.xxx won't work

[Jim]

Just saw a story about .xxx on the Today show. Part of the deal of moving sites to the .xxx domain is supposed to be giving up the corresponding .com domain name.

Donna Rice, who opposes this, of course, says that "pornographers" will never give up .com domains. The person, on "our side" says that "pornographers" would give them up for lower credit card processing rates.

I personally think that "our side" is dreaming. Who the hell wants to start from the beginning without any traffic? I think, "our side" should go back to the drawing board.

Some of the other conditions of getting a .xxx domain is, no popups and a bunch of cp crap. They just couldn't get through the story without talking about cp. No wonder so many people think we are scum.

Here is the blurb about the story.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4579921/

[Surfn]

The Today show is desperate the are in last place in their time slot.

I bet they didn't interview Larry Flynt and ask his opinions on the domain question. I tell you what I think about giving up my dot coms |2up

[Ramster]

I have only ever bought 1 .net domain, everything else I own is .com. I'd rather own the hyphen version than the nonhyphen of .whatever.

[Cleo]

I can see also buying some .xxx domains, but it will be a cold day in hell before I give up my .com domains and all theirtraffic.

There is a story about it on CNN's site also.

[Jim]

It was clear watching the interview that the only person that knew what they were talking about was Donna Rice. And, to me, that is very sad.

To say a blanket statement like "all adult sites in the world would have no problem giving up their .com domains so the credit cards would charge less for prossesing fees" is just stupid. And this woman is supposed to be on our side.

[Kath]

Not going to get myself all worked up here.... not gonna do it...

But everytime any of these bozos gets air time supposedly being on "our side" I just cringe... the media/public opinion of the adult online industry is already bad enough - but stories like this just make things worse.

I agree - the .xxx thing isn't going to work - and if anyone tries to make people give up their .com domaiins, I see a real fight happening. We've been tossing this idea around for years - I just don't see it working.

|angry|

[Jim]

Don't worry Kath...
It seems that for the first time, the people against us, knows a stupid idea when they hear it :) Donna Rice even said, the only way it could possibly work would be if congress forced us to do it. But then mentioned, just because congress passed a law, nothing would control the rest of the world. Our girl then was sure we would go along with it because to get a .xxx domain, you would have to sign a contract stipulating that we would give up all .com domains, never use popups and like I said, cp crap. I know, I would never sign a contract that mentioned any of those things. I would never give up my .com domains, never be forced to not use popups and be insulted beyond belief if someone asked me to sign a contract that tells me to not use cp.

[kamilla]

I don't see how this would work either - many of my sites are not xxx rated and with an extension like that the surfer would be greatly misslead and that would cost me many signups/bookmarkers/click-throughs |sad|

[swedguy]

Sign a contract stipulating that we would give up all .com's and not use popups.

I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry |jester|

[venturi]

They can have my .com domains when they pry them from my cold dead cyber-fingers. |knockout|

[Opti]

having a .xxx tld that users, worldwide, have to enter into a binding agreement about content guidelines to use might be a good thing... if there was incentive to use it... like major search engines gave a preference to those .xxx domains in serps for users searching on obvious adult terms.

[NevDull]

The only real benefit I can see of a .xxx domain is that you can say, "Hey, if you want your kids not to see this stuff, block .xxx domains", but that defense falls apart the first time a kid uses a proxy, and you get assfucked anyway.

[stuveltje]

xxx.domains, i think they sound good, any one would know, it would be adult orientated...i have all kind of domains, from info to co.uk and it would be very bad if someone would tell you how what and when you may use them|lightsabe

[RawAlex]

Moving to .xxx domains would be like signing up to get killed. Search engines could filter you, ISPs could block access to their clients, and independant network people could decide to decline traffic to them. Painting XXX on your domain name would be like painting a target on your business - someone is going to take a shot.

Once you get seperated, you stand out. Once you stand out, you can be singled out.

Please add to this that there would probably still be millions of .coms used to promote porn in other parts of the world, which would move the traffic and such OFF of your .xxx domains and into the hands of the very scam artists and CP pushers that hide in the darker corners of the globe.

