ICANN delays .xxx again - bit-tech.net Forums

WilHarris · 19th Sep 2005, 12:50

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/09...an_delays_xxx/

Da Dego · 19th Sep 2005, 13:44

Nice pic, wil

Atomic · 19th Sep 2005, 13:45

Concerned about what? Parent types in.

block *.xxx

how much easier can you get to stop kids getting porn!

Reaper_Unreal · 19th Sep 2005, 13:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Da Dego

Nice pic, wil

She's canadian too, Next Door Nikki.

I don't see why they don't implement this now. Much less chance of my misspelling something at work and being bombarded with porn popups to my (and coworkers) horror. Besides, like Atomic said, much easier to block access.

Firehed · 19th Sep 2005, 14:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomic

Concerned about what? Parent types in.

block *.xxx

how much easier can you get to stop kids getting porn!

Well it's not THAT simple, unless there's a worldwide "no porn except on .xxx" mandate, which would be amazingly hard (hee hee) (I'm not meant to be up this early) to enforce. There should be IMO but we all know what it's like to regulate the internet.

Well, it all makes sense. Because we all know Bush's stance on doing anything that makes perfect sense to everyone and anyone ("don't", in case you're living under a rock)

Fatboy · 19th Sep 2005, 14:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper_Unreal

She's canadian too, Next Door Nikki.

Its Kate from Katesplayground.com , trust me on this one

I think the xxx domain is a step in teh right direction really.

DeX · 19th Sep 2005, 14:17

People say that there's a debate about whether or not this is a good idea. But I haven't heard a single reason why they shouldn't go ahead with this. I really can't think of any. Just what is this other side of the debate which is causing all this slow down?

wolff000 · 19th Sep 2005, 15:05

bush is friggin retarded. i actually had the oppurtunity to interview him and the man is an idiot. he had no idea what I was talking about when asking him about one of his own speeches. anyways i see no reason not to specify a specific point for porn, it would only help out all the people that don't like porn and want to keep it off there system. by the way the interview was about a year before he became president and sadly his iq has not risen from what i've seen.

acidfire · 19th Sep 2005, 17:23

maybe Dubya just doesn't want candyland.xxx showing up in the whitehouse internet records. Honestly, whats the problem with a virtual red light district if no one seems to have a problem with a real one in most cities. If anything it makes filtering and regulating sites easier, so why of all people are the conservatives groups bitching about it?

quack · 19th Sep 2005, 17:51

I have absolutely no idea why there is such a problem with giving pornography its own TLD. What is a problem though is that all the established sites already have a .com and they wouldn't be forced to give it up and move onto .xxx. So .xxx becomes pretty much useless.

.xxx is a good idea in principle, but it's too late. They should've implemented it at the same time as .com/.net/.org.

Da Dego · 19th Sep 2005, 18:32

I think part of the difficulty in the decision is that you can't FORCE people to use the .xxx TLD. So their argument (which I don't agree with, just presenting another view) is that by saying "yay .xxx", you're really expanding the real-estate, not asking them to move.

It's like city planning, where downtown you get lots of strip clubs, and even some very seedy massage parlors. Now, you offer to open up a whole new part of the city for these places...a true red light district. Your first thought is "This will give them incentive to clean up downtown, and move into a separate area." But if you can't force them to move from downtown, what you've really done is just open up that much more real-estate, so that the seedy parts of town can get that much bigger compared to the rest of the city as a whole.

Not the best reasoning, because blocking some is better than none...but without enforcement to move sites over, you've done nothing but double the real-estate for porn.

Like I said, I personally disagree with it...but I try to field the other side's viewpoint, because it's a bit under-represented here. We all see it as an easy decision...others who believe in (or depend on the votes from believers of) keeping the total level of smut to a minimum will not like someone just saying "great, let's sell 'em more land!"

Firehed · 19th Sep 2005, 19:55

Well in theory they could hope that web hosts agree to the idea and make it part of their terms that any pr0n goes on .xxx and putting it on anything but will be in a violation and they lose their hosting. The biggest problem is that chances are most hosts that deal with porn (as it's against terms of a lot of hosts, no exceptions) aren't that likely to care.

*twiddles thumbs for pr00gle*

DeX · 19th Sep 2005, 22:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Da Dego

Not the best reasoning, because blocking some is better than none...but without enforcement to move sites over, you've done nothing but double the real-estate for porn.

That's not essentially true. In a red light district part of town the adult businesses are limited by the area in which they can build but currently for porn sites there is no limit. Anyone can set up a porn site, it doesn't matter whether they use a new TLD or not as there are an infinite number of .com domains they can choose from. The only thing limiting porn growth on the net at the moment is competition and opening .xxx domains is not really going to affect that much.

There is the problem that anyone with an established .com domain is not going to bother to move as no one is forcing them but you will probably still see many other smaller businesses moving so that they can establish a better name for themselves. That also might cause another problem with people buying all the current .com domains as .xxx domains and then selling them on for unreasonable prices but I can't see that being a major argument against it.

So has anyone seen any real arguments behind those opposing this?

