Comments on: Bush administration objects to .xxx domains
Commerce Department raises concerns about a virtual red-light district for pornographers and asks that the process be halted.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Hardware for Gmail: The 'Gboard' keyboard
December 3, 2009 9:01 PM PST
- Acer 17-inch, Intel dual-core laptop falls to $479
December 3, 2009 8:10 PM PST
- The FTC is talking to Nvidia about Intel
December 3, 2009 7:45 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
While there is a large amount of mature content online, there does not generally appear to be any intent [by websites] to disseminate the content to children. Thus, it is likely that further adoption of ratings standards for "adult" material would be much easier than the promotion of xxx sites.
Maybe a better approach than adding a simplistic xxx domain is to 'encourage' adoption of ICRA facilities like IE's Content Advisor?
http://www.icra.org
With a few settings adjustments, distinct categorization allows end users to not be "fooled" into viewing material that they do not personally find appropriate (animals/gay/etc.). All that remains is how adults/parents would decide how they want to handle "Unrated" content -- which may originate from other nations not so compelled to honor the system (e.g., may require parental password to access).
While there is a large amount of mature content online, there does not generally appear to be any intent [by websites] to disseminate the content to children. Thus, it is likely that further adoption of ratings standards for "adult" material would be much easier than the promotion of xxx sites.
Maybe a better approach than adding a simplistic xxx domain is to 'encourage' adoption of ICRA facilities like IE's Content Advisor?
http://www.icra.org
With a few settings adjustments, distinct categorization allows end users to not be "fooled" into viewing material that they do not personally find appropriate (animals/gay/etc.). All that remains is how adults/parents would decide how they want to handle "Unrated" content -- which may originate from other nations not so compelled to honor the system (e.g., may require parental password to access).
I think this is a speech issue here. I'm not defending the adult industry at all, however...
Is it not better to have these kinds of sites under one umbrella, so to speak? A parent, group, company etc can block the root domain. Far easier than a site by site basis. Having this root domain makes so musch sense, that it's not even funny. However to put a hold on it is. Perhaps the special interest groups are concerned that their member might get caught surfing the wrong stuff? .xxx and you know where you are...
And if you object to this sort of thing, don't load the page. Same idea with televsion, if you don't like what you are seeing change the channel. Web surfing is an active process, you choose to click here. In some cases you get pop-up -ed but for the most part you choose.
In the land of the free and the home of the brave, please do not force your standards upon me, let me choose what is objectionable and what is not.
Is it not better to have these kinds of sites under one umbrella, so to speak? A parent, group, company etc can block the root .KKK domain. Far easier than a site by site basis. Having this root domain makes so musch sense, that it's not even funny. However to put a hold on it is. Perhaps the special interest groups are concerned that their member might get caught surfing the wrong stuff? .kkk and you know where you are...
And if you object to this sort of thing, don't load the page. Same idea with televsion, if you don't like what you are seeing change the channel. Web surfing is an active process, you choose to click here. In some cases you get pop-up -ed but for the most part you choose.
In the land of the free and the home of the brave, please do not force your standards upon me, let me choose what is objectionable and what is not.
I think this is a speech issue here. I'm not defending the adult industry at all, however...
Is it not better to have these kinds of sites under one umbrella, so to speak? A parent, group, company etc can block the root domain. Far easier than a site by site basis. Having this root domain makes so musch sense, that it's not even funny. However to put a hold on it is. Perhaps the special interest groups are concerned that their member might get caught surfing the wrong stuff? .xxx and you know where you are...
And if you object to this sort of thing, don't load the page. Same idea with televsion, if you don't like what you are seeing change the channel. Web surfing is an active process, you choose to click here. In some cases you get pop-up -ed but for the most part you choose.
In the land of the free and the home of the brave, please do not force your standards upon me, let me choose what is objectionable and what is not.
Is it not better to have these kinds of sites under one umbrella, so to speak? A parent, group, company etc can block the root .KKK domain. Far easier than a site by site basis. Having this root domain makes so musch sense, that it's not even funny. However to put a hold on it is. Perhaps the special interest groups are concerned that their member might get caught surfing the wrong stuff? .kkk and you know where you are...
And if you object to this sort of thing, don't load the page. Same idea with televsion, if you don't like what you are seeing change the channel. Web surfing is an active process, you choose to click here. In some cases you get pop-up -ed but for the most part you choose.
In the land of the free and the home of the brave, please do not force your standards upon me, let me choose what is objectionable and what is not.
