3 ms·

I can see a valid use for .xxx -- but .mobi is the lamest of them all. .mobi should have been .mbl or just .m To make the mobile TLD longer than allthe others

by phlux 16y ago

I can see a valid use for .xxx -- but .mobi is the lamest of them all. .mobi should have been .mbl or just .m To make the mobile TLD longer than allthe others, that is just plain stupid.

iamdave 16y ago
Honestly, I think the current format used by most m.website.tld makes the most sense. It immediately tells you you're going to a mobile site in the case that your screen cuts off the full URL. Too, it's pretty consistent when a lot of sites use subdomains to indicate you're going to a different portion of the same domain, i.e. a blog (blog.site.tld) or an estore (shop.site.tld) or even a 404 page (404.site.tld). 'm' should tell you then that you're on the mobile page of the same site, especially when we're now seeing so many domains that a .com can be a completely different, totally nonaffiliated group from the .net
- tommorris 16y ago
  The only prominent site I've seen that does it a bit strangely is Wikipedia: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/ http://en.m.wikipedia.org/ Which makes sense, but I can never remember whether it is en.m.wikipedia.org or m.en.wikipedia.org (And the fact that the iPad goes by default to the Mobile version despite the fact that it's not appropriate for the size of the device.)
derleth 16y ago
> I can see a valid use for .xxx All I can see is a major hook on which some damn do-gooder will attempt to hang yet another censorship scheme by trying to force all 'pornographic' websites to only have .xxx domains, and by 'pornographic' I mean 'everything the do-gooder disagrees with'. We fought the CDA to the Supreme Court and won with the mix of justices we had then. I hope that if something similar happens again, that case is used as precedent and not toilet paper.
- phlux 16y ago
  Just to extend the logic for which you are arguing against .xxx - do you then agree that security through obscurity is valid? I agree that there is risk in regulating 'distasteful' domains to .xxx which then results in blanket blocking is a bad thing, but doesnt that just mean that the core issue we have here is not .xxx or anything other than the fundamental issues that we already have? .xxx just makes it easier for regulators/high-horse 'do-gooders' to target whole swathes of content... that does not entirely negate the usefulness of the TLD though. Why not have TLDs at all? Why not just have global content tags?
  - derleth 16y ago
    > do you then agree that security through obscurity is valid? Not if obscurity is your only defense. I think obscurity of some forms, like using unusual port numbers, can be part of a defense-in-depth strategy to foil purely scripted attacks and save your resources a bit. > .xxx just makes it easier for regulators/high-horse 'do-gooders' to target whole swathes of content... And here we have it. It's a temptation I doubt they will be able to resist. Giving it to them that easily is just removing one more element of a defense-in-depth against censorship attempts. > Why not have TLDs at all? Why not just have global content tags? This is more of a technical issue, but my first reaction to doing everything via tagging is that spammers are going to spam: If you give them the opportunity to add tags to addresses you end up with the same scenario that lead Google to ignore keywords on websites.
    - tommorris 16y ago
      Depends how you constrain the tags. I mean, I hear this "people lie" thing, but when was the last time a brick-and-mortar business website you saw lied about where they are? What benefit does one have in saying your business is actually located in New York City rather than Miami. I don't see why the same wouldn't apply for porn. If I'm running a pay-for porno site offering premium woman-on-horse action, I'm not interested in, I dunno, gay guys turning up. The people you want turning up are the target audience because those guys are going to pay you money. If the cost for lying in the tag is sufficient (i.e. Google won't rank you as high), then you've got a motivation for telling the truth.
sigzero 16y ago
What's the valid use? It isn't as if all the porn sites are going to give up their current domains and move into .xxx right? So what is the point? You can't force them to move. Who would be the judge on what needs to move into .xxx even if they could force it? No, it was stupid.

by phlux 16y ago

I can see a valid use for .xxx -- but .mobi is the lamest of them all. .mobi should have been .mbl or just .m To make the mobile TLD longer than allthe others, that is just plain stupid.

iamdave 16y ago

Honestly, I think the current format used by most m.website.tld makes the most sense. It immediately tells you you're going to a mobile site in the case that your screen cuts off the full URL. Too, it's pretty consistent when a lot of sites use subdomains to indicate you're going to a different portion of the same domain, i.e. a blog (blog.site.tld) or an estore (shop.site.tld) or even a 404 page (404.site.tld). 'm' should tell you then that you're on the mobile page of the same site, especially when we're now seeing so many domains that a .com can be a completely different, totally nonaffiliated group from the .net

tommorris 16y ago
The only prominent site I've seen that does it a bit strangely is Wikipedia: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/ http://en.m.wikipedia.org/ Which makes sense, but I can never remember whether it is en.m.wikipedia.org or m.en.wikipedia.org (And the fact that the iPad goes by default to the Mobile version despite the fact that it's not appropriate for the size of the device.)

derleth 16y ago

> I can see a valid use for .xxx All I can see is a major hook on which some damn do-gooder will attempt to hang yet another censorship scheme by trying to force all 'pornographic' websites to only have .xxx domains, and by 'pornographic' I mean 'everything the do-gooder disagrees with'. We fought the CDA to the Supreme Court and won with the mix of justices we had then. I hope that if something similar happens again, that case is used as precedent and not toilet paper.

phlux 16y ago
Just to extend the logic for which you are arguing against .xxx - do you then agree that security through obscurity is valid? I agree that there is risk in regulating 'distasteful' domains to .xxx which then results in blanket blocking is a bad thing, but doesnt that just mean that the core issue we have here is not .xxx or anything other than the fundamental issues that we already have? .xxx just makes it easier for regulators/high-horse 'do-gooders' to target whole swathes of content... that does not entirely negate the usefulness of the TLD though. Why not have TLDs at all? Why not just have global content tags?
- derleth 16y ago
  > do you then agree that security through obscurity is valid? Not if obscurity is your only defense. I think obscurity of some forms, like using unusual port numbers, can be part of a defense-in-depth strategy to foil purely scripted attacks and save your resources a bit. > .xxx just makes it easier for regulators/high-horse 'do-gooders' to target whole swathes of content... And here we have it. It's a temptation I doubt they will be able to resist. Giving it to them that easily is just removing one more element of a defense-in-depth against censorship attempts. > Why not have TLDs at all? Why not just have global content tags? This is more of a technical issue, but my first reaction to doing everything via tagging is that spammers are going to spam: If you give them the opportunity to add tags to addresses you end up with the same scenario that lead Google to ignore keywords on websites.
  - tommorris 16y ago
    Depends how you constrain the tags. I mean, I hear this "people lie" thing, but when was the last time a brick-and-mortar business website you saw lied about where they are? What benefit does one have in saying your business is actually located in New York City rather than Miami. I don't see why the same wouldn't apply for porn. If I'm running a pay-for porno site offering premium woman-on-horse action, I'm not interested in, I dunno, gay guys turning up. The people you want turning up are the target audience because those guys are going to pay you money. If the cost for lying in the tag is sufficient (i.e. Google won't rank you as high), then you've got a motivation for telling the truth.

sigzero 16y ago

What's the valid use? It isn't as if all the porn sites are going to give up their current domains and move into .xxx right? So what is the point? You can't force them to move. Who would be the judge on what needs to move into .xxx even if they could force it? No, it was stupid.