DeX · 19th Sep 2005, 23:04

Ok answering my own question here but there's a whole RFC on the argument against this idea. You can read it here:
http://rfc.net/rfc3675.html

Basically it says there are quite a few subtle problems like how do you define what should and shouldn't be labeled .xxx. Our culture is a lot more liberal than say Chinese or middle eastern cultures so their ideas of what should be allowed will be different. Also sites with topics other than porn such as violence or rape or whatever may be pursuaded into using the new TLD and once there be filtered from the service of Libraries and companies that may use them.

Another important point I guess is the fear that once this domain exists all porn sites will be forced to use it - or maybe all new porn sites. In any case this is supposedly seen as an impeachment of liberties and freedom of speech.

There's also the problem that a .xxx site could have two addresses - the .xxx address and a normal .com address which would defeat the point of the new address.

Basically I can't see any major reasons in that RFC but I guess they amount to quite a few problems that would be faced if this was ever implemented.

Atomic · 20th Sep 2005, 09:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Da Dego

I think part of the difficulty in the decision is that you can't FORCE people to use the .xxx TLD.

Technically it could, ICANN is under US law. So if the US Gov forced all porn sites with a .com to be forwarded to the .xxx it could be done. Wether they would is another matter.

boggsi · 20th Sep 2005, 12:58

You also forget most of the people that will frequent this site, and this forum are not a truly proportional representation of society, most of us can see the meaningfulness of having porn under .xxx - filter *.xxx

For those of us who think spyware was something from starwars *cant find linky*, the addition of .xxx "can only be making the internet a dirtier place", the real estate argument.

Then there are those who will bury their heads in the sand, pretending red light districts dont exist in "civilised places", the internet being a tool of the educated/higher classes should be "civilised" in their eyes.

Id say this is less about function, justification or facility. More concern over ill educated (a sizable portion of america, no offense intended) that will see only the negative side of an increasingly defined red light district among the tools of the educated.

Da Dego · 20th Sep 2005, 13:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by boggsi

Id say this is less about function, justification or facility. More concern over ill educated (a sizable portion of america, no offense intended) that will see only the negative side of an increasingly defined red light district among the tools of the educated.

I know you say no offense, but let's remind everyone that the "star wars" spyware were british citizens, iirc.

Stupidity knows no nationality.

-squid- · 20th Sep 2005, 16:34

humm he dint get that pic off free part of the web site

Ghys · 21st Sep 2005, 04:25

1) what the hell does bush know about all this

2) why the hell is he deciding this ? (and all the USA in general)

knoj · 22nd Sep 2005, 00:41

I can see it now... Gxxxgle for all your Porn Searching.

19th Sep 2005, 12:50	#1
WilHarris Just another nobody Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Oxford Posts: 2,671	ICANN delays .xxx again http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/09...an_delays_xxx/

19th Sep 2005, 13:44	#2
Da Dego Brett Thomas Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Cleveland, OH USA Posts: 3,906	Nice pic, wil __________________ "Frankly that seems overkill. iluvtrees2 arguing with spec is the intellectual equivalent of a bunny rabbit taking on a pissed-off lion." - Nexxo

19th Sep 2005, 13:45	#3
Atomic Gerwaff Join Date: May 2002 Location: Norwich, UK Posts: 7,898	Concerned about what? Parent types in. block .xxx how much easier can you get to stop kids getting porn! __________________ :: www.junkions.com :: Website & Server Hosting :: Ultimate CHEESECAKE ::*

19th Sep 2005, 14:17	#7
DeX Mube Codder Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: London, UK Posts: 4,103	People say that there's a debate about whether or not this is a good idea. But I haven't heard a single reason why they shouldn't go ahead with this. I really can't think of any. Just what is this other side of the debate which is causing all this slow down? __________________ Play my game: Shyguy's Cave of Death! If you dont have the time to check your spelling and grammar, you dont have the time to post! -Liquid K9

19th Sep 2005, 15:05	#8
wolff000 I am here to steal your secrets. Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Never-never Land Posts: 196	bush is friggin retarded. i actually had the oppurtunity to interview him and the man is an idiot. he had no idea what I was talking about when asking him about one of his own speeches. anyways i see no reason not to specify a specific point for porn, it would only help out all the people that don't like porn and want to keep it off there system. by the way the interview was about a year before he became president and sadly his iq has not risen from what i've seen. __________________ The gospel accordong to Myamoto, Chatper three, verse six..."And it is written that the gaming of man will die, and rest silent for two years. But on the eighty-fifth year of the twentieth century, it shall rise again. And its triumphant return shall be heralded by two great plumbers and thou will know gaming has been born again."

