Why the .XXX Domain is a Bad Idea That Won't Die 322
Reader tqft tipped us to an opinion piece on the UK site The Guardian, which lays out the reasons why article writer Seth Finkelstein feels the .XXX domain is a terrible idea. You may recall that last year (being an election year and all), the concept of a triple-X ghetto was revived, considered, and then quashed all in the space of a few months. We also recently discussed the fact that the idea just won't die, as the company ICM Registry pushes ICANN to allow them to pass out the names by Summer. Finkelstein primarily argues that the new domain is a bad idea from a business point of view. Ignoring for a moment the issue that much of this content is already labeled, he sees this as primarily a means for ICM Registry to gain a monopoly on what is sure to be a hot-selling product. Speculators, pornographers, and above-board companies will all jump on the namespace in an effort to ensure that their domain is represented ... or not, as the case may be. Where do you fall on this issue? Would a .XXX domain be helpful for parents, or just a political salve/moneymaking scam?
Why not? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I'm for it. I think. (Score:3, Interesting)
I have an idea for a solution (Score:5, Interesting)
A) makes porn easier to find
B) Does not solve the problem of being able to filter it with parental control software because nobody is going to shut down the porn.com's.
The porn sites have a right to exist, who are we to force them over to .xxx domains? Forcing them all to register with some central DB so they can be black listed would also be impossible becasue there is no realistic way to keep the DB updated.
My solution for addressing the filtering software problem is very simple. We amend robots.txt [google.com] to include a section for Adult content.
A simple addition on porn sites of a line like this would solve the problem.
User-agent: * Disallow: /forums/ /members/ /downloads/ /
Disallow:
Disallow:
Adult:
Sites not interested in adding the field to robots.txt are not required to by law, but many websites would be willing to accommodate something like this to assist Net Nanny etc., but would fight having to leave porn.net behind for pornforyou12341.xxx tooth and nail. On the internet your company name and your domain name are often the same. Moving them to another TLD would equate to making them shut down and start over under a new name.
This would also greatly assist Google etc. in blocking some of these sites where "safe search" is turned on thus prevent people form going to a jenny.com by mistake and finding porn.
I have made this suggestion a number of time in the past. Maybe I should look into what it would take to get it drafted into an RFC?
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, .XXX is bad (Score:5, Interesting)
In some countries it is considered wrong for women to lift their veils so other men can see their faces, and in some women walk around with no shits on like men. Sure there are obvious cases, but who has the final word on what is and isn't sexually explicit content? Who is going to pay to enforce these new morals and who's morals?
Do the American tax payers launch a multi billion dollar crusade to purge the internet of porn and bring our Christian morals to the internationally based Internet?
Early proposals for .xx were to mandate that all porn sites use some form of age verification (ie credit card). With all the fraud on the internet do you honestly believe entering your credit card number and personal into on every porn site you see is a good idea? What age constitutes a "minor" anyway? 18 y/o like in the US? How many people here have never seen any porn before the age of 18? How did you turn out?
To me this only sounds like a pathway for rampant fraud. I don't want to complain without offering up my own solution, so I think if anything is to be done then appending robots.txt to include a line for "Adult: /" where the webmaster of the site sees fit is a much better idea. I posted more on this suggestion here [slashdot.org]
Re:Why not? (Score:3, Interesting)
While a few of the large-profile sites can afford to move (the subscription-based ones), the smaller sites that are based on the shared subscription model (you pay $XX/year for access to all member sites, those member sites take a portion of profit) will just multiply, compounding any filtering problems.
Has anyone actually investigated whether the XXX industry actually WANTS the tld? The only thing I've seen personally is the company that is pushing
Helpful in the long run (Score:5, Interesting)
While porn ad sites don't care about age, regular pay-for-porn sites would probably prefer those with access to a credit card, meaning those who can likely be there legally. Basically, market the
The government could work off this, too. They allow it to pass, and encourage its adoption by the "less scrupulous businesses", and in return for them moving to a
I can understand the fear of governments forcing porn sites to move to
Categories? (Score:3, Interesting)
The domain name is supposed to be some type of mapping between a company's name, general interest, etc. to a specific web page. This was great when the web was small, but even without all the porn, it still mostly fails. Thus the search engine.
So URLs are relegated to (sometimes) brand name, (sometimes) company names, bookmarks, and printed ads. That is, all other times, it doesn't really matter what the domain name is.
