worth pointing out that "sex" and "xxx" probably only have meaning in American English - in British English, XXX certainly used to mean "beer".

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:RFC 3675 (noted above) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also worth pointing out that "sex" and "xxx" probably only have meaning in American English - in British English, XXX certainly used to mean "beer"

      One of the end goals of the internet is the replacement of both British and Yankee English with a new language called American.

    2. Re:RFC 3675 (noted above) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also worth pointing out that "sex" and "xxx" probably only have meaning in American English - in British English, XXX certainly used to mean "beer".

      Here where I live (Germany), it used to mean schnapps, or really any beverage with a high (say, 40%+ ABV or so) alcohol content.

    3. Re:RFC 3675 (noted above) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also worth pointing out that "sex" and "xxx" probably only have meaning in American English - in British English, XXX certainly used to mean "beer".

      The British don't know about "sex"? How have they survived all these centuries?

      (CAPTCHA was "sterile"!)

  17. Religous Right by nuckfuts · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Members of the American religious right also oppose its creation on moral grounds.

    I respect freedom of opinion, but this attitude is plain fucking stupid. As if pornography will become more/less prevalent if the .xxx tld is approved/denied.

    This is the same brand of ignorance that believes teens will have more sex if educated about it, or that prostitution should be outlawed instead of regulated.

    As a species, we wouldn't still be here if sex wasn't a big deal to us, but the range of cultural attitudes today is astounding. There's Amsterdam, where one can window shop for sexual services. There are ultra-religious societies where women must be covered from head-to-toe since, presumably, their men could not control themselves in the presence of exposed female flesh. There are countries where women have their genitals mutilated to prevent the enjoyment of sex. And there is America, where murder and violence are standard fare for entertainment, but God help us all if a nipple pops out!

    1. Re:Religous Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are people who also disapprove of gays while being taken care of by rent boys, who dislike sodomy but will happily get a blowjob, or maybe use anal as a way to avoid one more damn kid for themselves while they sing "every sperm is sacred" in real life. All of them fear what they don't understand, for a majority of them, this thing they hate is themselves: they don't want to see a .xxx for the very reason that they don't want their web history to be so damn obvious.

    2. Re:Religous Right by Znork · · Score: 1

      where women must be covered from head-to-toe

      Ironically, and somewhat amusingly, there also appears to exist burqa fetishists. One may fleetingly wonder if there are any Amsterdam window shops catering to that kink; the cultural crossover would be quite mind boggling.

      Somehow it's still smugly satisfying to note both the failure of such rules and the implications of such attractions; porn is mostly in the mind of the observer.

    3. Re:Religous Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sex, in recent time, considered the most pleasurable mode of fun, but logically if we stop for while and think, we come to know that, this is the process of reproduction, if we consider this aspect of Sex, then the we feel the natural and true feeling of pleasure. For finding problem in I Phone check this website. http://iphone4p.blogspot.com/

      And the award for the year's most shamelessly non sequitur self-promotion goes to...

    4. Re:Religous Right by gillbates · · Score: 1

      The Religious Right opposes it because:

      1. They see the .xxx domain as government legitimization of pornography, and
      2. They fear that they would be forced to use a .xxx domain if they discussed the moral aspects of sex. That is, government censors would force a sermon expounding the evils of sex outside of marriage to be posted to a .xxx address rather than the regular church website.
      --
      The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    5. Re:Religous Right by kungfugleek · · Score: 1

      Members of the American religious right also oppose its creation on moral grounds.

      I respect freedom of opinion, but this attitude is plain fucking stupid.

      I didn't realize until I read your post that respecting freedom of opinion is completely separate from respecting another opinion.

  18. Consensual meets Censorial? by MelodicMotives · · Score: 1

    What's going to stop them from continuing to flood the other TLD's and just redirect them to .xxx? WhiteHouse.com pointing to WhiteHouse.xxx seems to accomplish nothing. So the concern then is, of course, that soon you won't be able to exist as a porn operation in .com, and then it's a quick jump to lightswitch-style censorship of the entire .xxx TLD.

