Free Speech Coalition - who to vote for 2006 Board of Directors?

RawAlex · 2005-12-05, 05:10 PM

Gonzo, when it comes down to it, the big guys with the big names will do well. The rest of us would suffer because the domains would be more expensive, the existing domains that you have would become worthless in about 10 seconds, and all the traffic you have built over the years would become totally, completely worthless.

In my mind as soon as the .XXX thing came into place, Visa and Mastercard would be on the horn announcing new worldwide rules for adult sites requiring that they are all on domains in the .XXX tld. More importantly, they could require companies likes CCBill and others to refuse or bounce traffic that came from .com domains.

Imagine all those .com, .net, org, and .everythingelse domains suddenly becoming worthless.

The big get bigger... the big love regulation. The small suffer.

Alex

Bill · 2005-12-05, 06:00 PM

As I understand it, .XXX is a nonissue at the moment.

However, I do tend to think that Joan Irvines's support of it is a valid mark against her.

Yet, at the same time, ASACP hasn't been a negative force in the industry, and I can see arguments that an ASACP representation in the FSC is a good thing.

I figure the negative attitude towards the FSC among onliners is because the FSC is an old-school retail and movie production organization that has more or less ignored or exploited the onliners.

I can't say I especially like the FSC. I tend to think they would turn against the online sector in a minute to protect their retail and video sales business.

But, they accomplished _something_ for us, wether they did it for the onliners or not. I can't see anybody else even pretending to act on our behalf.

I think I'll add a letter to this ballot complaining about the lack of a better online presence for the FSC.

GonZo · 2005-12-05, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Gonzo, when it comes down to it, the big guys with the big names will do well. The rest of us would suffer because the domains would be more expensive, the existing domains that you have would become worthless in about 10 seconds, and all the traffic you have built over the years would become totally, completely worthless.

In my mind as soon as the .XXX thing came into place, Visa and Mastercard would be on the horn announcing new worldwide rules for adult sites requiring that they are all on domains in the .XXX tld. More importantly, they could require companies likes CCBill and others to refuse or bounce traffic that came from .com domains.

Imagine all those .com, .net, org, and .everythingelse domains suddenly becoming worthless.

The big get bigger... the big love regulation. The small suffer.

Alex

Alex thanks for the domain lesson but they have already become more expensive for me.

My first one was for free back in 1993.

.net and org is crap if your basing it totaly on the domain market value. I only own .coms.

Regulation is coming in one form or another. Ive already posted what Bill Margold is proposing.

If I was to have to guess Id say it will come from the billing companies. They have the missing and most important piece.

2005-12-05, 05:10 PM	#1
RawAlex Took the hint. Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,597	Gonzo, when it comes down to it, the big guys with the big names will do well. The rest of us would suffer because the domains would be more expensive, the existing domains that you have would become worthless in about 10 seconds, and all the traffic you have built over the years would become totally, completely worthless. In my mind as soon as the .XXX thing came into place, Visa and Mastercard would be on the horn announcing new worldwide rules for adult sites requiring that they are all on domains in the .XXX tld. More importantly, they could require companies likes CCBill and others to refuse or bounce traffic that came from .com domains. Imagine all those .com, .net, org, and .everythingelse domains suddenly becoming worthless. The big get bigger... the big love regulation. The small suffer. Alex

2005-12-05, 06:00 PM	#2
Bill Selling porn allows me to stay in a constant state of Bliss - ain't that a trip! Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,914	As I understand it, .XXX is a nonissue at the moment. However, I do tend to think that Joan Irvines's support of it is a valid mark against her. Yet, at the same time, ASACP hasn't been a negative force in the industry, and I can see arguments that an ASACP representation in the FSC is a good thing. I figure the negative attitude towards the FSC among onliners is because the FSC is an old-school retail and movie production organization that has more or less ignored or exploited the onliners. I can't say I especially like the FSC. I tend to think they would turn against the online sector in a minute to protect their retail and video sales business. But, they accomplished _something_ for us, wether they did it for the onliners or not. I can't see anybody else even pretending to act on our behalf. I think I'll add a letter to this ballot complaining about the lack of a better online presence for the FSC.