6 ms·
Ah yes, .xxx -- a solution to a problem that absolutely nobody had other than wannabe-censors.
by waitwhat 15y ago
Ah yes, .xxx -- a solution to a problem that absolutely nobody had other than wannabe-censors.
- veyron 15y agohow about whitehouse.com? Quite a few kids stumbled into the world of porn through that domain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse.com
- waitwhat 15y agoWhat about it indeed? .xxx doesn't solve that problem unless you forbid porn on every other domain. In other words: .xxx really is a solution only for wannabe-censors.
- veyron 15y ago" .xxx doesn't solve that problem unless you forbid porn on every other domain" That is a perfectly plausible solution now that the .xxx TLD exists.
- waitwhat 15y agoOr in other words: Ah yes, .xxx -- a solution to a problem that absolutely nobody had other than wannabe-censors.
- pak 15y agoAre you joking? 1. Define "porn" 2. Get every other TLD operator, including all the international ones, on board with your definition and rules (e.g. are we only banning websites on port 80, or would FTP sites also be verboten? password-protected sites? is classical art exempt?) 3. Enforce the censorship via some kind of magical system that is automated, doesn't trigger false positives, and allows for an appeal process Yeah, that'll be a snap to put together.
- DavidSJ 15y agoDon't forget: 0. Repeal the First Amendment.
- waitwhat 15y agoThere are other countries...
- sjwright 15y agoNo no, the United States constitution is a worldwide law. We invented freedom, and we invented English!
- pbhjpbhj 15y agoDoes this First Amendment require that you allow people to release porn movies as U rated? So why does labelling online, via a dedicated TLD suddenly mean that the First Amendment needs to be repealed? Moreover most, if not all, such "speech" (dissemination of pornography) will ultimately be commercial and so not come under the full auspice of the First Amendment protections.
- true_religion 15y agoYou're setting the bar too high. Legislators will simply say that all sites that feature nudity in a non medical setting will have to be on the xxx domain name. This isn't merely just porn so it can be passed off as 'neutral' and not legislating morality but rather legislating categorizations ("bringing order to the Wild West of the internet"). Now as for how they force sites onto the .xxx domain name, the choices are: 1. Legislators then simply blacklist all sites that feature nudity in other TLDs. This could be called the "Australian" approach or the "Great Firewall of Foo". 2. Fine companies within your country that are running sites outside of the XXX TLD. If only the US and EU do this, it'll drive 98% of the money-making porn industry into the XXX TLD. Then maybe for completionism you can implement #1 against 'foreign porn peddlers'. False positives are not a concern for legislators. If there's a worry about blowback, they'll simply make the blacklist confidential, and the appeals process non-transparent.
- ataggart 15y agoSetting aside the fact that you're trolling... The correct way to do something like this would be to use a whitelist TLD, e.g., .kids. Such would avoid questions of censorship, and of which content requires being legally shoved into the .xxx ghetto, and makes it real clear that if you put porn on a .kids domain you're going to get hammered.
- rhplus 15y agoMy comment above links to the ghost-town that is *.KIDS.US, which - with Congressional support - tried to do exactly that. It failed then, and would fail now. http://www.kids.us http://www.kids.us
- jarin 15y agoAnd woe be to the adult company who registers a .xxx domain and redirects it to their .com site.