Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Internet Agency Rejects '.xxx' Domain Name
Excite News / AP ^ | 10 May 2006 | ANICK JESDANUN

Posted on 05/11/2006 6:07:25 AM PDT by ShadowAce

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last

1 posted on 05/11/2006 6:07:27 AM PDT by ShadowAce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rdb3; chance33_98; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; Bush2000; PenguinWry; GodGunsandGuts; CyberCowboy777; ...

2 posted on 05/11/2006 6:07:46 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
Faced with opposition from conservative groups and some pornography Web sites

I smell a red herring... "conservative" groups? I doubt that. Conservatives should welcome such a clear and easy way to distinguish (and therefore filter) porn sites. I'm guessing that it is the latter site owners that are really the operators here.

3 posted on 05/11/2006 6:11:20 AM PDT by Ramius (Buy blades for war fighters: freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net --> 1100 knives and counting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

.tel is useless, .xxx would have been great for people with kids..


4 posted on 05/11/2006 6:11:33 AM PDT by N3WBI3 ("I can kill you with my brain" - River Tam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
"And they say such a domain name would legitimize adults sites, which 2 in 5 Internet users visit each month, according to tracking by comScore Media Metrix."

That's a lot of people with too much time on their hands.

5 posted on 05/11/2006 6:12:26 AM PDT by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sageb1
That's a lot of people with too much time on their hands.

That ain't all... sorry I couldn't resist a cheap joke.

6 posted on 05/11/2006 6:13:17 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

I would have been surprised if someone hadn't. ;)


7 posted on 05/11/2006 6:14:53 AM PDT by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

That's my thinking too...


8 posted on 05/11/2006 6:16:45 AM PDT by WV Mountain Mama (I would personally like to thank the creator of nontoxic, washable markers. Genius!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
I smell a red herring... "conservative" groups? I doubt that. Conservatives should welcome such a clear and easy way to distinguish (and therefore filter) porn sites. I'm guessing that it is the latter site owners that are really the operators here.

You may be right. However, I expect there actually were some "conservative" groups who simplistically thought that such a domain shouldn't be "condoned" on principle. How many people still think marijuanna should continue to be illegal despite the huge numbers who have smoked it, currently smoke it and will continue to smoke it. The same argument...we have enough problems already, we'll just make things worse, etc, etc.

9 posted on 05/11/2006 6:17:02 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3
.xxx would have been great for people with kids..

This has been hashed out before on FR. .xxx would not help at all. There's nothing that would have required porn sites to give up their .com addresses. So you'd have playboy.com and playboy.xxx.

It would be easy to filter out playboy.xxx, but playboy.com is still there. So nothing is accomplished, except giving another path to get to that web site.

And there is really no way to force the porn sites to give up their .com address - who would enforce it? The US government? What about sites outside of the US?

10 posted on 05/11/2006 6:23:01 AM PDT by Mannaggia l'America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

Well... and in thinking about it some more, I'm not sure why porn site operators would resist it either. It gives them cover, inasmuch as they can sluff off charges that they are too easy for kids to find.

I don't atually believe porn site operators are interested in attracting kids. They're after people with money, and that's pretty much just adults anyway. They ought to welcome such a thing.


11 posted on 05/11/2006 6:25:06 AM PDT by Ramius (Buy blades for war fighters: freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net --> 1100 knives and counting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mannaggia l'America

It's not about forcing them to give up .com addresses. It's about creating something that they would prefer to use because it gives them cover.

No it doesn't guarantee anything, but it isn't pointless, either.


12 posted on 05/11/2006 6:26:53 AM PDT by Ramius (Buy blades for war fighters: freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net --> 1100 knives and counting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3
An .xxx domain would have been circumvented and made obsolete the minute it went online.

You have to remember - the porn industry has introduced many of the features on the Internet (encryption, online billing, etc) that you take for granted now.

13 posted on 05/11/2006 6:27:44 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (FR's most controversial FReeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

Agreed. But then I don't understand SPAM either. It is so annoying, do people actually fall for that stuff? Any company that tricks me somehow into going to their site, I'm sure as heck not going to do business with. But, hey, that's just me.


14 posted on 05/11/2006 6:29:28 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mannaggia l'America
There's nothing that would have required porn sites to give up their .com addresses.

And even if you FORCED them to move to .XXX, it STILL wouldn't work.

I wouldn't bet that a teenager can't figure out how domains map to IP numbers.

Within two days, somebody's blog would have a list:

123.123.123.101 = Playboy.xxx
123.123.123.102 = NakedJanitor.xxx
123.123.123.103 = HillarysPeepShow.xxx

etc...

15 posted on 05/11/2006 6:32:05 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
It's not about forcing them to give up .com addresses. It's about creating something that they would prefer to use because it gives them cover.

For some it does seem to be about forcing them to give up their .com addresses, and then shutting them down.

16 posted on 05/11/2006 6:32:32 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
"Conservatives should welcome such a clear and easy way to distinguish (and therefore filter) porn sites."

You are correct Ramius. I would be very easy to set a filter for ".xxx" sites. It should be mandatory that porn sites use such an addressing scheme. Right now porn can be anywhere.

I remember a few years back when I was searching for some industrial totes made by RubberMaid. Doing a search for "RubberMaid" yielded some rather unique (to be kind) sites.

17 posted on 05/11/2006 6:34:18 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (The difference between democrats and terrorists is the terrorists don't claim to support the troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
I expect there actually were some "conservative" groups who simplistically thought that such a domain shouldn't be "condoned" on principle.

There probably are a few who subscribe to that asinine way of thinking. They remind me of the story about why nineteenth-century Britain had a law against male homosexuality but no law against lesbianism -- Queen Victoria struck out any references to the latter from the bill because the whole concept offended her so.

18 posted on 05/11/2006 6:34:30 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Queen Victoria struck out any references to the latter from the bill because the whole concept offended her so.

I wonder what she'd think of some of the porn sites these days. :-)

19 posted on 05/11/2006 6:35:44 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

The attraction of spam, at least for the "marketer", is that's its practically free.

Even if 1/100% of the recipients responds/reacts/clicks, it has paid for itself.

The fact that it annoys the other 99 99/100% of the population (and actually costs the recipients or their ISP money to deal with) is irrelevant to the spammers.


20 posted on 05/11/2006 6:35:44 AM PDT by CertainInalienableRights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson