Why not .KID instead of .XXX?

SirMoby · 2005-12-08, 11:49 PM

I know, I know, there's not as much money in that but wouldn't that make a lot more sense and still protect free speech?

Surfn · 2005-12-08, 11:56 PM

Too simple. The vulture lawyers wouldn't make any money.

SirMoby · 2005-12-09, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surfn

Too simple. The vulture lawyers wouldn't make any money.

I understand that .XXX is all about investors making huge bucks and has nothing to do with protecting anything.

However, a good alternative needs to be offered during any debate in front of the American public.

We make kid safe play grounds, we have kid safe car seats so why not make a kis safe Internet. Porn is not the only thing that I don't want 8 year olds to see so even banning all of it won't make the Internet safe for kids.

Seska · 2005-12-09, 12:00 AM

I don't know all of the implications but I also wonder why .kid has not been pursued. Libraries and bookstores have specific sections just for children. Why not the Internet?

I suppose kid friendly directories are an option and I am sure .kid has its flaws (i.e. who determines what sites deserves to have it), but I think at least it is worthy of discussion.

Though my bottom line is parental supervision. James' (my sarcastic husband) would be to blindfold kids.

RawAlex · 2005-12-09, 12:29 AM

I think that .XXX can be seen as "doing something about evil dirty pornographers", which is politically a good thing, where as .KID would be a nice gesture that wouldn't stir up the same emotion.

You have to remember that objective here isn't to protect children, it is to set us on a path to follow the righteous teaching of the christian lord. They want to remake the world to match their teaching.

Alex

Wazza · 2005-12-09, 02:06 AM

My views on this have been made public on a couple of occasions (but I'm just some nobody Aussie banana who should be, and generally is, ignored)

But that being said, I'm glad someone else has picked this up and run with it.

vanVulture · 2005-12-09, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wazza

My views on this have been made public on a couple of occasions (but I'm just some nobody Aussie banana who should be, and generally is, ignored)

And so it should be NEVILLE !!! ... who?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surfn

Too simple. The vulture lawyers wouldn't make any money.

More than you know Surfn, more than you know

Now if I could only make some bucks outta this thread

SirMoby · 2005-12-09, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

I think that .XXX can be seen as "doing something about evil dirty pornographers", which is politically a good thing, where as .KID would be a nice gesture that wouldn't stir up the same emotion.

You have to remember that objective here isn't to protect children, it is to set us on a path to follow the righteous teaching of the christian lord. They want to remake the world to match their teaching.

Alex

I know the objective as it's very clear and I think you know that I'm smart enough to know this.

What would happen if a reasonable proposal was actually put together and instead of everyone shooting things down we actually created a positive alternative?

Surfn · 2005-12-09, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirMoby

I know the objective as it's very clear and I think you know that I'm smart enough to know this.

What would happen if a reasonable proposal was actually put together and instead of everyone shooting things down we actually created a positive alternative?

I wasn't shooting you down. I think .kid would be great on it's own channel to. My remark about the blood sucking lawyers is also true.

Linkster · 2005-12-09, 06:14 AM

The .kids domain was sent up to ICANN and was shot down although congress actually passed a bill adopting it and supporting it. ICANN's problem with it was who designates what is kid-safe around the world? And since that question has never been answered the domain tld just sits there all set to go.

That said I dont think the adult industry should be the ones leading the charge for either domain changes - although my personal belief is that I would support a .kids domain fully - there would always be a stigma that would relate the actions and that is not the stigma we want.

