.xxx won't work - Page 2

mikeyddddd · 2004-03-24, 06:05 PM

here's the link to a news.com article on the subject

http://news.com.com/2010-1026_3-5176611.html?tag=st_pop

$75 per domain? i don't think so.

give up .com so all the scammers can use them? i don't think so.

no popups? i don't think so.

will it result in protecting children from porn? i don't think so

is this a bad idea? i think so

will this be done with the current administration and ag? i think so.

Tommy · 2004-03-24, 07:01 PM

I dont wanna start waving the flag but

I think that would be censorship

how about we tatoo "excon" on someones forehead before we let them out of jail

how about all black people have to wear red shirts

or everyone that has hiv has to have a certian mark stamped on their hands

djhits · 2004-03-24, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tommy
I dont wanna start waving the flag but

I think that would be censorship

how about we tatoo "excon" on someones forehead before we let them out of jail

how about all black people have to wear red shirts

or everyone that has hiv has to have a certian mark stamped on their hands

im with tommy on this one

Tino · 2004-03-24, 08:42 PM

It wouldnt do any good. I still from time to time see porno on geocity sites(and such)- so if they cant prevent it from being there- how the hell would they prevent it from being on .com domains.

But most importent is- of course no one will- or should give up their domains they worked on for many years. Its like asking coca-cola to start over and sell their product only from 1 small shop.

Jim · 2004-03-25, 07:20 AM

It seems to me that if .xxx worked the way a few people want it to, it would be a nightmare to police. Link List owners know that it is a pain in the ass just making sure the few sites they list follow the rules. Imagine trying to make sure every adult site followed the rules

Tommy · 2004-03-25, 12:49 PM

I think we need a licencing system for adult webmasters

all your domains would need this licence number attached to the dns or the domain dont work

you dont have a licence.. you cant sign up for sponsors
you cant get hosting you cant buy domains
you cant buy content

background checks, etc etc etc

like a liqour licence
or a licence to sell cigerettes
guns, used cars

this idea would also fix the spam problem to

Jim · 2004-03-25, 01:01 PM

Tommy
Isn't that like saying we would also need a license to write something? That is a scary thought.

Alphawolf · 2004-03-25, 03:55 PM

At face value to a non techie - it may seem like a smart idea.

However, it's rediculous.

He is ill advised and probably full of ego he can 'change things'.

They won't allow CP on the xxx domains? Great. What do they do after the initial check and 100's of xxx domains redirect?

I do think there is room for some smart people to ceate a sort of self governing database that would serve up an 'adult' flag or something.

If someone could get a system to the point where a little banner with a domain's 'license' as Tommy puts it, was served via database from a list of good hand checked domains I'd pay to be on that list.

Too easy to abuse though. Even the ICRA button is used without the tag on sites.

As for protecting the children- how about being a fucking parent once in a while instead of relying on automated systems?

Is it so hard to view your childs History to see what sites he or she has looked at?

Please.

busty1 · 2004-03-25, 07:19 PM

Its all a conspiracy to push the mid level guys out, at least that what some one told me today on icq.... funny thing is it did make sence in a weird kind of way

KristianF · 2004-03-25, 09:56 PM

regardless of all the stories how many people own .xxx names? I had bought 2 a long while back thought I would by my city, lol. I think I paid $35 a year but they want you to buy two years I only did 1 though.

RawAlex · 2004-03-25, 11:16 PM

Funny part of all of this is it seems that every year this sort of thing comes back up just in time to become a US election issue by summer... right now there are a shortage of real issues to work with, and this just sounds like someone trying to put another ball in play to hit around for a while.

it will go away, much like COPA and everything else has in the past, because none of it ever seems to pass US constitutional muster, so they all die horrible deaths.

Remember, they ended up outlawing strip clubs and adult bookstores by carefully writing ZONING laws, limiting adult businesses to areas not less than 1000 feet from a school, church, hospital, day care, mental institution, and other such buildings. Done carefully enough, with enough restrictions, you end up with only one or two places inside a county that can actually legally be zoned for adult. That is why in many places in the US, you will find adult businesses in the middle of BF nowhere, to avoid zoning. .XXX is an attempt to zone us all out of existance, except for a rich few who could afford to properly promote and garner traffic to their new domains. The rest of us would get squished.

