> As to forcing the.prn domain, I have no problem if they want to legislate it into existence, but it is a MAJOR issue if they force sites to relocate into it.
Yeah, but I think that's what they're talking about. Check out the article summary:
the sites would have to give up their.com/.org/.net domains they own today
So here's my question: who decides what gets forced into the.prn domain? Would a Mapplethorpe gallery be sent to.prn? How about "hate speech" -- what is hate speech anyways? Sure the KKK is gonna get forced into.prn. What about ecoterrorists and extreme animal rights activitis who advocate destroying scientific labs that engage in animal testing? How about sites that list the names and home addresses of doctors that perform abortions and encourage people to exact revenge on behalf of the fetuses?
Forcing sites into a.prn domain seems like a recipe for distaster.
I've always been puzzled with the "we have to protect the children" battlecry that is sounded on so many issues. These bots are targeting ads to children -- so what? There's a lot worse things that can happen to kids these days then to have some AI friend ask them if they want to hear about some new teeny-bopper recording artist.
My feeling about childhood is that it's the time when you can make mistakes and still have the safety-net of parents. We shouldn't be trying to protect kids pre-emptively from every perceived "threat" (and people seem to be implying that these ads are some kind of threat) that targets them. If some kid blows their allowance on junk that was marketed to them through one of these bots and they realize afterwards that the product is silly, that's the time the parents should sit down with the kid and explain what advertising is. It's also an opportune time to explain how entities that you communicate with via computer may not be quite what they seem (the bot isn't a human friend but a marketing device). Having been lightly burned, the kid is much less likely to fall for tricks in the future. And if they DO still fall for it, then the parent should be thankful that they have been given an opportunity to identify some gullibility in their child before that kid becomes a teenager and stops listening to them (or moves out).
Also, I don't understand the "sleezy" comment applied to this company. Someone's got to pay the bills. Advertisers aren't saints; you gotta expect this kind of stuff. I reserve the word "sleezy advertiser" for all those companies who used the Sept 11 tragedy to take out a full-page ad in the paper. You really wanna show your support for NYC? Then take those tens of thousands of dollars you were gonna spend on the ad and donate it to charity!
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but I think that's what they're talking about. Check out the article summary:
the sites would have to give up their .com/.org/.net domains they own today
So here's my question: who decides what gets forced into the .prn domain? Would a Mapplethorpe gallery be sent to .prn? How about "hate speech" -- what is hate speech anyways? Sure the KKK is gonna get forced into .prn. What about ecoterrorists and extreme animal rights activitis who advocate destroying scientific labs that engage in animal testing? How about sites that list the names and home addresses of doctors that perform abortions and encourage people to exact revenge on behalf of the fetuses?
Forcing sites into a .prn domain seems like a recipe for distaster.
GMD
I've always been puzzled with the "we have to protect the children" battlecry that is sounded on so many issues. These bots are targeting ads to children -- so what? There's a lot worse things that can happen to kids these days then to have some AI friend ask them if they want to hear about some new teeny-bopper recording artist.
My feeling about childhood is that it's the time when you can make mistakes and still have the safety-net of parents. We shouldn't be trying to protect kids pre-emptively from every perceived "threat" (and people seem to be implying that these ads are some kind of threat) that targets them. If some kid blows their allowance on junk that was marketed to them through one of these bots and they realize afterwards that the product is silly, that's the time the parents should sit down with the kid and explain what advertising is. It's also an opportune time to explain how entities that you communicate with via computer may not be quite what they seem (the bot isn't a human friend but a marketing device). Having been lightly burned, the kid is much less likely to fall for tricks in the future. And if they DO still fall for it, then the parent should be thankful that they have been given an opportunity to identify some gullibility in their child before that kid becomes a teenager and stops listening to them (or moves out).
Also, I don't understand the "sleezy" comment applied to this company. Someone's got to pay the bills. Advertisers aren't saints; you gotta expect this kind of stuff. I reserve the word "sleezy advertiser" for all those companies who used the Sept 11 tragedy to take out a full-page ad in the paper. You really wanna show your support for NYC? Then take those tens of thousands of dollars you were gonna spend on the ad and donate it to charity!
GMD