And of course now we all know why the .xxx is being supported so fully by adult organizations for their own profit and stature so with the combination of adult WMs against it (I hope) and the administration against it for right-wing reasons it should never see the light of day again

Wazza · 2005-12-09, 06:33 AM

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.2417:

I think Moby makes a good point - this issue is definately worth revisiting

http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...58&postcount=4

I'm sure with such a levy on all "other" domains you could put together a pretty good panel to review the content

Further - I think you could have a series of .u domains - .u18, .u17 and so on - and a compatible browser which only allows access to the appropriate extension

kidsfundomain might have a u16 domain and a u10 domain - each with content deemed appropriate by this panel

With proper administration this could work quite well...

lassiter · 2005-12-09, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

You have to remember that objective here isn't to protect children, it is to set us on a path to follow the righteous teaching of the christian lord. They want to remake the world to match their teaching.

Exactly so. But I wonder if promoting .KID might just be an effective tool for demonstrating just that to the normal middle-class non-fundies. "No, we don't want to protect the children, we just wanna keep adults from enjoying the entertainment of their choice."

After all, schools keep kids on the playground at recess to protect them from harm. They don't ban or restrict all the autos or roads that adults use. |goodidea

Papa · 2005-12-09, 09:05 AM

XXX domains would be very bad ! It will be so easy for a countries to ban all xxx extensions from getting in. A law that ISP's would have to obey (in that given country). It will make like a ghetto in a sort of way. Now they can't ban .com or .net names !

For the .kids part. Yeah, i wonder why it's not available as we speak. I would certainly allow access to .kids domains only from my house. My kids don't have internet access and never will (unless they are 18+ f*ck!.
Anyways, it's full of spyware, shitware name it plus you really need to know english to surf on the net.
2cents

SirMoby · 2005-12-09, 09:27 AM

My little girl will one day be surfing the Internet. It will be a surfng only type appliance and I'll put strong parental controls on it. When she's old enough to change the channels on the TV I'll put strong parental controls on that as well.

Even if all porn was on its own domain there's still a huge amount of stuff that my little girl is not ready to read or see. That includes any page that's supported by Pat Robertson, Bill O'Riely or Howard Stern.

MrYum · 2005-12-09, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirMoby

My little girl will one day be surfing the Internet. It will be a surfng only type appliance and I'll put strong parental controls on it. When she's old enough to change the channels on the TV I'll put strong parental controls on that as well.

Even if all porn was on its own domain there's still a huge amount of stuff that my little girl is not ready to read or see. That includes any page that's supported by Pat Robertson, Bill O'Riely or Howard Stern.

Wow! A responsible parent...what a concept!

Agreed on the religious asshats

The fanatical crap that spews forth from them is actually more harmful than a kid seeing adult content. Not that I'm advocating kids seeing adult stuff...just saying the extreme views of the religious right are more harmful.

RawAlex · 2005-12-09, 03:58 PM

Lassiter, I think it is because there is still a feeling that the internet is somehow controlable, like broadcast TV or movies. Those mediums were created and molded into being somehow tame and under the government's watchful eye. The concept of somehow grading or putting "film ratings" on websites is all in that same train of thought.

It all comes back to governments (specifically the US) thinking that they can control the internet completely. It is possibly the best example of the tail attempting to wag the dog. They haven't figured out that they cannot stop the CP and the 409 scams and the spyware toolbar scammers. Because the regulatory type "theys" don't catch it, they attempt to put limits on the net in a sort of top down way.

The goal is to make the entire internet (and the entire world, in theory) totally safe and boring for everyone, where the only entertainment available is that suitable for all, G rating the entire planet. In my mind, the internet represents to these people the biggest threat to the order that they seek to enforce.

In their world, they would banish all cars in case a child ever crossed the road.

Alex

SirMoby · 2005-12-09, 04:59 PM

One of the ploys that the administration has been using is the lack of alternative ploy.

"Sure our tax reform bill increases taxes on the poor and offers tax breaks for the rich but we don't see any alternative being presented by the left".

So if a viable alternative is presented that takes a very typical tactic off the floor. A tactic that is used on the talk shows and appeals to the less literate voters which as education fails are becoming more common.

Personally as a parent I'd love to have any area designed for kids. I know that creaps and butt wipes could still create hate sites and porn sites on a .kids but there would be fewer.

