Sex domain dies

The Australian ^ | 30 March 2006 | Simon Hayes

[LilDarlin]

Bummer!

[Protagoras]

And how do you handle the sites in far away countries that refuse to stay on XXX?

[Protagoras]

Enforcement?

[r9etb]

Who was supporting the "xxx" domain registry? Certainly, it's easier to block at the browser level...

Indeed. And one suspects that is one of the factors behind a great deal of the opposition to the idea. Porn sites thrive on having IP addresses that are essentially indistinguishable from "legitimate" sites.

[Senator Bedfellow]

And the fun thing about that is that you can still stay one step ahead of corporate/local filters by changing the front end. As soon as porn.com is blocked, you change it to skanks.net, which is essentially identical insofar as it's still fetching from porn.xxx, only skanks.net isn't blocked yet.

[adam_az]

search the thread for my posts.

[The Bard]

Who was supporting the "xxx" domain registry? Certainly, it's easier to block at the browser level...

There is certainly some way to put the nudie mags "behind the counter"?

Perhaps, but filters have their limitations. Several years ago, I was subscribed to a provider that filtered out adult content. Worked well for the most part, but when Superbowl XXX came along, I was suddenly unable to access several sports and news website because XXX was deemed as adult content according to the web filter.

Wrong is wrong. The Bible tells us that adultry and fornacation are wrong. My own personal opionion is that the xxx domain was nothing more than a feeble attempt to sweep this under the rug so people could say that they were "cleaning" up the internet. The reality is that a XXX domain would just give the internet a legal (in the eyes of man) space to thrive, rahter then truly attempting to eliminate porn, a sin in the eyes of our heavenly father.

[gondramB]

"Oh please. They could just give those with existing .com websites the first crack at the same name with .xxx as the domain. They could also automatically redirect you from the old url to the new one for a period of say one year."

Several people suggested that. I think it would not work for a variety of reason - difficulty deciding what is porn. Yahoo for example hosts nude images. The owner objecting and suing and demanding compensation and constitutional issues relating to property and speech.

[D-fendr]

So, do your kids have access to FR?

I don't have kids. But yes, kids have access to FR. I'm sorry, I'm not following your point here...

[Drew68]

i don't expect them to like it... i'm just saying they wouldn't lose anything by doing it if it was made an edict by icann.

They'd lose a lot actually,

"Hi Mr. Pornographer. We would like you to to take your $10 million/year hotnakedbabes.com and relocate it to hotnakedbabes.xxx so ISPs can block traffic to your site."

Yeah, I can see where Mr. Pornographer is going to want to comply.

Mr. Pornographer will likely say, "How about I keep hotnakedbabes.com and make a mirror site at hotnakedbabes.xxx?"

And who will make him comply? ICANN? Pipedreams like the .xxx domain are nothing more than toothless feel-good measures so that some people somewhere can say they did something about internet porn.

[Drew68]

I'm sick of the pseudo-cons on here who are opposed to government intervention - except for their own pet causes. Those, they want to force onto everyone else, while decrying the donks for doing the same thing for the same reasons.

Well said! And for concurring with your well-written post, I'm sure you and me both will be branded as "porn-loving LIBERALtarians!"

[adam_az]

"Pipedreams like the .xxx domain are nothing more than toothless feel-good measures..."


http://www.toothless feel-good measures.xxx

Thars gold in them thar hills!

[BigSkyFreeper]

Alot of folks were keen on the idea of a ".xxx" domain, and not all of them weren't exactly interested in finding porn on the internet.

"It's for the children", as it were.

[BigSkyFreeper]

They wouldn't lose any traffic, because by and large most ISP's aren't interested in blocking internet traffic on sites they don't own, unless a majority of their customer base complains. Any internet subscriber who has read their ISP TOS agreement would understand that it's the user's responsibility as to where the computer connected to the internet is going on the internet.

ISP's control the content stored on their servers. Be it e-mail, websites, or files whether images or audio files (particularly mp3's).

The only exceptions to the above blocking of domains are the ISP's that tout themselves as "family friendly", where they block traffic to such sites as art galleries because there are photos of nude art.

[Chode]

icann either lets your domain work or it doesn't... they have the power.

[gakrak]

Not very well. Amen.