7 ms·

.xxx to be a reality soon?

15 points by datd00d 16y ago

chaosmachine 16y ago
I'm sure the lawmakers will love this. How soon will we see bills introduced to make it illegal to host adult sites outside of the .xxx tld?
- deweller 16y ago
  Moving all adult sites to the .xxx tld might help cut down on the false positives from content filters. But it sure could turn into a legislative nightmare.
  - electromagnetic 16y ago
    It would certainly help parents regulate their children's access to adult material (simply block .xxx through your router for whatever machines your kids have access too). However, this is in principle and will never work in practice. Sure US legislators can make it mandatory for porn sites to have .xxx, however there are roughly 265 countries in the world. You'll never get every one of them to agree on regulations.
    - sbierwagen 16y ago
      Also consider the enormous financial incentive to not force porn to .xxx. The US moves everything to .xxx? The Canadians rake in the money.
- datd00d 16y ago
  Hey it puts all the bad stuff in one place right...
  - Goosey 16y ago
    What exactly is 'bad' about xxx?
    - sigzero 16y ago
      #1 You can't really regulate it #2 Whose definition of porn is going to be used? #3 How are you going to enforce anything? Those add up to it being stupid idea.
- jessriedel 16y ago
  In practice that could go wrong in a number of way, but I don't see a problem with it in principle.
- rwhitman 16y ago
  Of course the question is what sites get the definition of 'adult'. There are nude photos on Flickr after all... And even if in the US porn isn't forced into the .xxx tld by law, for other countries they may jump on it much faster. Then of course there is the issue of a slippery slope. What other content could be forced onto certain tlds by law?
  - sigzero 16y ago
    Exactly! Whose definition? How do they enforce it country to country? They are idiots.
    - ars 16y ago
      They? Do you realize there is no actual such law? And you are already calling "them" names for something that doesn't exist?
    - johnfn 16y ago
      "I know it when I see it."
- MikeCapone 16y ago
  It would certainly make the job of censors and puritans everywhere much easier.
  - ars 16y ago
    Puritans? What about parents?
    - MikeCapone 16y ago
      Yes, it would make the jobs of parents easier. But I think the downside for everybody else isn't worth it. There are a lot of restrictions that we could put on society that would make the job of parents easier but that aren't good ideas if you look at the whole impact.
      - ars 16y ago
        Yah, I don't think restricting access to self-described porn has all that many downsides. Governments that would do that, already restrict it, this just makes it easier for them, but the benefits to parents far outweigh that. This is not the same as general purpose censorship, which I do not think should be made easier to censor. Do remember that someone in a different (more permissive) country voluntarily described his stuff as porn. So you don't really have an issue of it being applied incorrectly.
        MikeCapone 16y ago
        I think the technical aspect isn't the only one. There's also a psychological dimension that makes is different to just block a whole domain vs. making a list of thousands of sites. Wouldn't make a difference in some places, but I bet that in some borderline cases, it could push them over.
        ars 16y ago
        It's better actually - the censor does not have to decide, the publisher of the material decides.
jim_dot 16y ago
.xxx will be here soon - but only after we spend several more years speculating about how soon the .xxx tld will be created.
chasingsparks 16y ago
This may be a minority opinion, but I consider .xxx to be a reasonable new TLD. On the other hand, some already existing TLDs were just absurd. For example .aero, .coop, .biz, .info, .jobs, .mobi, .name, .pro, and .travel are difficult to justify; .xxx seems reasonable from a categorical perspective. (Although, I agree -- it's a legislative nightmare.)
- eru 16y ago
  But why .xxx instead of .porn or .sex? If you want a TLD jsut for porn, then you might as well call it that.
  - chasingsparks 16y ago
    Just history, I think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-rated#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-rated#United_States .xxx conforms nicely to most users expectations of a three letter TLD.
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    Well other "extreme" things like violence or gore could conceivably be expected under .xxx but not .porn Agree though that the ever increasing number of TLD suffixes is a bit of a joke. (I think it's a scam to get more money from people, mostly, at this point.)
    - eru 16y ago
      > Well other "extreme" things like violence or gore could conceivably be expected under .xxx but not .porn I see that as an argument in favour of .porn.
- techiferous 16y ago
  "some already existing TLDs were just absurd" My favorite is .um, for U.S. minor outlying islands, population 300. It was, um, discontinued.
- astine 16y ago
calcnerd256 16y ago
I'm not sure I see why so many people are against having a .xxx domain name. If it's opt in (like all other TLDs that aren't restricted are), then only sites that want to identify themselves as explicit pornography will be branded with it. If it's mandatory, then there will likely be both false positives and false negatives in the assessment process, and users will eventually learn that .xxx doesn't necessarily mean that a website is or isn't pornography but that it is evidence (not proof) of it. Either way, the result is more accurate information about a site right there in the site's domain name.