MadMax · 2005-12-09, 05:58 PM

To echo the sentiments on .kid, it makes far too much sense. As far as "who would determine what is and is not appropriate", that is exactly what fees for the domain could go to pay for. Companies that genuinely marked products to kids for kids shouldn't have any problem ponying up some decent cash for the domain names, and let a regulatory body be paid for by the fees.

gobgook2 · 2005-12-10, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMax

To echo the sentiments on .kid, it makes far too much sense. As far as "who would determine what is and is not appropriate", that is exactly what fees for the domain could go to pay for. Companies that genuinely marked products to kids for kids shouldn't have any problem ponying up some decent cash for the domain names, and let a regulatory body be paid for by the fees.

If the best argument is "who will determine what belongs on .kid", then throw back the same... "who determines what gets put on .xxx? Are we going to to have a RAT SQUAD paid by tax dollars that do nothing but surf .com, .net, .org domains for porn, so they can be moved into the new red light .xxx district? Do non-nude membership sites constitue "Adult" and therefore .xxx? Tit for Tat. They're all too busy getting saved to see reality...

Praise Jesus!

Ms Naughty · 2005-12-09, 08:16 PM

In Australia, if you want a .com.au domain you have to prove you're Australian and that the name relates to your company or organisation somehow.

It costs heaps more to buy a domain but people are still happy to do it so they can get that .au at the end. Same could easily apply to .kid

DJilla · 2005-12-12, 01:03 PM

I've been waiting for someone to state the obvious. This is a perfect solution for guiding all those existing filters at libraries, schools, and what have you right into a channel with content exclusive for them and kid safe.

This is also the sort of thing the FSC should be presenting and fighting for actively. The best defense is an offense and its easier to blunt resistance when you can steer someone in the right direction.!!!

I hope people contine to post updated links here in this thread and actively, vocally support this option where possible.

DJilla · 2005-12-12, 01:09 PM

Also, this is a natural. You don't have to worry about examining content. Content is for those under the age of 17. It will initially self police as much of the internet already does, second it will self propagate because consumer demand for websites catering to childern be found with this domain will be overwhelming. Finally, there will be prosecutions and/or embarrasements for companies that try to manipulate the model. Its a very "positive" step that politically people can get their heads around. Worth fighting for or supporting.

Papa · 2005-12-13, 07:50 AM

Well to say i will fight to support this is too much on my end but i am behind this thingo 100% !
But don't be fools, they will always be fuckers that will be willing to buy a .kids domain to put porn on it or even worst......

SirMoby · 2005-12-13, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papa

But don't be fools, they will always be fuckers that will be willing to buy a .kids domain to put porn on it or even worst......

Of course there will be. If there's .XXX do you think that the religeous right won't get some domains and fill it full of preaching?

While there will be some fuckers that want to show themselves on a .kids domain the idea of having mostly kids surfing those domains would keep the money makers and the bulk of adult material away.

You are correct that there will always be fuckers that prey on kids every where including at church. While it's not possible to allow your kids to live normal lives and keep them perfectly safe it is possible to minimize the risk of any danger and that's all that can be done.

2005-12-08, 11:49 PM	#1
SirMoby Jim? I heard he's a dirty pornographer. Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 2,706	Why not .KID instead of .XXX? I know, I know, there's not as much money in that but wouldn't that make a lot more sense and still protect free speech?

2005-12-08, 11:56 PM	#2
Surfn If you don’t take a chance the Angels won’t dance Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Earth on occasion Posts: 8,812	Too simple. The vulture lawyers wouldn't make any money. __________________ Surfn's Links Are you a partner?