The
Perhaps a better approach would be to actually put some structure on naming. A hierarchical is already somewhat in use per domain, but is not problem free. Also, name.adult.com is essentially the same as name.xxx.
Tagging is an already wide-used technique employed on the net, why not use it for names too? The tags can be done in an inclusive manner, such that an organization can allow acceptance of a particular web page to that tag. For example, 'child' could be applied to make sure there is no objectionable material. But wait, by whose standard? Well, there could be several 'child' tag organizations. For parents, they can pick the one which agrees with their standards.
Am I in favor of censorship? Definitely not. But I'm also going to have to live with the fact that some people are going to disagree with my sensibilities. Why not give them their own playground, and get them out of mine?
Use xxx instead of www (Score:4, Interesting)
Or is it simply about the registrars making more money off of a new TLD?
Re:Just do it already (Score:3, Interesting)
Does any depiction of a bare breast, buttock, vulva, or penis indicate porn? If you ask my parents then yes it does. If you ask me, I say No. Michelangelo's "David" is not pornographic. "The Birth of Venus" by Botticelli is not porn. Those two examples show my opinion on the matter. However, many others will disagree with me and will state that one or the other, or even both are pornographic. What about images that depict Dante's "Inferno"? Many of those paintings show naked bodies being consumed by a demon, and some show burning naked flesh. Are those pornographic?
You may ask why am I bringing up paintings or "works of art" in regards to a
* Note: that link is to the history version of Wikipedia, following that link should take you to the Jan 5th version that was current when I wrote this text.
Who decides what belongs on a
All a
A
The following paragraph is a bit off from my above, but I wanted to include it.
Do you remember when online services blocked the word 'breast' in order to "protect" people? They ended up blocking people from finding information related to breast cancer and other information that had the word breast in it. That block was removed, as people just started using br3ast more often.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Interesting)
You're not going to sell porn to people who aren't looking for it. And a TLD makes it easier to find, how is it a bad idea again?
Re:No more tlds please... (Score:4, Interesting)
Besides, we need many more TLDs. Not dozens more. Hundreds or thousands more. Only when there are too many domains to register under all will that insanity stop. Only then will other TLDs mean something. Today it's either
Re:Use xxx instead of www (Score:1, Interesting)
Reserve either a class A net, or a port for porn. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why not? (Score:3, Interesting)
You're now arguing a completely different proposition. It's one thing to create a domain .xxx and say it's for porn. Whatever else it does, you'll certainly get porn sites there. It's quite another to imagine that this will magically lead to all porn disappearing from .com. So you'll be no more safe from "stumbling" on porn. And as your example shows, many people would still prefer to use the .com just for a shred of deniability when their boss/wife looks through their history.
Re:Per the proposal they are _required_ to move (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No, .XXX is bad (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why not? (Score:3, Interesting)
First, TLDs are a good idea that simply do not work in reality. Proof of this is that slashdot.com and slashdot.org are exactly the same even though they have different TLDs. OK, that was a bad example, because a counter to that would be a few years ago with whitehouse.com vs whitehouse.gov.
The deal with the XXX domain is that it will be yet another gold rush for the "good ones" if it comes into existence, but then nothing will change. Porn will be typosquatted and littered all over the
My point is that TLDs are ineffective in reality (but great in theory), and the XXX TLD would be great to help save the children (in theory), but the poor kids will see people fucking and sucking even if there is a XXX domain.
Re:Simple reason (Score:3, Interesting)
"The ONLY loss for the porn industry is that then every consenting adult lose any excuse to have browsed on porn domain by accident since with
As someone who works in the hosting business for a predominantly adult entertainment customer base, I can tell you first hand that "ONLY" does not apply here. When the bulk of U.S. traffic on our bell curves hits around 3PM every single day, one thing becomes clear: the adult industry counts on sneaky employees surfing porn from their desk at work.
By and large, the adult industry shuns the
There was an additional comment further up the thread here indicating that there are already sufficient standards for flagging adult content sites and that
The goals of regulation a two-fold and, in my opinion, just:
1) Shield people from the content who should not be exposed to it (i.e. kids, purists)
2) Ensure that minors are not being exploited sexually (child porn)
The 2257 regulations for the U.S. addresses point two, but as yet no regulation addresses point one.
But profits be damned - this is about doing the right thing, not making the adult entertainment companies fat and happy. The tobacco industry was not destroyed by the Surgeon General's warning; sex has been around a lot longer than tobacco, and I am confident that a