2 ms·
Not really, since nothing is guaranteed to be on .xxx. If there was a requirement that people be forced onto .xxx you'd be correct, but people are going to be d
by andrewvc 15y ago
Not really, since nothing is guaranteed to be on .xxx. If there was a requirement that people be forced onto .xxx you'd be correct, but people are going to be doing deep inspection anyway if they actually care about blocking content.
- gwright 15y agoThe question of enforcement is an entirely different one. I was talking about the mechanism, not the legalism. This is one reason why global top level domains are a bad idea, there is no clear legal jurisdiction for them unlike country code domains. A legal framework can be built around xxx.us, for example, because it would map to an existing legal jurisdiction. The same can't be said for .xxx or meta-tags in documents served from arbitrary domains/locations.