2005-12-09, 12:00 AM	#4
Seska Aw, Dad, you've done a lot of great things, but you're a very old man, and old people are useless Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Montreal Posts: 20	I don't know all of the implications but I also wonder why .kid has not been pursued. Libraries and bookstores have specific sections just for children. Why not the Internet? I suppose kid friendly directories are an option and I am sure .kid has its flaws (i.e. who determines what sites deserves to have it), but I think at least it is worthy of discussion. Though my bottom line is parental supervision. James' (my sarcastic husband) would be to blindfold kids. __________________ Original Porn for Men, Women & Lovers

2005-12-09, 02:06 AM	#6
Wazza I'm a jaded evil bastard, I wouldn't piss on myself if I was on fire... Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 808	My views on this have been made public on a couple of occasions (but I'm just some nobody Aussie banana who should be, and generally is, ignored) But that being said, I'm glad someone else has picked this up and run with it. __________________ I sale Internet My sites have no traffic and no PR - let's trade - PM me

2005-12-09, 06:14 AM	#10
Linkster NO! Im not a female - but being a dragon, I do eat them. Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Sex Delta Posts: 5,084	The .kids domain was sent up to ICANN and was shot down although congress actually passed a bill adopting it and supporting it. ICANN's problem with it was who designates what is kid-safe around the world? And since that question has never been answered the domain tld just sits there all set to go. That said I dont think the adult industry should be the ones leading the charge for either domain changes - although my personal belief is that I would support a .kids domain fully - there would always be a stigma that would relate the actions and that is not the stigma we want. And of course now we all know why the .xxx is being supported so fully by adult organizations for their own profit and stature so with the combination of adult WMs against it (I hope) and the administration against it for right-wing reasons it should never see the light of day again __________________ Pussy Chompers Porn Links NSCash

2005-12-09, 12:29 AM	#5
RawAlex Took the hint. Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,597	I think that .XXX can be seen as "doing something about evil dirty pornographers", which is politically a good thing, where as .KID would be a nice gesture that wouldn't stir up the same emotion. You have to remember that objective here isn't to protect children, it is to set us on a path to follow the righteous teaching of the christian lord. They want to remake the world to match their teaching. Alex

2005-12-09, 06:33 AM	#11
Wazza I'm a jaded evil bastard, I wouldn't piss on myself if I was on fire... Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 808	http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.2417: I think Moby makes a good point - this issue is definately worth revisiting http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...58&postcount=4 I'm sure with such a levy on all "other" domains you could put together a pretty good panel to review the content Further - I think you could have a series of .u domains - .u18, .u17 and so on - and a compatible browser which only allows access to the appropriate extension kidsfundomain might have a u16 domain and a u10 domain - each with content deemed appropriate by this panel With proper administration this could work quite well... __________________ I sale Internet My sites have no traffic and no PR - let's trade - PM me

2005-12-09, 09:05 AM	#13
Papa Kids are great, Appu. You can teach them to hate the things you hate and they practically raise themselves now-a-days, you know, with the internet and all Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 190	XXX domains would be very bad ! It will be so easy for a countries to ban all xxx extensions from getting in. A law that ISP's would have to obey (in that given country). It will make like a ghetto in a sort of way. Now they can't ban .com or .net names ! For the .kids part. Yeah, i wonder why it's not available as we speak. I would certainly allow access to .kids domains only from my house. My kids don't have internet access and never will (unless they are 18+ f*ck!. Anyways, it's full of spyware, shitware name it plus you really need to know english to surf on the net. 2cents

2005-12-09, 09:27 AM	#14
SirMoby Jim? I heard he's a dirty pornographer. Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 2,706	My little girl will one day be surfing the Internet. It will be a surfng only type appliance and I'll put strong parental controls on it. When she's old enough to change the channels on the TV I'll put strong parental controls on that as well. Even if all porn was on its own domain there's still a huge amount of stuff that my little girl is not ready to read or see. That includes any page that's supported by Pat Robertson, Bill O'Riely or Howard Stern.