Alex

Tommy · 2004-03-26, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RawAlex
Funny part of all of this is it seems that every year this sort of thing comes back up just in time to become a US election issue by summer... right now there are a shortage of real issues to work with, and this just sounds like someone trying to put another ball in play to hit around for a while.

thats not true.......
we have the gay marriage thing
to keep us busy

Linkster · 2004-03-26, 06:41 AM

I have a feeling that COPA will make a reappearance this summer - maybe as early as May - and with another justice making stupid comments about adult sites that has nothing to do with the COPA issue, (not being pessamistic too much) we might see this hit the fan as a large issue - that said, it might all get washed through with no press coverage if there is a "timely" terrorist attack for B*sh to ride through the elections on (no not a conspiricist here - just a realist)

RawAlex · 2004-03-26, 10:31 AM

COPA will make a re-appearance because Assclown dragged it back in front of the supreme court recently. It will get turned down again, but it will occur at a good time for some conservative "bash the dirty porn people" pandering to the religeous right. They really can't do much, but they sure will huff and puff about us.

Alex

lyno · 2004-03-26, 01:52 PM

The internet was not created for children so maybe a different approach would make more sense. Instead of labeling all pages that might be improper for kids it would be more secure to label sites that are for kids. Two labels like G and PG would be enough (i like the US rating system. makes more sense then limiting to age).

mikeyddddd · 2004-03-29, 12:05 AM

lyno,

voltar's idea was just use .kid - but your/his suggestion probably makes too much sense to be adopted

SomeCreep · 2004-03-29, 05:01 PM

.xxx's will never catch on so long as they are proprietarily owned and not an ICANN accredited TLD. They are a quick fad in the hopes of making new.net lots of money.

RawAlex · 2004-03-29, 05:12 PM

.kid or .kids is the real solution, but is something that is politically not acceptable to either side: it would be admitting that the internet is an "adult place", and that kids shouldn't be allowed to roam freely.

The politicos expect it to be like prime time TV, the occasional fart joke and the Friends girls with hard nipples, but not much else. They can't for the life of them imagine that they cannot control the net in that manner.

.kids would be like building a playground in the middle of the city, giving the children a safe place to surf. It would be VERY easy to make browsers kid safe, allowing them to only go to sites that reverse to .kids, and there could easily be a system of performance bonds or other used to assure that .kids domains are used only for child safe stuff. Charge a higher than average fee for the domain, and use that money to police the content and dis-active any site that isn't within the agreed parameters for a kid safe site.

disney.kids - google.kids (only kids domains!) - yahoo.kids ... the potential is there, and it would be EASY to set up...

not going to happen... some moron killed this idea already trying to do blahblah.kids.us - it went nowhere.

Alex

dareutwo · 2004-03-29, 09:39 PM

Quote:

.kids would be like building a playground in the middle of the city, giving the children a safe place to surf. It would be VERY easy to make browsers kid safe, allowing them to only go to sites that reverse to .kids, and there could easily be a system of performance bonds or other used to assure that .kids domains are used only for child safe stuff. Charge a higher than average fee for the domain, and use that money to police the content and dis-active any site that isn't within the agreed parameters for a kid safe site.

Exactly -
Would make economic sense, solve a real world problem, and a lot of other problems would go away.
But it probably wouldn't lead to re election

Linkster · 2004-03-30, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dareutwo
But it probably wouldn't lead to re election

Thats the biggest problem - the fact that they believe that - but I'd be willing to bet that most people that do vote don't give a flip about the internet - except for the bible thumpers - at least the out-spoken "minority". The fact that only a small percentage of Americans vote to start with is the major factor in any of this BS happening in the first place - as long as they have their SUV and can call their kids at school on their cell phone their happy as clams and don't give a shit what happens in Gov't

Greenguy · 2004-03-30, 06:52 AM

Isn't the .kids thing the same as the .xxx thing?