  19. .xxx is the wrong choice by Alain+Williams · · Score: 0

    Surely the correct TLD for porn would be ''.cum'' :-)

  20. They are saving the really sick shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the .xxxx domain.

  21. What's the point? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    They've already stated they are going to start selling gTLDs themselves. Soon there will be no meaning - and more importantly no accountability - for the majority of all registrations. Anyone who is really looking to make money on something explicit will just wait for the crop of new gTLDs under which domains will be sold by people who are not held responsible in any way, shape, or form, by anyone, anywhere.

    Most likely ICANN is setting up .xxx only to make a little more money off of it this way in comparison to what they would make by selling the .xxx gTLD in its entirety.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  22. Not quite aptly named by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 3, Funny

    I always thought that if business sites were .com, then porn sites should be .cum

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
    1. Re:Not quite aptly named by sean4u · · Score: 1

      And I always thought porn sites should be made to register as companies in the Cook Islands

  23. I propose... by Randwulf · · Score: 1

    I propose a .safe or .kids domain that are porn free and child safe. Let the rest of the Internet do whatever it wants.

    1. Re:I propose... by Shoe+Puppet · · Score: 1

      Like .kids.us?

      --
      (+1, Disagree)
    2. Re:I propose... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      I propose a .safe or .kids domain that are porn free and child safe. Let the rest of the Internet do whatever it wants.

      Bingo.

    3. Re:I propose... by Randwulf · · Score: 1

      Something like it, but top level.

    4. Re:I propose... by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1
      Who gets to decide what can go there? Which organization or government?

      Because if it's a Moslem country, it's going to be a lot different from a Western country, and different again for an Asian one.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
  24. Remember people by Cur8or · · Score: 0

    The internet is more than a global pornography network!

    --
    Winkey shortcut mapping for 64bit windows. WinKeyPlus
    1. Re:Remember people by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Someone +1 Funny

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  25. New TLDs like printing money by peterofoz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It seems to me that creating a new TLD is like printing money. Anyone with a brand to protect will be coerced into buying up their {brand}.{TLD} to park it and prevent abuse. Consider for example: www.disney.xxx or www.ford.xxx Creating this won't eliminate porn on the other TLDs and centralized censorship is generally a bad idea.

    1. Re:New TLDs like printing money by grantek · · Score: 1

      Consider for example: [...] www.ford.xxx

      Oooh baby :)

    2. Re:New TLDs like printing money by trawg · · Score: 1

      Presumably though, sites that registered a name that was a trademark of another company, they would be open to legal assault?

    3. Re:New TLDs like printing money by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      Only if they did not have a valid reason for the domain name. Take ford.xxx for example. Perhaps the Ford Motor Company has the strongest name, but there was president Ford, Harrison Ford, Tom Ford (clothing designer), etc. Which of them has the rights to the name? If I am a film director (of adult movies), don't I have a right to ford.xxx?

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    4. Re:New TLDs like printing money by GravitonMan · · Score: 1

      I would not recommend doing this, regardless of the commonality of the name, ie. Ford, Nissan, Disney. After being sued for $200k for Anticybersquatting for 2 domain names ($100K per trademark violation) and 2 years of court battles, its just not worth it. The poor Nissan family have been fighting this for a long time. www.nissan.com

  26. It doesn't matter by c++0xFF · · Score: 1

    If you're going to block .xxx, you probably have a very broad definition of porn.

    A company, for instance, will want to block anything that could result in a lawsuit. That means blocking anything that someone might find tasteless.

    Schools, with their "think of the children" mentality, have a similar attitude. They'll block anything that might not be appropriate for children. Bonus: medical sites probably won't fall under .xxx, so learning about breast cancer is still fine.

    The very conservative/religious shudder at anything that shows more skin than a snow suit. Blocking .xxx is perfect for them.

    If you don't fall under one of these categories, you probably won't be blocking .xxx anyway, so why does it matter who makes the definition?

    As pointed out elsewhere, .com and friends will still have porn, so it's not as if the SI swimsuit edition will be forced onto .xxx -- it's all voluntary anyway. The people wanting to be on .xxx are the ones trying to promote their website as being pornographic. If you're blocking .xxx, your definition will definitely include almost every single site that gets blocked, guaranteed.

    1. Re:It doesn't matter by icebraining · · Score: 1

      But porn sites *don't* want to be blocked. How much traffic would they lose if they could be blocked with even more effectiveness? Sure, maybe kids aren't their target audience anyway, so they don't care about schools, but what about offices, colleges, etc, where people actually want porn despite being "forbidden" by managers/IT?

      At most, they'll register both and redirect .xxx to .com, which will render the .xxx almost useless.

  27. xxx was the second choice by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    Their first choice was .cum, but they decided not to go with it.

  28. The opposite is a better idea. Lets see .kid by Zaphod-AVA · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Seriously, we don't try and kid proof the world, we make playgrounds. Create a .kid domain and control the content there. That way making an internet connection that is safe for children becomes relatively easy.

    1. Re:The opposite is a better idea. Lets see .kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that pretty much has the same problem. Who gets to decide what is "kid-friendly" enough to go in .kids and what isn't?

    2. Re:The opposite is a better idea. Lets see .kid by LambdaWolf · · Score: 1

      No, that pretty much has the same problem. Who gets to decide what is "kid-friendly" enough to go in .kids and what isn't?

      That's not even the biggest problem. Someone will inevitably put unarguably offensive material on the kid TLD. (Out of greed, trolling, whatever.) The shrill pro-censorship types, frustrated and indignant that their opt-in system didn't work out so hot, will just be encouraged to call for more regulation by government authorities—of the kid TLD or, hopefully not, the entire Internet.

      --
      "This algorithm runs in constant time. Come on, 2,147,483,648 is a constant..."
    3. Re:The opposite is a better idea. Lets see .kid by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Here is how to solve that.

      You put an agency in charge of verifying the site owners.
      Make site owners liable.
      You make it cost a few thousand dollars a year. Make it so they can loose it. the domain with no refunds.

      In other word, fence that garden.

      Make these people the watch dogs:

      http://pbskids.org/

      They don't like something they send notification of it to the agency in charge and the site owner.
      upon verification, the site is pulled.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  29. a way to handle this by Tumbleweed · · Score: 0, Troll

    I wouldn't mind seeing all the pornographic .com domains being allowed (forced?) to exchange their .com domain for the same .xxx domain. Once that's done, don't allow porn on .com domains. The problem is, there would still be a financial impact on those businesses to change all their other stuff to say '.xxx' instead of '.com'. There's a lot more involved than just changing the domain itself.

    1. Re:a way to handle this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent point. I can't wait for terrible smut like the following to be forced into .xxx and out of .va:
      http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/x-Select/10select/10select_02.html

    2. Re:a way to handle this by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Excellent point. I can't wait for terrible smut like the following to be forced into .xxx and out of .va:
      http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/x-Select/10select/10select_02.html

      Nah, religion should be moved into the .com TLD, since it's a for-profit thing. Then tax the 'hell' out of it. :)

  30. The non-stupid way to handle this: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make ownership of X.com and X.xxx the same thing. No land rush, no double-registering, no squatting, just a clean, simple way for people to mark their content as pornographic for easy filtering / finding.

    Of course, that's not what's going to happen.

  31. XXX is promotional by c++0xFF · · Score: 1

    Nobody will use it. Using .xxx will allow every administrator to just wildcard block the .xxx domain, and I doubt its in the adult industry's best interest to use it.

    That's not how the XXX marking has ever worked, and that's not how the .xxx will work.

    Any site that has a .xxx will have a .com as well. The .xxx will serve as a promotion, just like it always has. There's no such thing as a XXX-rated movie: that was made up to grab people's attention. The same goes with .xxx -- it shows potential visitors just how hardcore they are.

    Adult sites shouldn't care that the .xxx will be blocked the .com takes care of that, really.

  32. The TLDs, they do NOTHIN! by bmo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Without a mandate to move all porn to xxx, a new xxx TLD would be worse than useless. Indeed, since the laws of the US (supposedly) end at the borders, how would this stop a (foreign to the US) porn site owner from using the standard .com TLD?

    Therefore blocking .xxx would not mean you are blocking all porn.