15 points by datd00d 16y ago

I'm sure the lawmakers will love this. How soon will we see bills introduced to make it illegal to host adult sites outside of the .xxx tld?

deweller 16y ago
Moving all adult sites to the .xxx tld might help cut down on the false positives from content filters. But it sure could turn into a legislative nightmare.
- electromagnetic 16y ago
  It would certainly help parents regulate their children's access to adult material (simply block .xxx through your router for whatever machines your kids have access too). However, this is in principle and will never work in practice. Sure US legislators can make it mandatory for porn sites to have .xxx, however there are roughly 265 countries in the world. You'll never get every one of them to agree on regulations.
  - sbierwagen 16y ago
    Also consider the enormous financial incentive to not force porn to .xxx. The US moves everything to .xxx? The Canadians rake in the money.
datd00d 16y ago
Hey it puts all the bad stuff in one place right...
- Goosey 16y ago
  What exactly is 'bad' about xxx?
  - sigzero 16y ago
    #1 You can't really regulate it #2 Whose definition of porn is going to be used? #3 How are you going to enforce anything? Those add up to it being stupid idea.
jessriedel 16y ago
In practice that could go wrong in a number of way, but I don't see a problem with it in principle.
rwhitman 16y ago
Of course the question is what sites get the definition of 'adult'. There are nude photos on Flickr after all... And even if in the US porn isn't forced into the .xxx tld by law, for other countries they may jump on it much faster. Then of course there is the issue of a slippery slope. What other content could be forced onto certain tlds by law?
- sigzero 16y ago
  Exactly! Whose definition? How do they enforce it country to country? They are idiots.
  - ars 16y ago
    They? Do you realize there is no actual such law? And you are already calling "them" names for something that doesn't exist?
  - johnfn 16y ago
    "I know it when I see it."
MikeCapone 16y ago
It would certainly make the job of censors and puritans everywhere much easier.
- ars 16y ago
  Puritans? What about parents?
  - MikeCapone 16y ago
    Yes, it would make the jobs of parents easier. But I think the downside for everybody else isn't worth it. There are a lot of restrictions that we could put on society that would make the job of parents easier but that aren't good ideas if you look at the whole impact.
    - ars 16y ago
      Yah, I don't think restricting access to self-described porn has all that many downsides. Governments that would do that, already restrict it, this just makes it easier for them, but the benefits to parents far outweigh that. This is not the same as general purpose censorship, which I do not think should be made easier to censor. Do remember that someone in a different (more permissive) country voluntarily described his stuff as porn. So you don't really have an issue of it being applied incorrectly.
      - MikeCapone 16y ago
        I think the technical aspect isn't the only one. There's also a psychological dimension that makes is different to just block a whole domain vs. making a list of thousands of sites. Wouldn't make a difference in some places, but I bet that in some borderline cases, it could push them over.
        ars 16y ago
        It's better actually - the censor does not have to decide, the publisher of the material decides.

jim_dot 16y ago

.xxx will be here soon - but only after we spend several more years speculating about how soon the .xxx tld will be created.

chasingsparks 16y ago

This may be a minority opinion, but I consider .xxx to be a reasonable new TLD. On the other hand, some already existing TLDs were just absurd. For example .aero, .coop, .biz, .info, .jobs, .mobi, .name, .pro, and .travel are difficult to justify; .xxx seems reasonable from a categorical perspective. (Although, I agree -- it's a legislative nightmare.)

eru 16y ago
But why .xxx instead of .porn or .sex? If you want a TLD jsut for porn, then you might as well call it that.
- chasingsparks 16y ago
  Just history, I think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-rated#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-rated#United_States .xxx conforms nicely to most users expectations of a three letter TLD.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  Well other "extreme" things like violence or gore could conceivably be expected under .xxx but not .porn Agree though that the ever increasing number of TLD suffixes is a bit of a joke. (I think it's a scam to get more money from people, mostly, at this point.)
  - eru 16y ago
    > Well other "extreme" things like violence or gore could conceivably be expected under .xxx but not .porn I see that as an argument in favour of .porn.
techiferous 16y ago
"some already existing TLDs were just absurd" My favorite is .um, for U.S. minor outlying islands, population 300. It was, um, discontinued.
astine 16y ago

calcnerd256 16y ago

I'm not sure I see why so many people are against having a .xxx domain name. If it's opt in (like all other TLDs that aren't restricted are), then only sites that want to identify themselves as explicit pornography will be branded with it. If it's mandatory, then there will likely be both false positives and false negatives in the assessment process, and users will eventually learn that .xxx doesn't necessarily mean that a website is or isn't pornography but that it is evidence (not proof) of it. Either way, the result is more accurate information about a site right there in the site's domain name.