You'd have to convince all the sites with kid friendly .coms to give those up & start using the .kids comains - and I think we all agree that NO ONE wants to give up an established .com domain (or any other established domain)

busty1 · 2004-03-31, 12:44 AM

There is a simple solution to this at least for americans - VOTE FOR ANYONE EXCEPT BUSH

Nooone else would have cabinet members with the anti porn zeal he has.

dareutwo · 2004-03-31, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Isn't the .kids thing the same as the .xxx thing?

Yes, and No.. lol
However, if push came to shove, would you rather change 70+% of the net? or 30%+. Most of which are easy to redirect.

Just me thoughts, we'll see.

RawAlex · 2004-03-31, 01:44 AM

Greenguy, no actually the .kids people could ALSO be .coms... 2 DNS entries, even, it wouldn't matter.

Think of it this way: You can let adults into a G rated movie, but you can't let kids into an X rated one. Browsers blocking down to just .kids would work fine, and we woudl still all be able to surf either .kids or .com or both... it wouldn't matter.

it creates a safe place for everyone, setup to the standards of kids. That is a million times easier to do.

Alex

venturi · 2004-03-31, 03:37 AM

The real bottom line is that until PARENTS start to take responsibility NOTHING is going to keep kids away from the sites we build. We, as responsible and ethical webmasters, can put in all the protections and cautions and self-imposed filters we can - but until PARENTS step up and start using these tools nothing is going to happen positively.

I have no kids, but trust me if I did their access to the internet would be closesly monitored and not ONCE would they be able to get online without supervision. They are CHILDREN afterall. Anyone that thinks they are capable of making responsible decisions is an idiot. Kids are like Siberian Husky's they will get into anything and everything they possibly can - NO is merely an invitation to mischief. Unless parents finally get a grip on reality and start policing their offspring, and as long as the legislature keeps coddling the parents for their own stupidity it's going to be ugly for us who market sex for a living.

2004-03-24, 06:05 PM	#26
mikeyddddd A woman is like beer. They look good, they smell good, and you'd step over your own mother just to get one! Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Irving, TX Posts: 57	here's the link to a news.com article on the subject http://news.com.com/2010-1026_3-5176611.html?tag=st_pop $75 per domain? i don't think so. give up .com so all the scammers can use them? i don't think so. no popups? i don't think so. will it result in protecting children from porn? i don't think so is this a bad idea? i think so will this be done with the current administration and ag? i think so. __________________ mikey likes it

2004-03-24, 08:42 PM	#29
Tino Are you sure you're an accredited and honored pornographer? Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 61	It wouldnt do any good. I still from time to time see porno on geocity sites(and such)- so if they cant prevent it from being there- how the hell would they prevent it from being on .com domains. But most importent is- of course no one will- or should give up their domains they worked on for many years. Its like asking coca-cola to start over and sell their product only from 1 small shop. __________________ Neighbourhoodgirls

2004-03-25, 03:55 PM	#33
Alphawolf Don't come to Florida for vacation. We're closed. Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Orlando, Florida Posts: 1,874	At face value to a non techie - it may seem like a smart idea. However, it's rediculous. He is ill advised and probably full of ego he can 'change things'. They won't allow CP on the xxx domains? Great. What do they do after the initial check and 100's of xxx domains redirect? I do think there is room for some smart people to ceate a sort of self governing database that would serve up an 'adult' flag or something. If someone could get a system to the point where a little banner with a domain's 'license' as Tommy puts it, was served via database from a list of good hand checked domains I'd pay to be on that list. Too easy to abuse though. Even the ICRA button is used without the tag on sites. As for protecting the children- how about being a fucking parent once in a while instead of relying on automated systems? Is it so hard to view your childs History to see what sites he or she has looked at? Please. __________________ Regards, AW Weekly Pay. Sites That Convert. Start Pimpin' Today!