19th Sep 2005, 17:23	#9
acidfire Supermodder Join Date: May 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 254	maybe Dubya just doesn't want candyland.xxx showing up in the whitehouse internet records. Honestly, whats the problem with a virtual red light district if no one seems to have a problem with a real one in most cities. If anything it makes filtering and regulating sites easier, so why of all people are the conservatives groups bitching about it? __________________ "And when he gets to heaven, To St. Peter he will tell; One more soldier reporting sir, I served my time in hell. "

19th Sep 2005, 17:51	#10
quack \o/ Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: England Posts: 5,220	I have absolutely no idea why there is such a problem with giving pornography its own TLD. What is a problem though is that all the established sites already have a .com and they wouldn't be forced to give it up and move onto .xxx. So .xxx becomes pretty much useless. .xxx is a good idea in principle, but it's too late. They should've implemented it at the same time as .com/.net/.org. __________________ Denying Rights to Music lovers. Denying Rights to Movie lovers.

19th Sep 2005, 18:32	#11
Da Dego Brett Thomas Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Cleveland, OH USA Posts: 3,906	I think part of the difficulty in the decision is that you can't FORCE people to use the .xxx TLD. So their argument (which I don't agree with, just presenting another view) is that by saying "yay .xxx", you're really expanding the real-estate, not asking them to move. It's like city planning, where downtown you get lots of strip clubs, and even some very seedy massage parlors. Now, you offer to open up a whole new part of the city for these places...a true red light district. Your first thought is "This will give them incentive to clean up downtown, and move into a separate area." But if you can't force them to move from downtown, what you've really done is just open up that much more real-estate, so that the seedy parts of town can get that much bigger compared to the rest of the city as a whole. Not the best reasoning, because blocking some is better than none...but without enforcement to move sites over, you've done nothing but double the real-estate for porn. Like I said, I personally disagree with it...but I try to field the other side's viewpoint, because it's a bit under-represented here. We all see it as an easy decision...others who believe in (or depend on the votes from believers of) keeping the total level of smut to a minimum will not like someone just saying "great, let's sell 'em more land!" __________________ "Frankly that seems overkill. iluvtrees2 arguing with spec is the intellectual equivalent of a bunny rabbit taking on a pissed-off lion." - Nexxo

19th Sep 2005, 19:55	#12
Firehed Why not? I own a domain to match. Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: An hour north of Boston Posts: 12,576	Well in theory they could hope that web hosts agree to the idea and make it part of their terms that any pr0n goes on .xxx and putting it on anything but will be in a violation and they lose their hosting. The biggest problem is that chances are most hosts that deal with porn (as it's against terms of a lot of hosts, no exceptions) aren't that likely to care. twiddles thumbs for pr00gle __________________ hire me @ eric-stern.com - web developer and php ninja pics @ my smugmug :: Twitter @firehed :: blog @ firehed.net 40D\|580EXII\|285HV\|AB800\|70-200f/4LIS\|17-50f/2.8\|150f/2.8Macro\|50f/1.8 MacPro @ 8x2.8GHz, 10GB FBDDR2, 3TB HD :: MBP @ 2x2.2GHz, 4GB DDR2, 320GB HD

19th Sep 2005, 23:04	#14
DeX Mube Codder Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: London, UK Posts: 4,103	Ok answering my own question here but there's a whole RFC on the argument against this idea. You can read it here: http://rfc.net/rfc3675.html Basically it says there are quite a few subtle problems like how do you define what should and shouldn't be labeled .xxx. Our culture is a lot more liberal than say Chinese or middle eastern cultures so their ideas of what should be allowed will be different. Also sites with topics other than porn such as violence or rape or whatever may be pursuaded into using the new TLD and once there be filtered from the service of Libraries and companies that may use them. Another important point I guess is the fear that once this domain exists all porn sites will be forced to use it - or maybe all new porn sites. In any case this is supposedly seen as an impeachment of liberties and freedom of speech. There's also the problem that a .xxx site could have two addresses - the .xxx address and a normal .com address which would defeat the point of the new address. Basically I can't see any major reasons in that RFC but I guess they amount to quite a few problems that would be faced if this was ever implemented. __________________ Play my game: Shyguy's Cave of Death! If you dont have the time to check your spelling and grammar, you dont have the time to post! -Liquid K9

20th Sep 2005, 12:58	#16
boggsi Multimodder Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 105	You also forget most of the people that will frequent this site, and this forum are not a truly proportional representation of society, most of us can see the meaningfulness of having porn under .xxx - filter .xxx For those of us who think spyware was something from starwars cant find linky*, the addition of .xxx "can only be making the internet a dirtier place", the real estate argument. Then there are those who will bury their heads in the sand, pretending red light districts dont exist in "civilised places", the internet being a tool of the educated/higher classes should be "civilised" in their eyes. Id say this is less about function, justification or facility. More concern over ill educated (a sizable portion of america, no offense intended) that will see only the negative side of an increasingly defined red light district among the tools of the educated.

20th Sep 2005, 16:34	#18
-squid- What's a Dremel? Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: southampton Posts: 10	humm he dint get that pic off free part of the web site

21st Sep 2005, 04:25	#19
Ghys DUHHHH Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 2,585	1) what the hell does bush know about all this 2) why the hell is he deciding this ? (and all the USA in general)

22nd Sep 2005, 00:41	#20
knoj Multimodder Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Ames IA Posts: 148	I can see it now... Gxxxgle for all your Porn Searching. __________________ Man, Real life sucks... There's no "undo" button! (Knoj)