I'm not sure what the administration is thinking by blowing this -- do they think that not allowing this TLD will stop porn sites? Can the be that stupid. Or do they just want to be able to keep surfing the stuff with and still be able to say -- "I must have had a typo in the URL" -- that won't fly if the URL has a .xxx (sorry the cynic in me came out).
I think it is all about appearances. The administration does not want to be the ones in office when a .xxx TLD was put in place. They need to turn this around and finish the job and look like they are protecting our children -- but that requires skills (insert your own list) that they do not have.
You are right that we need to finish the job, but so was Bush in stopping this approval. Don't forget that the people who proposed this domain had a $250 legal war chest in place (not counting the adult industry's own substantial war chest) and publicly stated that they would fight any attempts to force adult content into the .xxx space.
This whole proposal was sponsored by the adult industry and the domain name industries and is way more about making money than protecting kids. Let's not be fooled.
There is merit in creating an adult domain name space, but doing so without requirements and consequences for those that don't follow the requirements is completely counter productive. In addition, this is an area that needs government involvement. It will never be solved only by private industry. (by the way, I am a conservative but I'm also a realist).
info@afsac.org
I'm not sure what the administration is thinking by blowing this -- do they think that not allowing this TLD will stop porn sites? Can the be that stupid. Or do they just want to be able to keep surfing the stuff with and still be able to say -- "I must have had a typo in the URL" -- that won't fly if the URL has a .xxx (sorry the cynic in me came out).
I think it is all about appearances. The administration does not want to be the ones in office when a .xxx TLD was put in place. They need to turn this around and finish the job and look like they are protecting our children -- but that requires skills (insert your own list) that they do not have.
You are right that we need to finish the job, but so was Bush in stopping this approval. Don't forget that the people who proposed this domain had a $250 legal war chest in place (not counting the adult industry's own substantial war chest) and publicly stated that they would fight any attempts to force adult content into the .xxx space.
This whole proposal was sponsored by the adult industry and the domain name industries and is way more about making money than protecting kids. Let's not be fooled.
There is merit in creating an adult domain name space, but doing so without requirements and consequences for those that don't follow the requirements is completely counter productive. In addition, this is an area that needs government involvement. It will never be solved only by private industry. (by the way, I am a conservative but I'm also a realist).
info@afsac.org
>> and adults concerned to censor the internet if
>> all the pronography websites were registered
>> through a .xxx domain?
Why stop there? Lets have all violent images go to a .GUN TLD for quick and easy censoring. And then we can move all ****-erotic images to .GAY and get rid of those next... and after that we will create a .PEE for pictures and conversations that deal with defecation. And this will pave the way for .KKK for hate speech. And the internet will live HAPPILY EVER AFTER and be PURE AND CLEAN for ever, right? RIGHT!
Actually, .KKK is much more important to filter and censor from children than .XXX. Where are your priorities people? Come on my liberal friends, rally 'round my .KKK proposal! I bet Bush is against that too! Teh fascist!!
>> and adults concerned to censor the internet if
>> all the pronography websites were registered
>> through a .xxx domain?
Why stop there? Lets have all violent images go to a .GUN TLD for quick and easy censoring. And then we can move all ****-erotic images to .GAY and get rid of those next... and after that we will create a .PEE for pictures and conversations that deal with defecation. And this will pave the way for .KKK for hate speech. And the internet will live HAPPILY EVER AFTER and be PURE AND CLEAN for ever, right? RIGHT!
Actually, .KKK is much more important to filter and censor from children than .XXX. Where are your priorities people? Come on my liberal friends, rally 'round my .KKK proposal! I bet Bush is against that too! Teh fascist!!
think it can dabble it's meddling fingers in? My message to Bushy:
you don't HAVE to do anything, just leave it ALONE! The country
would be better off with such a policy.
No use listing the many prior examples of how they've done this. I doubt C-NET has the storage capacity to hold such a long post anyway.
think it can dabble it's meddling fingers in? My message to Bushy:
you don't HAVE to do anything, just leave it ALONE! The country
would be better off with such a policy.
No use listing the many prior examples of how they've done this. I doubt C-NET has the storage capacity to hold such a long post anyway.
From an article here: http://tinyurl.com/akcpf
"Robert Corn-Revere, a lawyer hired by ICM to address free-speech issues, said the company has pledged $250,000 for a legal defense fund to keep ".xxx" voluntary..."
So adult information would still be all over .com and .net, etc. making any of your proposed "easier" filtering ideas a mute point.
Please take the time to understand this issue before commenting. Take a look here:
http://www.iffor.org
By looking at the org chart for the foundation that would advise the operators of this new domain name, you can see that the board membership is skewed NOT towards protecting children (1 board member who would do so) but towards the adult, free expression, and domain name constituencies (3 board members). How would that protect children?