2004-03-25, 09:56 PM	#35
KristianF A woman is like beer. They look good, they smell good, and you'd step over your own mother just to get one! Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Philly, PA Posts: 58	So..... regardless of all the stories how many people own .xxx names? I had bought 2 a long while back thought I would by my city, lol. I think I paid $35 a year but they want you to buy two years I only did 1 though.

2004-03-26, 06:41 AM	#38
Linkster NO! Im not a female - but being a dragon, I do eat them. Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Sex Delta Posts: 5,084	I have a feeling that COPA will make a reappearance this summer - maybe as early as May - and with another justice making stupid comments about adult sites that has nothing to do with the COPA issue, (not being pessamistic too much) we might see this hit the fan as a large issue - that said, it might all get washed through with no press coverage if there is a "timely" terrorist attack for B*sh to ride through the elections on (no not a conspiricist here - just a realist) __________________ Pussy Chompers Porn Links NSCash

2004-03-24, 07:01 PM	#27
Tommy NYC Boy That Moved To The Island Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 2,940	I dont wanna start waving the flag but I think that would be censorship how about we tatoo "excon" on someones forehead before we let them out of jail how about all black people have to wear red shirts or everyone that has hiv has to have a certian mark stamped on their hands

2004-03-25, 07:20 AM	#30
Jim Banned Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Mohawk, New York Posts: 19,477	It seems to me that if .xxx worked the way a few people want it to, it would be a nightmare to police. Link List owners know that it is a pain in the ass just making sure the few sites they list follow the rules. Imagine trying to make sure every adult site followed the rules

2004-03-25, 12:49 PM	#31
Tommy NYC Boy That Moved To The Island Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 2,940	I think we need a licencing system for adult webmasters all your domains would need this licence number attached to the dns or the domain dont work you dont have a licence.. you cant sign up for sponsors you cant get hosting you cant buy domains you cant buy content background checks, etc etc etc like a liqour licence or a licence to sell cigerettes guns, used cars this idea would also fix the spam problem to

2004-03-25, 01:01 PM	#32
Jim Banned Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Mohawk, New York Posts: 19,477	Tommy Isn't that like saying we would also need a license to write something? That is a scary thought.

2004-03-25, 07:19 PM	#34
busty1 Aw, Dad, you've done a lot of great things, but you're a very old man, and old people are useless Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Buffalo NY Posts: 24	Its all a conspiracy to push the mid level guys out, at least that what some one told me today on icq.... funny thing is it did make sence in a weird kind of way

2004-03-25, 11:16 PM	#36
RawAlex Took the hint. Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,597	Funny part of all of this is it seems that every year this sort of thing comes back up just in time to become a US election issue by summer... right now there are a shortage of real issues to work with, and this just sounds like someone trying to put another ball in play to hit around for a while. it will go away, much like COPA and everything else has in the past, because none of it ever seems to pass US constitutional muster, so they all die horrible deaths. Remember, they ended up outlawing strip clubs and adult bookstores by carefully writing ZONING laws, limiting adult businesses to areas not less than 1000 feet from a school, church, hospital, day care, mental institution, and other such buildings. Done carefully enough, with enough restrictions, you end up with only one or two places inside a county that can actually legally be zoned for adult. That is why in many places in the US, you will find adult businesses in the middle of BF nowhere, to avoid zoning. .XXX is an attempt to zone us all out of existance, except for a rich few who could afford to properly promote and garner traffic to their new domains. The rest of us would get squished. Alex

2004-03-26, 10:31 AM	#39
RawAlex Took the hint. Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,597	COPA will make a re-appearance because Assclown dragged it back in front of the supreme court recently. It will get turned down again, but it will occur at a good time for some conservative "bash the dirty porn people" pandering to the religeous right. They really can't do much, but they sure will huff and puff about us. Alex

2004-03-26, 01:52 PM	#40
lyno Internet! Is that thing still around? Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7	The internet was not created for children so maybe a different approach would make more sense. Instead of labeling all pages that might be improper for kids it would be more secure to label sites that are for kids. Two labels like G and PG would be enough (i like the US rating system. makes more sense then limiting to age). __________________ God is real... unless declared integer

