Re: Not so Fast! 'xxx' Startup Put on Hold

- D
- DevilsPGD
  
  Contact options for registered users
posted
17 years ago

Sat, Aug 20, 2005 6:09 AM

In message TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to DevilsPGD :

In message TELECOM Digest > Editor noted in response to John Levine : >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But they do that now, with filtering >> programs. Filtering, never a perfect solution, now can filter out >> the sexual topic of women's breasts, but the problem is it cannot >> seem to understand why 'breast cancer' is not the same thing as 'I >> love to look at and fantasize on those breasts'. But to the filter >> writers, what is there that you cannot understand about '.xxx'? If >> I write a filter and I say that a dot followed by three x's goes no >> further into my computer, then other things like the context in which >> 'breasts' or 'sex' or whatever is to be taken becomes a moot point >> doesn't it? If the real problem that '.xxx' makes writing and main- >> taining filtering programs too easy? If local communities or govern- >> ments decide what is to go into '.xxx' it would seem to me that all >> the fuss over effective and ineffective filtering would go away. PAT] > Sure *IF* the whole world decided what goes into .xxx, everybody > agreed AND everybody played nice. > BUT ... Even ignoring the fact that defining what belongs in .xxx is > impossible (what's obscene? What's pornographic? In the middle east, a > women without a head covering is probably pornographic. In the US, > Janet Jackson's nipple was obviously a problem. In Europe, a photo of a > topless 17 year old isn't obscene) there is another issue: > You can't even get Russian web hosts to terminate child p*rn which is > illegal virtually everywhere, so what do you think the odds are they'll > give a damn about a nipple? > At the end of the day the only workable solution is to create an > restrictive/exclusive .kids or .family (or whatever gTLD would be >appropriate) and set restrictions on that TLD which are enforced by > the registry/registrars responsible and don't require cooperation of > *everybody* > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So tell me what makes .kids or .family > any different than .sex except for the direction it goes? And what > do you propose to do with the people who say 'what right have you got > to tell me what is appropriate for my family/kids? You would not want > to settle for enforcement standards on that (family/kids) any more > than you would want to try and enforce it for .sex so what is the > difference? We also presently have 'K12' or 'K-12' do we not? I > wonder how they ever got _that one_ through, given the guys on the net > always dragging their red-herrings out? PAT]

The difference with a .kids-type gTLD is that it's rules can be enforced without trying to retroactively apply new rules to existing domains.

It's substantially more difficult to attempt to enforce new rules retroactively. Imagine the lawsuits from each and every pornographic site which has invested significant time and money branding existing domain names -- It will be tied up in court for the rest of our natural lives.

Again, if you or the US gov't or even a US court tells me to remove sexually explicit material my site, I'll likely not bother responding at all, and if I do, my response will be roughly the size of "no" -- I'm not in the US and I care very little for US law other then when I'm in the US.

Even if ICANN somehow agreed to pull gTLD domains with p*rn and was able to deal with the legal side of things, it wouldn't help since I can get a ccTLD domain which ICANN has no influence over and would again require global cooperation.

The difference with a .kids domain is that one of the terms of sale for a .kids domain would be a no-p*rn rule, and since that would be in the form of a contract rather then relying on criminal law, the registrar could revoke the domain if there were violations. The registrar only needs to answer to the legal system where it's located, and so jurisdictional restrictions don't apply.

All that being said, we do still have some content issues. There are a few potential solutions, one is to require RSACi ratings which would assist parents in setting appropriate limits. Another option is to set a moderately conservative bar of entry and parents who don't agree still don't need to give their children access to the internet at all (in other words, it's no different then today) -- The goal would be to give children access to only .kids and nothing else.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Where did you get this idea that there is going to be an en-masse removal of sites from one domain to another? I do not recall ever saying that ... those web sites who are willing to and gracious enough to take up residence in .xxx will be permitted to do so, just as sites took up residence in .info, .biz, .aero, and .museum ... and those of us Moderators and others who do not give a shit about dubious information, biz-iness ventures, museums or aeroplanes would be free to filter it out. But we won't be permitted to filter out .xxx which I suspect will be the rudest, crudest and lewdest of all because (name the red herring of your choice) is likely to happen as a result. Oh, we will able to filter .xxx -like material in a sort of half-assed way using the tools we are given, but that is all, not .xxx domains in their entirety.

And someone should explain to the conservative fundamentalist Christians who feel somehow that starting '.xxx' would give an unwarrented air of respectability to p*rn peddlers that it is the nature of the internet among other things: One cannot find cockroaches or other vermin in a dark area without a good working flashlight, which a domain identifying tag would give them. If we shine a somewhat more perfect light on them, you will be able to see and better block them. That is the intent, right? PAT]

Loading thread data ...

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.