    There are only two winners in this scenario of mandating porn go to .xxx: the politicians for doing something that doesn't actually, well, do anything substantial or helpful in any way. The other winner would be the .xxx registrar. Money and campaign contributions for nothing. .xxx would be just another TLD ghetto like .biz. I don't know of any legitimate businesses that use .biz instead of .com, and the ones that probably do have FQDNs that end in both .biz and .com.

    It's not like domain names or TLDs matter much anymore. Yes, sex.com was worth a lot of money at one time. But that was before decent search engines. I have not gone anywhere on the Internet in many years by guessing a FQDN. It's been a long time since the 'net has been a "library without a card catalog."

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:The TLDs, they do NOTHIN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is the discussion always about blocking? Any normal porn site is very cooperative with filters, etc. They just want to push product to people with credit cards - and those people have un-filtered connections.

      And when they added the (silly) ".travel", etc, TLDs, it's not like they passed rules against travel sites having the old ".com" TLDs... Filtering the dot-coms on *any* criterion is a completely separate institutional and legal step that will be a lot harder to justify either way.

  33. Much Eaiser Now by Cyclloid · · Score: 1

    download *.xxx

  34. 14 years later by mbone · · Score: 3, Informative

    This was discussed a lot in 1996 in the IETF NewDom Working Group, which I participated in, and which partially lead to the creation of ICANN. What a zoo that was - it ended with Eugene Kashpureff going to jail for attacking the DNS root servers. For some reason, ".xxx" seemed to drive people crazy, and I am not sure it is much different today.

  35. My version by Joe+U · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Step 1) Introduce tld .xxx

    Step 2) Pass law that says, any site with porn must be in .xxx tld

    Step 3) Block .xxx domain

    Step 4) A working DNS alternative FINALLY shows up.

    Seriously, DNS is pretty inefficient for the web, it organizes things into an outdated hierarchy that never really worked right in the first place (site.city.state.us? Really?). The problem is, we can't figure out a good open alternative, so we use the next best thing, search engines.

    DNS was good when the Internet was much smaller and people wanted to map physical locations onto host names, but it's time to seriously think about replacing it, at least for the browser.

  36. XXX prefix makes more sense. Think about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone should be allowed to stop in front of the Penthouse Magazine store, look through the front windows, but none are allowed into the XXX prefix'd room. A prefix would be easily filtered at the host level, and liability will retain to the host rather than entice all this draconian legislation that incriminates anyone for visiting a XXX domain or rerouting trafick at the carrier or service provider.

    Of'course, XXX suffix domains will only rake-in more registration fees just as did NAME, BIZ, INFO, MIL, and all the other jerks. XXX is nothing more than a legislated redirection to stack more punitive damages against violators as well as a money grab. I think hosts should be more enticing to play with their website suffixes more to a the Web 2.0 and 3.0 standards, to stop re-using the 'tarded WWW prefix.

    I'm all out of 2-cent pieces, so I'll leave my 2 cents here.

  37. Of Course, After All... by Jhyrryl · · Score: 1
    --
    Jhyrryl
  38. Re:Religious Right by nuckfuts · · Score: 1

    there also appears to exist burqa fetishists.

    I'm not sure why, but I find the thought of that more unsettling than most outlandish fetishes I've heard of. The mind-bending backwardness of it makes it seem somehow more "wrong".

    It also suggests the possibility of a new porn genre - "irony porn".

  39. RTFRFC? by CanadianRealist · · Score: 1

    I'd bet no one does it because no one one understands when someone says that.

  40. Re:Religious Right by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

    If you're much of a voyeur, the idea that they *really* don't want you to see anything can add a bit of a thrill to whatever you do see.

    I've never seen anyone in a burqa in person, but abayas are fairly common where I live. When one gets caught in the wind and presses up against the wearer and you see a clear outline of a nice leg and hip, it's actually kinda hot.

  41. One problem with the "Think of the children" crowd by Eternal+Vigilance · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...when it comes to sex, they think of children.

  42. oggle.xxx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oggle.xxx

  43. Executive Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even "think of the children" types understand that DNS is not a content classification scheme. Seemingly the only people who don't get it are the fuck-wits at a single Canadian registrar who are hoping to get rich. The only thing they are likely to accomplish is the popularisation of alternate roots.

    zone "xxx" in {
        type master;
        file "nxdomain";
    };

    The above goes for any other bullshit TLD ICANN manage to mug someone for.

  44. It's all relevant by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    I'll wager against you.

    You may not have considered the logic-bending that's been going on.

    1. Of course the Thinky crowd wants this. They just paid big money to *hide* to make this give a False-Innocence.
    2. The Censors will *eventually* pass a law that forces the Porn outfits to move, with an "Apply to Opt Out" clause. Say, 8 months in.
    3. XXX will be phenomenally used, and the porn on .Com addresses will be depicted as "rogue" with huge marketing money your taxes will pay for.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  45. Too late for a decent cash grab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Frankly, the entire for-pay porn industry has been destroyed by the youtube-esque pornsites - pornhub, redtube, youporn etc.
    They have, through massive redistribution of content they had no rights to, cornered the whole market, and created expectations in people that essentially have destroyed the industry.

    Of the top online porn affiliate programs of the past 10 years, about 50% are literally dead, 40% are running about 5% of 2005 levels, and the other 10% are diversifying.

    Add into this massive crackdowns from the credit card companies on rebilling, negative option, etc., and you really don't have a market for these domains.

    There is no way back. There is enough content out there for people to get their 15 minutes of 'new' content for a whole lifetime. Hardly any new porn is being produced.

    How do the youtube sites make money? Selling bogus 'dating' sites and completely illegal 'amateur' sites that redistribute 4chan-sourced underage material.

    So. Who's going to pay for an inflated XXX domain? Apart from maybe 30 major brands, most people won't bother as there's nearly no money to be made any more.

    1. Re:Too late for a decent cash grab by mbone · · Score: 1

      I think you are correct. In 96 or 98, this would have been like minting money. Now, not so much.

    2. Re:Too late for a decent cash grab by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      There is no way back. There is enough content out there for people to get their 15 minutes of 'new' content for a whole lifetime. Hardly any new porn is being produced.

      I don't believe this. The industry has changed dramatically, that is true, but porn is being produced at massive rates. Vivid is doing well, kink.com is doing great, amateur sites are going strong. The 'production values', which were never high to begin with, have dropped simply because anybody with a webcam can produce porn. There is no storyline (always a thin veil), no plot or dialog, etc. just sex. The idea that 'hardly any new porn is being produced' in this multibillion dollar industry is insane; just visit the Adult Entertainment Expo. Maybe it's not making _you_ money, and there is huge churn in the industry, but it's a giant, and booming, industry.

      Pirating has certainly hurt the larger, more professional producers, just as it has hurt the music and movie industries. But at least the music and movie industries continue to put out new and fresh products. New and interesting music is constantly being created; technology in movie creation and new story lines are always in progress. The underlying problem with the porn industry is that there are only so many different ways to fuck, and they have filmed them all. There is absolutely nothing new or different about the porn industry; there is simply a continual swapping of one young female for another in the films. The barrier for entry (so to speak!) into the industry now consists of buying a camera and filming someone having sex. So, the industry as a money making enterprise is in deep trouble because they offer nothing that two random strangers can't produce just by taking off their clothes and doing what comes naturally. The only advantage that they had in the past were controlled production and distribution mechanisms, and those are long gone. And good riddance.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
  46. This is getting tiresome. by jonadab · · Score: 1

    Another one? Really? WHY do we need another TLD?

    It's awfully tempting to create an alternate DNS root that only recognizes the two-letter country code TLDs plus .com, .net, .org, .edu, .gov, and .arpa. All those weird new ones ICANN keeps adding that nobody will ever care about? Forget them. .info? Forget about it. Nobody uses it anyway. .tel? Who needs it? Not me. .xxx? Scratch it off the list. .biz? Isn't that exactly what .com was for? Forget it. Forget them all.

    Logically, .com and .org really cover the gTLD bases pretty well. It's arguable whether .net was even really necessary, but it's been around for a long time and is widely used by ISPs, so keep it. Similarly we need .edu and .gov for backward compatibility (they logically belong under .us, but that's hindsight talking), and .arpa for reverse IP lookups. But that's it. None of the other gTLDs serve any useful purpose whatsoever.

