ICANN Finally Agrees To Build An Online Red Light District
from the can't-get-enough-domains... dept
While ICANN rushed to expand the number of top level domains with somewhat useless domains like .travel and .post along with absolutely useless domains, such as .jobs and .mobi, they seemed to take forever in thinking about the one new TLD that probably made the most sense: .xxx. Apparently, they've finally realized that it does make sense to have a separate TLD for porn sites. Now, of course, it's sure to raise plenty of questions over whether or not politicians will use the opportunity to mandate that all porn sites have to be hosted in the .xxx area -- and the types of problems that will cause. Existing porn sites are likely to be somewhat annoyed by this, and the need to buy new domains (at a higher price, of course, than traditional .coms), but for newer porn sites that want to be found more easily, without having to resort to tricking surfers, it's probably not a bad idea.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
ARgh!
They should have the opposite of this, a .kids TLD. At least that has a chance in hell of actually working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ARgh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ARgh!
I figure this is the first step of a 'for the children' sort of agenda. My point is that there's no way that you can even begin to confine adult content to one TLD. (I'm certainly not going to censor myself here, for example (hell! damn! crap!)) So it's pointless. Or worse, the existence of an expressly adult category may give the naive the false impression that this kind of separation is intended. How long before we hear someone on the news say, "it's not even an .xxx domain, my kids found this stuff right out there on the regular internet"? Which would, of course, lead to demands for action.
A .kids TLD, on the other hand, would be great. It's the simplest filter ever, from a technical standpoint. And you could charter a 501(c) registrar to take complaints and make sure that the content on .kids domains was acceptable. And then you'd have disney.kids and elmo.kids and you could firewall it right at your LinkSys cable modem and your kids would be safer than they ever have been with these snakeoil 'filters' that are available today.
This would actually, y'know, work.
The .xxx TLD is, as far as I'm concerned, no different than the other junk TLDs like .museum and .info.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Domain .xxx
The trade off would be that if a site was in the domain, then it would be easy for an ISP or end user to filter it out based on the request of the end user.
On the other hand, the site would be protected against local pornography laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More than children
There are plenty of adults who don't want to see sexually explicit materials, and plenty of websites still that put amazingly graphic content right on their front page. It is too easy to reach many sites accidentally via a typo or search. There also these mysterious in-between creatures called teenagers that parents might not want to wall off into Disney/Barney land anymore, but would still like a means of making hardcore sexual content a bit tougher to access.
That said, since many sites use typo tricks and such to lure people to 'porn' sites, it seems unlikely to be highly effective without legal mandates. This argument that "xxx" is so subjective as to make such judgments that tricky... oh please. The requirement would have to be clearly defined, but these judgments already happen in the real world. Breast exam pamphlets don't have to be sealed to prevent viewing by minors and such. Heaven forbid the public would have to be told that the intent is not to block any possible non-sexual viewing of a pee-pee or hoo-hoo. And so long as adults could choose to see .xxx content, it wouldn't be censorship.
What would be stickier to address is the radically different standards in different countries, and for any mandate to work it would have to be enacted globally. But again, IF people truly wanted to restrict access to the more graphic content they would work out a reasonable compromise. If they don't, readily available porn for all who want it or accidentally stumble across it.
Personally I don't believe people of any age get scarred for life from seeing some sexual content, those who REALLY want to find it will, and those who don't want to see it will quickly leave if they accidentally do. But for those who want something done, it seems a simple contrast: Do something that will help but won't go far enough to please everyone, or do nothing. Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typo squatting by pr0n sites should be illegal
The guy KNOWS he's doing it to catch people who don't know about .gov, and apparently he must think that people don't know how to find boobies on their own and people will say "Hey! Lookie here! Hmm, maybe I don't need to write that letter to the President after all, maybe I'll jsut hang around here."
Pu-leeze. He's in it because I think it gives him a thrill when every 5th grade student in civics class goes to his domain and sees bad stuff. The guy should be burned at the stake on the 50 yard line of the Super Bowl*. With sensible laws like that, we'll very shortly see changes in the way pr0nographers behave.
* I think we should illegally extradite people to the US for my Super Bowl idea, but you can substitute World Cup, Olympics, etc. as appropriate for your location.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Typo squatting by pr0n sites should be illegal
Um, he's in it because he makes money at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Freedom of speech means you can do and say what you want where you want. It is the listeners responsibility to decide what to do about listening/not listening. Mandating that the speaker (or website) be relegated to some small easily managed and easily blocked place breaks this freedom FOR ALL OF US.