2004-03-29, 12:05 AM	#41
mikeyddddd A woman is like beer. They look good, they smell good, and you'd step over your own mother just to get one! Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Irving, TX Posts: 57	lyno, voltar's idea was just use .kid - but your/his suggestion probably makes too much sense to be adopted __________________ mikey likes it

2004-03-29, 05:01 PM	#42
SomeCreep Operator! Give me the number for 911! Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 139	.xxx's will never catch on so long as they are proprietarily owned and not an ICANN accredited TLD. They are a quick fad in the hopes of making new.net lots of money. __________________ Are you promoting <a href="http://www.realitycash.com/track/MjM1MDoxNDo4/"> Reality Cash</a> yet? They convert very well.

2004-03-29, 05:12 PM	#43
RawAlex Took the hint. Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,597	.kid or .kids is the real solution, but is something that is politically not acceptable to either side: it would be admitting that the internet is an "adult place", and that kids shouldn't be allowed to roam freely. The politicos expect it to be like prime time TV, the occasional fart joke and the Friends girls with hard nipples, but not much else. They can't for the life of them imagine that they cannot control the net in that manner. .kids would be like building a playground in the middle of the city, giving the children a safe place to surf. It would be VERY easy to make browsers kid safe, allowing them to only go to sites that reverse to .kids, and there could easily be a system of performance bonds or other used to assure that .kids domains are used only for child safe stuff. Charge a higher than average fee for the domain, and use that money to police the content and dis-active any site that isn't within the agreed parameters for a kid safe site. disney.kids - google.kids (only kids domains!) - yahoo.kids ... the potential is there, and it would be EASY to set up... not going to happen... some moron killed this idea already trying to do blahblah.kids.us - it went nowhere. Alex

2004-03-30, 06:52 AM	#46
Greenguy The Original Greenguy (Est'd 1996) & AVN HOF Member - I Crop Pics For Thumbs In My Sleep Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Blasdell, NY (shithole suburb south of Buffalo) Posts: 41,929	Isn't the .kids thing the same as the .xxx thing? You'd have to convince all the sites with kid friendly .coms to give those up & start using the .kids comains - and I think we all agree that NO ONE wants to give up an established .com domain (or any other established domain) __________________ Promote POV Porn Cash By Building & Submitting Galleries to the Porn Luv Network

2004-03-31, 12:44 AM	#47
busty1 Aw, Dad, you've done a lot of great things, but you're a very old man, and old people are useless Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Buffalo NY Posts: 24	There is a simple solution to this at least for americans - VOTE FOR ANYONE EXCEPT BUSH Nooone else would have cabinet members with the anti porn zeal he has.

2004-03-31, 01:44 AM	#49
RawAlex Took the hint. Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,597	Greenguy, no actually the .kids people could ALSO be .coms... 2 DNS entries, even, it wouldn't matter. Think of it this way: You can let adults into a G rated movie, but you can't let kids into an X rated one. Browsers blocking down to just .kids would work fine, and we woudl still all be able to surf either .kids or .com or both... it wouldn't matter. it creates a safe place for everyone, setup to the standards of kids. That is a million times easier to do. Alex

2004-03-31, 03:37 AM	#50
venturi No offence Apu, but when they were handing out religions you must have been out taking a whizz Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: An Oasis atop a High Desert Mesa Posts: 282	The real bottom line is that until PARENTS start to take responsibility NOTHING is going to keep kids away from the sites we build. We, as responsible and ethical webmasters, can put in all the protections and cautions and self-imposed filters we can - but until PARENTS step up and start using these tools nothing is going to happen positively. I have no kids, but trust me if I did their access to the internet would be closesly monitored and not ONCE would they be able to get online without supervision. They are CHILDREN afterall. Anyone that thinks they are capable of making responsible decisions is an idiot. Kids are like Siberian Husky's they will get into anything and everything they possibly can - NO is merely an invitation to mischief. Unless parents finally get a grip on reality and start policing their offspring, and as long as the legislature keeps coddling the parents for their own stupidity it's going to be ugly for us who market sex for a living. __________________ Please Re-Read The Rules For Sig Files