Alex

[stuveltje]

Moving to .xxx domains would be like signing up to get killed. Search engines could filter you, ISPs could block access to their clients, and independant network people could decide to decline traffic to them. Painting XXX on your domain name would be like painting a target on your business - someone is going to take a shot.

ewwwwwwwwww there you make a point, oke i changed my mind, xxx not good|sad|

[forgayonly]

*.xxx - that's bad idea, because, for clients it's difficult to remember where are they now! for ex.: there are three sites: www.xxxxxxxx.com, www.xxxxxxxx.net, www.xxxxxxxx.xxx;

where was i yesterday?:-))

*.com - immortal!|lightsabe

[forgayonly]

ups:-)) sorry for banner!:-))

[Surfn]

forgayonly you need to do something different with your sig ASAP

[SigrVina]

Okay, I don't post here much because I don't run a porn site. The tips are great and the controversial subject matter on my own sites makes them really useful, but I feel a bit out of the loop. I consume porn (do I ever!), but my sites don't contain it, so I typically stay out of the conversations. |couch|

However, today I am being the rogue porn consumer. I like the idea of an .xxx extention on porn sites, as someone mentioned earlier, it would make them a lot easier to find. Personally, even if some search engines decided not to list them, I really don't know anyone who searches for quality porn sites on Google anyway... we go to experts like |greenguy|, of course. Personally, I don't care about kids that much, if they want to find porn, they will get around even the best security systems and if they are that slick they probably deserve it anyway. But the idea of giving up all other domains in exchange for the .xxx extention is just plain stupid. For quite some time, poor girls like me who are just looking for something good to jerk off to would have a hard time finding our favorite sites or new and improved ones. Until a switchover was complete, you wonderful people would lose money and I would lose my quality time. That is just unacceptable. |angry|

I also saw part of that TS episode, and had to wonder where they dig up "adult industry representatives" who are such useless, clueless gits. I would be better , and that is saying quite a lot!

[digart]

The closest I could find to the actual agreement or proposed agreemnet is the url below.

http://www.icann.org/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/xxx.htm

I didn't see the show you are talking about but from what your all saying sounds like total censorship agenda in the making.

Only idiots could take a good idea and add conditions to it to make it a bad one. They forget who helped build the internet.

Can anyone please show me in writting the proposal where it says you have to follow the condition of giving up any .com
sites you own?

[xxxjay]

I wonder...how much stock does Donna Rice have it .xxx?

[Jim]

xxxjay
Donna Rice is against it. It is our side that thinks it is such a wonderful idea. Donna believes that there is no way adult site owners would ever give up the domains we have.

They never mentioned the cost of a .xxx domain. But, with a contract involved, I don't think they plan on it being as cheap as we are used to paying.

[Sodo]

Jim I don't see the difference in signing a contract not to use CP, and agreeing to the TOS of of a sponsor that you're not hosting CP...I can't see how you can take that as an offence! It's just a contract and contracts always has to list the obvious!

The domain thing is totally wacky though!

Kind regards
Sodo(European)

[Jim]

Sodo
I see what you are saying and it is just my point of view. I wish I could say that I feel clicking on "Agree" is the same as me putting my name on paper but, I don't. Like I said, it's probably just me.

I have done all I can do to stop cp since the very beginning. If I see a site with it, I turn it in to the proper authorities. If I get an emal with it, I do the same. So, to tell me that I can't have a domain unless I sign a document saying I will not display cp feels like a slap in the face to me and anyone else that actively tries to stop it.

[Surfn]

Originally posted by Jim
Sodo
I see what you are saying and it is just my point of view. I wish I could say that I feel clicking on "Agree" is the same as me putting my name on paper but, I don't. Like I said, it's probably just me.

I have done all I can do to stop cp since the very beginning. If I see a site with it, I turn it in to the proper authorities. If I get an emal with it, I do the same. So, to tell me that I can't have a domain unless I sign a document saying I will not display cp feels like a slap in the face to me and anyone else that actively tries to stop it. That makes two of us. |shake|

[mikeyddddd]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Alphawolf]

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

However, it's rediculous. :D

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 |jester|

[Linkster]

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]

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]

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]

lyno,

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

[SomeCreep]

.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]

.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]

.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 |sad|

[Linkster]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Opti]

Originally posted by Greenguy
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)

I agree they are the same thing... in any proposal, making it attractive for webmasters to use the new tld is the key imho.. hopefully making it even more attractive than using a .com