[Ben]

.XXX domain names will still be available to purchase, I assume alot of these websites would be aimed at the Adult industry.

Price is set to be around $75.

An interesting article can be found here:
http://news.com.com/Porn-friendly+.xxx+dom..._3-5728713.html

Though this may be not of much interest to alot of people, you may be able to snatch a premium domain name that may be valuable!

[Oliver]

In a way this is probably a good idea so that people and search engines can recognize what type of website it is.

[adam2z]

the bid to do this was once again rejected by ICANN. supposedly it will encourage more porn sites. and thats bad or something

[BabyBen]

I noticed a few days ago that .mail was being proposed - maybe this could finally be a way of trying to tackle spam?

Something really needs to be done, perhaps this is the first step - if it got approved.

[php_penguin]

i wonder if the bbc will be getting one?

www.bbc.xxx - for there adult-centric news?

[BabyBen]

php_penguin, on Aug 23 2007, 06:53 PM, said:

i wonder if the bbc will be getting one?

www.bbc.xxx - for there adult-centric news?

..presented by Huw Edwards.. only wearing a thong.

[php_penguin]

i think that will be watched almost exclusively by only old women and gay men...

[BenG]

Maybe castlemaine can get x.xxx

http://www.australia...s/xxxx/xxxx.htm

[Michael Davies]

The problem is domain names are complete abused. Having .xxx will mean big legitimate porn companies will move over from .co.uk and .com (which is good for parental controls etc), unfortunately there will be many other porn site that won't and especially the more horrible ones prob still won't be at all screened from children.

[liquid]

BenG, on Aug 24 2007, 01:18 PM, said:

Maybe castlemaine can get x.xxx

http://www.australia...s/xxxx/xxxx.htm

No No No .....you beat me to it.....

As soon as I saw the header I thought of Castlemaine XXXX

[php_penguin]

what about the movie?

www.vinDiezelIs.xxx

[partystar]

I would love to see an XXXX beer. I'm sure it will have a great success.

[EggMan]

what happened to this? I heard a rumour that it was scrapped?

[Rachael]

It's a shame you can't just "not" have a domain name...

eg.

http://www.xxx/yyy/zzz

[BlueDreamer]

ICANN rejected the .xxx proposal again last year due to too much pressure from particular from religious and political groups in the USA.

The .xxx domain name is actually a gold mine waiting to happen and many adult companies have plans in place to utilise a new .xxx name. There are people with link directories with a .xxx theme ready and poised for the big windfall!

However, simply by assigning .xxx for adult related sites any knowledgable adult site owner will have already registered the .com, .net, .or etc so it won't make a scrap of difference to search engines.

[Badmotherz]

Bet it will all go tits up...

...thank you I'm here all week, don't forget to tip your waitress.

[BlueDreamer]

Badmotherz, on Feb 28 2008, 19:55, said:

Bet it will all go tits up...

...thank you I'm here all week, don't forget to tip your waitress.

LOL...

[EggMan]

Personally I think its genius. They should pass a law stating all porn sites must use a .xxx tld - that would make the internet a much safer place given how much easier it would be to apply parental filters.

I don't like the fac that an 8 year old doing a research project on the american government can go to the whitehouse.com and get a nasty surprise, when all they were looking for was a list of all the american presidents.....

[BlueDreamer]

EggMan, on Feb 29 2008, 00:34, said:

I don't like the fac that an 8 year old doing a research project on the american government can go to the whitehouse.com and get a nasty surprise, when all they were looking for was a list of all the american presidents.....

Kids can still go into any newsagent and pick up the paper mag version

And what's an 8 year old kid doing surfing the net unsupervised? Surely things like this should be a parental responsibility thing?

[EggMan]

Not all parents have the time to sit and watch their kids doing homework every second of the day - the point is NOT who's responsibilty it is to ensure children surf the net suitably, the point is that the internet should be a safe place for everyone, and that includes children.

As for your magazine comment, I don't know what the shops in northampton are like, but around here if an 8 year old tried to buy a porn magazine they would NOT succeed.

[Rob]

I can't see the internet becomming a safe place for anyone, unless it is policed, and that will *never* happen because it is just so damn out of control. So (unfortunately?), the responsibility falls on the parents; if you are worried about your child's safety on the internet, then either disable it, or take the time out to sit with them when they need to use it.

Otherwise let them get on with things, and find out the themselves what is on the internet, it didn't harm me!

Rob

[EggMan]

Would you let a child walk to a toy shop if it meant walking through 5 sex shops?
If not, would you then forbid a child from visiting toy shops altogether?

There is no black and white.

It is illegal for a website to not be properly accessible for disabled people so why should there not be a law regarding child safety.

[BlueDreamer]

EggMan, on Mar 2 2008, 08:18, said:

As for your magazine comment, I don't know what the shops in northampton are like, but around here if an 8 year old tried to buy a porn magazine they would NOT succeed.

I didn't say they could "buy" one per say, but it wouldn't stop them having a quick read! Boys are boys, when I was 11 we used to regularly flick through girlie mags in newsagents (till we got chucked out...lol). It didn't do me much harm at all.

Saying that anything adult related should be kept out of the reach of minors.

[BlueDreamer]

RobH, on Mar 2 2008, 11:37, said:

I can't see the internet becomming a safe place for anyone, unless it is policed, and that will *never* happen because it is just so damn out of control. So (unfortunately?), the responsibility falls on the parents; if you are worried about your child's safety on the internet, then either disable it, or take the time out to sit with them when they need to use it.

Otherwise let them get on with things, and find out the themselves what is on the internet, it didn't harm me!

Rob

As I see it the internet is a window to the world, for all it's achievements, faults and failings. In essence it is the real world and reflects the diversity of mankind as we are today. The thing to ask here is "would you let your 11 year old backpack around the world on their own?" - of course you wouldn't, but you would'nt mind them doing it if they were 18.