Don't be fooled by the concept that a .xxx domain would protect children if run the way it was proposed. It might help but only if it is done right. This is one case where the US Government should be involved and although Bush has made mistakes on this issue in the past, he has a chance to redeem himself here.
From an article here: http://tinyurl.com/akcpf
"Robert Corn-Revere, a lawyer hired by ICM to address free-speech issues, said the company has pledged $250,000 for a legal defense fund to keep ".xxx" voluntary..."
So adult information would still be all over .com and .net, etc. making any of your proposed "easier" filtering ideas a mute point.
Please take the time to understand this issue before commenting. Take a look here:
http://www.iffor.org
By looking at the org chart for the foundation that would advise the operators of this new domain name, you can see that the board membership is skewed NOT towards protecting children (1 board member who would do so) but towards the adult, free expression, and domain name constituencies (3 board members). How would that protect children?
Don't be fooled by the concept that a .xxx domain would protect children if run the way it was proposed. It might help but only if it is done right. This is one case where the US Government should be involved and although Bush has made mistakes on this issue in the past, he has a chance to redeem himself here.
The reason is because this proposal is half way right. There should be an "online red light district" however, just having such a place is no solution to protecting kids and easy filtering. It MUST be accompanied by a legal requirement that adult materials be placed there.
If Bush does that, he will have made the first real step to protecting kids online. There are many arguments against this but they don't hold water. We have standards for TV and they work. Those should be the minimum standards. Then if people want to allow adult or more lascivious content into their homes they can allow the .xxx or (in my opinion it should be called a .adu for adult) past their home Internet filters, they can do so.
The first effort was an attempt to separate kids content. It didn't work. Kids should have as much access as possible to the general Internet. The problem is that adult sites have usurped that right before the kids ever got online.
Separating adult content is the right approach if done properly and if enforced.
On a separate note, why are we as a country giving any special consideration to the adult porn business? What does that say about the United States? There are so many better ideas than this. ICANN should be ashamed of themselves for letting this go as far as it has.
Sources:
http://www.kids.us/index.html
http://www.kids.us/press/dotkids_news_12.04.02.pdf
http://www.afsac.org
here. Maybe we should call this Joe Salvatore's Bill, sorta like the
Terry Schiavo law?
Or maybe we should just make sure you don't get your hands on
porn, Joe, and then the rest of us can be happy?
The reason is because this proposal is half way right. There should be an "online red light district" however, just having such a place is no solution to protecting kids and easy filtering. It MUST be accompanied by a legal requirement that adult materials be placed there.
If Bush does that, he will have made the first real step to protecting kids online. There are many arguments against this but they don't hold water. We have standards for TV and they work. Those should be the minimum standards. Then if people want to allow adult or more lascivious content into their homes they can allow the .xxx or (in my opinion it should be called a .adu for adult) past their home Internet filters, they can do so.
The first effort was an attempt to separate kids content. It didn't work. Kids should have as much access as possible to the general Internet. The problem is that adult sites have usurped that right before the kids ever got online.
Separating adult content is the right approach if done properly and if enforced.
On a separate note, why are we as a country giving any special consideration to the adult porn business? What does that say about the United States? There are so many better ideas than this. ICANN should be ashamed of themselves for letting this go as far as it has.
Sources:
http://www.kids.us/index.html
http://www.kids.us/press/dotkids_news_12.04.02.pdf
http://www.afsac.org
here. Maybe we should call this Joe Salvatore's Bill, sorta like the
Terry Schiavo law?
Or maybe we should just make sure you don't get your hands on
porn, Joe, and then the rest of us can be happy?
- how about just age-based
- by Sam Papelbon August 16, 2005 3:03 PM PDT
- instead of whether or not something is 'pornographic' which can be a subjected matter. instead if a website requires it's audience to be over 18, then it can switch to an address like .mat (mature) or something. when directed to a .mat address, a person can set their browser to block access with a password or something. any site could apply, but they don't necessarily have to. any porn site that wants to be seen as legit would want to switch. obviously with the nature of the internet, you can't regulate it completely and there would be rogue sites who refuse to switch (or at the very least redirect their .coms to a .mat), but self-respecting adult sites (as well as alcohol sites, etc) would give their users the ability to block their children from viewing the sites.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- a subjected matter
- by George Cole June 1, 2007 6:29 PM PDT
- http://www.analogstereo.com/peugeot_407_owners_manual.htm
- Like this
-
Showing 3 of 6 pages (229 Comments)