This is just like herding protesters into a detention camp "for safety" where they can protest all they want outside of view of any and all, during the RNC convention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Let them. I'll just use a .com TLD anon proxy. And do you really believe that ALL isps would block? What a paranoid little surfer you are.
"Freedom of speech means you can do and say what you want where you want."
No it doesn't. And you're a dipshit.
"This is just like herding protesters into a detention camp..."
They could have left any time they wanted. They were not detained. They were however not allowed to use areas which the RNC had rented and paid for their own use.
"for safety" where they can protest all they want outside of view of any and all, during the RNC convention."
Pretty smart and pretty effing cool. And oh yeah, the DNC did the same stuff for their convention. Interesting that we heard so little about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
wrong. they were detained for the duration of the event.
And you are wrong about freedom of speech too. Facts usually work better than name calling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
wrong. they were detained for the duration of the event."
I guess we'll just have to accept that our interpretations of correct (right, reality) and wrong are going to be different. Strip off all the hidden little caveats that you are not disclosing and then we see that they were not detained. The reality of it was that if they wanted to pursue specific behaviours, then they were allowed to do so in specific areas. They could have chosen to not pursue those behaviours and left at any time once any legal matters were finished. If some idiot decided to do something that was illegal or worthy of investigation, they could be detained for the purposes of investigation. That is distinctly different than how you are portraying it.
"And you are wrong about freedom of speech too. Facts usually work better than name calling."
No, you are wrong. Now you are a double dipshit for not seeing the irony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
There were no choices of what you could do and couldnt do, you could do whatever you wanted for the duration in the designated holding pen. And then you could leave. These people were not doing illegal activity and they did not agree to being held in captivity so that they could continue to protest.
Aside from being unclear on facts and opinion, you also appear to be unclear on the meaning and usage of irony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Errr, the phrase "There were no choices of what you could do and couldnt do..." completly contradict what comes next "...you could do whatever you wanted for the duration in the designated holding pen. And then you could leave."
So they DID have a choice! They could choose to: 1)demonstrate in a specific area (which you so prejudicly described has a holding pen in an attempt to sway the arguments away from the facts that they were not forced to remain there and also convienently forgetting that you originally asserted that they were detained) or 2) they could go elsewhere. If they chose to be elsewhere but on the premesis paid for via rent and under the control of the RNC then they were not allowed to display behaviours that the RNC did not condone. Just like the DNC did with the religious zealots and anti-abortion nuts. But I don't see you complaining about that situation. Just like you have every right to prevent me or anyone else from coming to your home/apartment/hole under a rock and rant and rave about how much you like buggering small pets. They could also have chosen to go to another place, say Greenwich Village, and protested their little hearts out. The key word in this is "chosen." THEY HAD A CHOICE! Just like I have a choice to drive 100 mph in my car. But if I choose to do so on public streets I have also chosen to open myself up to legal action. They go together. I can drive as fast as I want if I choose to drive on a closed track. What you seem to be advocating is Rights without responsibility and that simply doesn't hold up at all.
"Aside from being unclear on facts and opinion"
Nope, not at all. But you are unclear on logic. You're also unclear on the meaning of words like detained or phrases like held in captivity. You cannot be detained or held captive if you can leave at any time. Get a dictionary.
"...you also appear to be unclear on the meaning and usage of irony."
Now you are a complete stupendous triple dipshit!
You didn't find it ironic that I commented that the concept of the Freedom of Speech was not without limits as you have asserted (to wit: "Freedom of speech means you can do and say what you want where you want. It is the listeners responsibility to decide what to do about listening/not listening.") by making a libelous comment about you? Wow, are you dense or what? You seem to be under the impression that Freedom of Speech is without limits. Please Google for +"freedom of speech" +limits. One that is to the point and near the top of results would be sections "(2) LIBEL" and "(3) FIGHTING WORDS" at http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/410/410lect08.htm
Another good one is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech where we see the sentence "The right to freedom of expression is not considered unlimited" Or from a site you might be aware of. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/overview.aspx were we see the simple sentence, "There are limits." in describing the Freedom of Speech. I could go on with almost limitless more references but I tire of debating with someone so poorly founded in logic and reason not to mention Constitutional law and principles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
They were not allowed to leave for the duration of the event. Where is the choice? They could choose to sit or stand or walk around and say whatever they wanted. THEY COULD NOT LEAVE UNTIL IT WAS OVER AND THEY WERE RELEASED.
Duh. Was the article discussing screaming fire in a movie theatre? Do you really think that distinction is relevant to the discussion or that anyone on the planet doesnt know that or that what I said has ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT?
It is clear that you are incapable of rational thought and are just making things up to suit your distorted opinion. Grow up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]