5 ms·

The consensus seems that the .XXX TLD is just a money grab because it's not forcing adult content onto this TLD, and there is no practical way to even do that.

The consensus seems that the .XXX TLD is just a money grab because it's not forcing adult content onto this TLD, and there is no practical way to even do that. Therefore, wouldn't a counterpart TLD, such as .SAFE, actually make more sense? Companies that target children, such as Walt Disney, could provide a guaranteed safe sub-internet. With wikipedia's new filtering options, they could put a wiki-subset on .SAFE with maximum filtering on. It would be hugely costly to police, and so probably the most expensive TLD ever. But some companies would surely still be able to profit.

mmatants 15y ago
Agree re: cash grab. The counterpart "safe" TLD is part of a much bigger content curation problem that is evolving in the Internet. Some parents out there are not at all OK with Disney content, even, some will want to leave boobs in but head-crushing out, etc, etc. Properly tailoring to people's many shades of content filtering seems like a job for dedicated browser-recognized crypto certificate chains. This way, different consumers can directly delegate trust to a custom choice of entities that already are engaged in this space (e.g. all the "family focus" agencies), instead of fighting over a centralized TLD committee.
- MarkPilgrim 15y ago
  > seems like a job for dedicated browser-recognized crypto certificate chains You don't read the news much, do you? ;)
  - aangjie 15y ago
    Apparently neither do i. Can you throw some light on what you are referring to?
    - waitwhat 15y ago
      I assume Mark is refering to the DigiNotar hack (and earlier Comodo ones) and the ensuing shit-storm which showed what an awful security model the current CA/certificate system really is.
- Jem 15y ago
  > Some parents out there are not at all OK with Disney content Too bloody right. Here's a helpless girl that needs rescuing by a man to live happily ever after? No thanks.
rhplus 15y ago
This is what the KIDS.US domain was supposed to be. Their directory lists fewer than 10 sites that successfully signed up. All of the content is dead or stale. Just how do you police any sort of dynamic, interesting, ever changing content? http://www.cms.kids.us http://www.cms.kids.us http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/11/56429 http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/11/56429

mmatants 15y ago

Agree re: cash grab. The counterpart "safe" TLD is part of a much bigger content curation problem that is evolving in the Internet. Some parents out there are not at all OK with Disney content, even, some will want to leave boobs in but head-crushing out, etc, etc. Properly tailoring to people's many shades of content filtering seems like a job for dedicated browser-recognized crypto certificate chains. This way, different consumers can directly delegate trust to a custom choice of entities that already are engaged in this space (e.g. all the "family focus" agencies), instead of fighting over a centralized TLD committee.

MarkPilgrim 15y ago
> seems like a job for dedicated browser-recognized crypto certificate chains You don't read the news much, do you? ;)
- aangjie 15y ago
  Apparently neither do i. Can you throw some light on what you are referring to?
  - waitwhat 15y ago
    I assume Mark is refering to the DigiNotar hack (and earlier Comodo ones) and the ensuing shit-storm which showed what an awful security model the current CA/certificate system really is.
Jem 15y ago
> Some parents out there are not at all OK with Disney content Too bloody right. Here's a helpless girl that needs rescuing by a man to live happily ever after? No thanks.

rhplus 15y ago

This is what the KIDS.US domain was supposed to be. Their directory lists fewer than 10 sites that successfully signed up. All of the content is dead or stale. Just how do you police any sort of dynamic, interesting, ever changing content? http://www.cms.kids.us http://www.cms.kids.us http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/11/56429 http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/11/56429