    When new ones are added, it's NOT NEWS any more. They're irrelevant. Nobody cares. They've added at least a dozen worthless TLDs that will never be used since the last time any significant number of people cared about one.

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  47. Internet kill switch by impeach · · Score: 0

    They are using the Gulf Oil catastrophe as distraction, as planned, to push through all their draconian agenda, like Biden's new quest for copyright tyranny. With this .xxx campaign, first they create a divide-and-conquer tld. Then politicians pass laws to herd all porn and "objectional material" along a "trail of tears" to this reservation and then they require ID for access and they monitor and keep strict records of all traffic. Then they wall off ever more access until finally they use the imminent Internet kill switch.

  48. You forgot step 5 by ebs16 · · Score: 1

    Step 1) Introduce tld .xxx

    Step 2) Pass law that says, any site with porn must be in .xxx tld

    Step 3) Block .xxx domain

    Step 4) Totalitarianism

    Step 5) Profit!

  49. This is going to be a mess... by oljanx · · Score: 1

    You'll end up with every porn company and opportunist domain squatter slamming registration like we've never seen before. TLDs not country or government specific made available in the past were not immediately desirable. If I owned sexyblonds.com for example, I probably wouldn't have been that anxious to register sexyblonds.tv when it was made available. But I'll definitely want to register sexyblonds.xxx as soon as possible. Especially if I believe (whether true or not) that adult content will be legally forced into the .xxx TLD at some point in the future. ICANN, or whatever organizations are responsible, might want to come up with a plan to throttle registration. You're also going to end up with people registering and posting (maybe even related) adult content on sites like disney.xxx. I foresee many lawsuits.

  50. Definition too wide by aepervius · · Score: 1

    1) you have just defined erotic image, where potentially not even a bare breast or bare genital are shown, as porn.

    2) you shifted the definition so that now we have to determine the "intention" of the author.

    Conclusionyour definition is about as arbitrary as it was before, and works would change category depending on who watch from Fred Phelps to larry Flint.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Definition too wide by Itninja · · Score: 1

      1) That's exactly right. A video/image/whatever that is intended to cause sexual arousal, no matter what it actually depicts, is porn. This agrees with the primary and secondary definitions (the tertiary is about non-sexual "pornography"). From the big-boy dictionary (and all others I'd imagine):
      1 : the depiction of erotic behavior intended to cause sexual excitement
      2 : material that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
      3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction (the pornography of violence)

      2) We don't have to don't have to determine the intent, the creator does that themselves by choice. If it's not being openly presented as porn then it's might not be. That's where the legal issue come into play. Can you show an example of something fitting that description? It's hard to find. The closest I can think of are nudist sites.

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
  51. To paraphrase Tolkien: by lennier1 · · Score: 1

    "One TLD to block them all..."

  52. slashdot.xxx by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

    Welcome to Slashdot.xxx
    Porn for nerds, from nerds.

    We are working hard to upload the finest-quality photos and videos of Slashdotters having sex.

    To upload videos of a Slashdotter having sex (yourself or another reader), click here. If you would like to prove that you read Slashdot and you are not a virgin, this is your one-stop proof shop!

    Top Videos
    no content

    Most Popular
    no content

    Recently Viewed
    no content

    All-Time Favorites
    no content

    --
    I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
  53. Re:Religious Right by Archon-X · · Score: 1

    True enough - one could venture that a burqua is a self-fulfilling prophecy; by hiding everything, the male imagination is only more strongly attracted to finding out what's beneath.
    By the (eventual) banishment of xxx to one area, it's just going to make it more prevalent in the public mind.

  54. great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whithouse.xxx

    slashdot.xxx

    generalelectric.xxx

  55. one domain to rule them all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    goatse.xxx :)

  56. It would be nice by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    It would be nice if they could ban all adult websites to these address clusters, and avoid main web having adult content,
    so as to make sure that the filters needed are much less intense then they have to be now...also could prosecute if a move is not done within allotted time frame...

    On a separate note, it would be nice if all websites within this domain had to register on a list of offending parties such as sending out spam etc...so as to know which are ok and which are not, instead of blocking all adult content, there are some that pride themselves in not sending out bad pages, or pop ups etc....a sort of white list of good p0rn sites to visit, if there is such a thing...