Why not .KID instead of .XXX?

[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

[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)



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

[vanVulture]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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