2005-12-09, 03:58 PM	#16
RawAlex Took the hint. Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,597	Lassiter, I think it is because there is still a feeling that the internet is somehow controlable, like broadcast TV or movies. Those mediums were created and molded into being somehow tame and under the government's watchful eye. The concept of somehow grading or putting "film ratings" on websites is all in that same train of thought. It all comes back to governments (specifically the US) thinking that they can control the internet completely. It is possibly the best example of the tail attempting to wag the dog. They haven't figured out that they cannot stop the CP and the 409 scams and the spyware toolbar scammers. Because the regulatory type "theys" don't catch it, they attempt to put limits on the net in a sort of top down way. The goal is to make the entire internet (and the entire world, in theory) totally safe and boring for everyone, where the only entertainment available is that suitable for all, G rating the entire planet. In my mind, the internet represents to these people the biggest threat to the order that they seek to enforce. In their world, they would banish all cars in case a child ever crossed the road. Alex

2005-12-09, 04:59 PM	#17
SirMoby Jim? I heard he's a dirty pornographer. Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 2,706	One of the ploys that the administration has been using is the lack of alternative ploy. "Sure our tax reform bill increases taxes on the poor and offers tax breaks for the rich but we don't see any alternative being presented by the left". So if a viable alternative is presented that takes a very typical tactic off the floor. A tactic that is used on the talk shows and appeals to the less literate voters which as education fails are becoming more common. Personally as a parent I'd love to have any area designed for kids. I know that creaps and butt wipes could still create hate sites and porn sites on a .kids but there would be fewer.

2005-12-09, 05:58 PM	#18
MadMax "Without evil there can be no good, so it must be good to be evil sometimes" ~ Satan Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Motor City, baby, where carjacking was invented! Now GIMME THOSE SHOES! Posts: 2,385	To echo the sentiments on .kid, it makes far too much sense. As far as "who would determine what is and is not appropriate", that is exactly what fees for the domain could go to pay for. Companies that genuinely marked products to kids for kids shouldn't have any problem ponying up some decent cash for the domain names, and let a regulatory body be paid for by the fees.

2005-12-09, 08:16 PM	#20
Ms Naughty old enough to be Grandma Scrotum Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 1,408	In Australia, if you want a .com.au domain you have to prove you're Australian and that the name relates to your company or organisation somehow. It costs heaps more to buy a domain but people are still happy to do it so they can get that .au at the end. Same could easily apply to .kid __________________ Promote Bright Desire

2005-12-12, 01:03 PM	#21
DJilla You can now put whatever you want in this space :) Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 525	Absolutely took the words out of... whoosh....))) I've been waiting for someone to state the obvious. This is a perfect solution for guiding all those existing filters at libraries, schools, and what have you right into a channel with content exclusive for them and kid safe. This is also the sort of thing the FSC should be presenting and fighting for actively. The best defense is an offense and its easier to blunt resistance when you can steer someone in the right direction.!!! I hope people contine to post updated links here in this thread and actively, vocally support this option where possible. __________________ Submit Free Sites, Blogs, Movies, TGP's, Triple XXX Info

2005-12-12, 01:09 PM	#22
DJilla You can now put whatever you want in this space :) Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 525	Also, this is a natural. You don't have to worry about examining content. Content is for those under the age of 17. It will initially self police as much of the internet already does, second it will self propagate because consumer demand for websites catering to childern be found with this domain will be overwhelming. Finally, there will be prosecutions and/or embarrasements for companies that try to manipulate the model. Its a very "positive" step that politically people can get their heads around. Worth fighting for or supporting. __________________ Submit Free Sites, Blogs, Movies, TGP's, Triple XXX Info

2005-12-13, 07:50 AM	#23
Papa Kids are great, Appu. You can teach them to hate the things you hate and they practically raise themselves now-a-days, you know, with the internet and all Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 190	Well to say i will fight to support this is too much on my end but i am behind this thingo 100% ! But don't be fools, they will always be fuckers that will be willing to buy a .kids domain to put porn on it or even worst......