Red Light Domains

[dgridley]

I was just reading an article by Dvorak on why the .xxx ext is a good idea. Here's an excerpt:

The idea behind the .xxx domain is to make it brain-dead easy to keep porn out of the American family home. That's the reason it was proposed. So why do these people oppose it? The argument against the .xxx proposal seems to indicate either an incredible naïveté regarding the workings of networks and computers or an extreme distrust of computer users themselves. Perhaps it's a combination of both.

Personally, as he says in the article, the only ones who benefit from blocking the .xxx domain ext are the pornographers. Anyone else agree?

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,,1896410,00.asp

 

[Gene]

I agree completely.

 

[deet]

It's a warning label, not a platform! It's isolation. It's zoning. Would you allow locating adult bookstores next to churches? It seems that Concerned Women for America would demand doing so.



The idea behind .xxx is to put these porn folks into their own space where they can be somewhat controlled. The idea is not to make getting to porn easier. Getting to porn is easy enough now—even by accident. That's why the current structure is a threat to family values.

I agree these sites should be controlled.

 

[stscac]

The .xxx extension is not a requirement for websites of "pornographic" nature.

It is merely a voluntary categorization.

But, it is a step in the right direction

-Steve

 

[deet]

The .xxx extension is not a requirement for websites of "pornographic" nature.

It is merely a voluntary categorization.

But, it is a step in the right direction

-Steve

No, not a requirement. But it should be :imho:

 

[Australia]

sex.com

should sex.com give up its .com status in favour of sex.xxx?? what happens if they cant get sex.xxx and what would happen to the domain name sex.com if they did? who would enforce it?

there are a lot of problems associated with .xxx, it really is just doubling the pornographers turf or footprint to peddle their wares:imho:

 

[mch]

Even if it was a requirement for porn content to be on an .xxx domain, who would control that? I don't think it would be possible.

 

[stscac]

Even if it was a requirement for porn content to be on an .xxx domain, who would control that? I don't think it would be possible.

Well, I think that it would end up being more of a find and destroy mission rather than a prevention one.

-Steve

 

[Reppy]

If they wanted to make .xxx mandatory they would have to do it from the start and NOT at a later date.

And they would need three TLD's in which to do it effectively.

And it would have to be done under a system whereby those who have the 'rights' to the name get preference. Allow me to explain...

Rather then it be an open market they would have to let sex.com have first dibs on sex.xxx. Then they would migrate the site under the .xxx domain and the .com would still be owned by them, but just be a page, which links to the .xxx site.

Let me clarify this by using a different name, so as not to make it too confusing. We'll call it adult.com

adult.com would be allowed to register adult.xxx, but what would happen to adult.net? And adult.org? They may well be sites which contain pornographic material and would need a TLD of their own.

So I suppose adult.net would be allowed to register adult.sex. And adult.org would have adult.porn.

But then who decides which of these TLD's are worth the most? Which out of .xxx, .sex and .porn are the .com equivilent?

Maybe adult.com gets the first choice of which one they would prefer, then adult.net, and finally adult.org have no choice.

But what happens to adult.biz?

And what's to say of the other adult domain names that are ccTLD? Or the .info's, .cc's and .ws's?

And who decides what the definition of pornography is?

Is it pornographic sites which you pay for, or the myriad of free sites the majority being affiliates who make a pretty page and have links to FHG's (Free Hosted Galleries). What about TGP's?

And online adult shops, that may sell magazines, DVD or toys? Will they be required to move shop too?

So while it may on the surface appear to be the solution that some people are looking for, it's creates far more questions than answers.

 

[Australia]

i agree reprobate i thinks its too late to introduce .xxx as it only increases the amount of porn that will be out there, not to reduce it.

p.s good post

 

[mch]

Haha, I don't think a new TLD would be accountable for the increase of porn :D It's a natural growt, you know what I mean, haha.

 

[stscac]

i agree reprobate i thinks its too late to introduce .xxx as it only increases the amount of porn that will be out there, not to reduce it.

p.s good post

Will seemingly increase the number of porn out there, but in fact will just increase the number of porn domains out there.

Search engines will have more domain names to spider, seemingly more content (even though some will be the same), and it will appear that there is more pornography as a whole on the internet. You're right, there is.

But not a significant percentage more from the new TLD than without it.

-Steve

 

[cache]

good reading. I just can not believe they were tricked, it should not be too hard to figure it out.

 

[xtremest]

Good article. But next question. What is the line between erotic and porn and should it be erotic.com or .xxx ? etc...

 

[a1whs.com]

Why do people wana put restrictions on porn ? humans used to roam around naked , so why put a ban or any sort of restriction on porn , we are all animals one should keep that in mind. Pornography is art just like any other art it should not be restricted in anyway.

 

[stscac]

Good article. But next question. What is the line between erotic and porn and should it be erotic.com or .xxx ? etc...

Well, it also depends on the definition. Here in the United States, as I am sure many people know, pornography has its "levels". Besides being a three letter acronym that we traditionally (well, not anymore I guess ) used to use for domain name extensions, "xxx" represents the "intense" (for lack of a better word) pornography. A lighter, more erotic version, can be viewed as "softcore" pornography.

But think about countries like France (and probably others, but France was the first ot come to my head) where for women, it is traditionally acceptable for women to go around topless. To some (particularly in the United States where we take everything offensively) it could be considered "softcore".

Unfortunately there is no fine cut line.

Why do people wana put restrictions on porn ? humans used to roam around naked , so why put a ban or any sort of restriction on porn , we are all animals one should keep that in mind. Pornography is art just like any other art it should not be restricted in anyway.

I know for sure that I am not wanting to put a restriction on porn, because I don't need the filter. I am of age, and could view it if I wanted. People who are pushing for this come from the ICM Registry and say this:

More than 10% of all online traffic and 25% of all global Internet searching is adult-content oriented with more than 100,000 adult webmasters worldwide and well over one million adult domains...

...Responsible members of the adult entertainment industry have identified a need to work together to:

• Develop mechanisms to reach only those online users who want to use their products or services;
• Respond to the growing demand from child and family safety groups to ensure the Internet is safer; and
• Respond to the privacy, security, and consumer protection concerns of their audience.

Think about it. More than 10% of all internet traffic is adult-oriented. You have people out there like John Zuccarini (See this post) have made pornography very accessible to young people by masking URL's (primarily Yahoo-like) to redirect to pornography.

Just something to think about.

-Steve

 

[Reppy]

Reading peoples comments here was by far more interesting and educational than that of the article.

Thread delivers. A+.