[EggMan]

bluedreamer, on Mar 4 2008, 20:15, said:

I didn't say they could "buy" one per say, but it wouldn't stop them having a quick read! Boys are boys, when I was 11 we used to regularly flick through girlie mags in newsagents (till we got chucked out...lol). It didn't do me much harm at all.

Saying that anything adult related should be kept out of the reach of minors.

Yes but in a newsagent..

porn with women
porn with animals
people having their heads cut off in afghanistan

dont all sit in dedicated magazines on the same shelf.

There are a lot worse sites out there than a couple of sites with topless women that kids could quite easily wander into, there are some really sick things that fall into the 'porn' category that I wouldnt want to inflict on anyone I know regardless of age to be honest, I can't even imagine a child having to see something like that. Its horrible

[Expat629]

I think, as with most things, you can regulate it all you like but the unscrupulous people (i.e. the sex with animals, kiddie porn, etc) will play by their own rules. Let's face it, there are already laws in place that say you can't show that sort of thing, and yet it's easy enough to find.

If those laws aren't working, I don't think the solution is to tack on more laws. The solution is to deal with the existing problems first and go from there.

[EggMan]

The problem there being that the problem is human nature, which can't be 'dealt with'

My only point was to make parental filters far more effective, and make it easier to enforce laws regarding website browsing (not filehsaring or anything) - by banishing adult content to a .xxx tld

[Expat629]

EggMan, on Mar 6 2008, 12:55, said:

My only point was to make parental filters far more effective, and make it easier to enforce laws regarding website browsing (not filehsaring or anything) - by banishing adult content to a .xxx tld

Yes, but my point was that not everyone will play by those rules and restrict their content to a .xxx TLD.

Don't get me wrong, I think .xxx is a good idea and all the X-rated content sites seem to like it too (not that we speak on a regular basis, but you know... ). But I don't think you can do a blanket regulation that requires it. Enforcing such a regulation would require some sort of task force to go around and catch the baddies who are still clinging to their .com. I don't have much faith in this type of system if existing laws aren't able to catch existing "bad" sites like child pornography. How is the system going to change?

[EggMan]

It would be easy as anything to enforce, porn site on a non .xxx gets reported and the host disables the account. Wouldnt take long for people to take the hint.

[Expat629]

EggMan, on Mar 6 2008, 14:41, said:

It would be easy as anything to enforce, porn site on a non .xxx gets reported and the host disables the account. Wouldnt take long for people to take the hint.

About as easy as "child pornography site gets reported and taken down"... and yet they still exist.

[Nathan]

personally think that this is a good idea, it will allow the contant blockers to work better than they do at the moment... but saying that I can see how it will be a problem getting all the porn sites to movie to a .xxx

Just wait and see what happens i guess

[EggMan]

But more in filesharing networks rather than on the net, thankfully

[notbanksy]

Unfortunately porn is a massively grey area, and has no universal definition. For example, I can go to www.thesun.co.uk and within one or two clicks be looking at topless ladies. Should the Sun be made to move over to .xxx?
What about Loaded magazine - very similar story, only the pictures are slightly more suggestive, but not actually any more explicit.
So what is porn? An American judge described pornography as "any act that has no artistic merit, and causes sexual thoughts".
Ever seen a TV advertisement? At least half of them could be defined by this statement.
The only difference I can see is that porn is open about the fact that it's supposed to be sexually stimulating. Advertising isn't, which in my opinion actually makes it more dangerous.

Of course, I don't think it's a good idea that children should be exposed to explicit material at an early age, but I also don't think they should be exposed to violence or gratuitous marketing.

In the immortal words of Bill Hicks, "Since when did sex become a bad thing?". Society needs to change its attitudes towards sex (and violence, and definitely advertising) and maybe when we're all a bit less hung up, we either won't want to see porn any more (or as much), or we will at least be grown up enough to discuss it with our children should they happen to see it.

You don't need to go to a newsagent to see porn outside of the internet. When I was in primary school I can think of 2 seperate occasions when I found porn mags on the way to school. They scared me a little Whether you agree with it or not, porn is out there, it relates to a natural impulse within us, and is unlikely to go away. Legislating against it is likely to make it more of a problem IMO. People like sex - let's get over it...

[ErisDS]

Expat629, on Mar 6 2008, 15:06, said:

About as easy as "child pornography site gets reported and taken down"... and yet they still exist.

This has actually pretty much wiped out child pornography in the UK.
http://www.iwf.org.uk/

These folk published figures saying that the UK is now hosting less than 1% of illegal pornographic material. All of the ISP's here have absolutely cracked down. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the USA for which the last figure I found on my quick search was 55%.

Given a good system and ISP's doing what they are supposed to, I think the .xxx idea could really work. You'll never get rid of it all*, but this is all about making it harder to find by accident.

* By "it" I mean the illegal stuff.

[Sam]

correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't .xxx rejected by ICANN the first time it was proposed?

[BlueDreamer]

Sam, on Mar 21 2008, 23:12, said:

correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't .xxx rejected by ICANN the first time it was proposed?

Apparently under extreme pressure from the right wing christian fundamentalist politicians in the USA

[liquid]

The standards we set have set for ourselves are all shot to hell anyway....

I was brought up (in the 70's) on cowboy and war films yet if a naked woman appeared on the screen my father would suddenly turn the TV to a different channel.

I've just had a look through my DVD collection so see if the people who regulate our world have got it right yet....

Billy Connolly at the Royal Albert Hall is an 18

Black Hawk Down is a 15

Oh yes they've really got it all worked out.....

It's okay to watch someone's body blown apart but please don't use the F word!