| 11:18 pm on Jun 24, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Define "porn". You can't, because your definition is relative to your culture and level of tolerance.
|It would make parental controls so much easier. |
No it wouldn't - because providers won't use .xxx - it is nothing more than another money-printing scheme by ICANN. Why would a website voluntarily move to a TLD which would be viciously blocked at many levels?
|I hope the next step is forcing porn to these extensions. |
The word you are looking for is "censorship", and assuming that the promoters are not totally naive, web censorship is probably an ultimate aim (along with the usual protection scheme of ripping off of trademark holders by pushing defensive registrations). Censorship is a battle far more important than porn.
| 12:13 am on Jun 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
For the moment this may be a more applicable link since Yahoo!s' does nothing:
|Figures collated by Internet Pronography Statistics suggest .... with "sex" the number one search term in the world, accounting for 25 percent of all Internet searches. |
Oh yeah, who are they playing with, themselves?
They're in serious trouble with so much free stuff easily available!
| 10:18 am on Jun 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Official approval has been given for the creation of an internet domain dedicated to #*$!ography. |
| 10:20 am on Jun 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
It didn't. It just deferred the decision pending other input.
| 2:30 pm on Jun 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I hope the next step is forcing pron to these extensions
that would be great but then
No it wouldn't - because providers won't use .#*$! - it is nothing more than another money-printing scheme by ICANN. Why would a website voluntarily move to a TLD which would be viciously blocked at many levels?
this, I just don't see this doing anything
| 3:07 pm on Jun 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|I hope the next step is forcing pron to these extensions. |
Yes, freedom of speech is bad and must be stopped.
Assuming we use the most conservative country's definition of pron, then any woman wearing a skirt should be forced onto .x x x, right? The entire idea of trying to censor anything that offends you ("you" being defined differently by every person who logs onto the internet) is ridiculous.
To put it another way, do you really want small countries in the Middle East telling every person in the West which websites they can or cannot view?
| 3:22 pm on Jun 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Define "#*$!". You can't, because your definition is relative to your culture and level of tolerance. |
Very true, I know it is an idealistic suggestion.
|Assuming we use the most conservative country's definition of pron, then any woman wearing a skirt should be forced onto .x x x, right? The entire idea of trying to censor anything that offends you |
I agree. Except it isn't that it offends me. I think some genres of pron are very healthy for people to enjoy but my son is turning 15 and I worry about the "hard" stuff (according to my social standards and norms) that is out there.
| 4:07 pm on Jun 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I agree that this is just another money making scheme / PR stunt from ICANN. The best you can do to block p*rn is to get a good firewall and configure the webfilter. There are several wonderful, free firewalls out there that you could setup. I don't like the idea of some organization regulating adult content. After all, it's adult content that drove the frenzy for speed. You can't stream vids on dial up! ;)
| 4:15 pm on Jun 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Could make my google advanced searches a bit easier -
site:.x x x boobs
| 4:26 pm on Jun 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
this is nothing but a money-making scheme. There will be no obligation to host p*orn sites under the x x x domain. ICANN and domain name registrars are the only ones who are going to be making cash out of this. For every p*orn .com that exists, there'll be pressure put on to buy the x x x equivalent but no seriously high traffic established site is going to risk everything by going over to x x x.
added: yes, I had to go back and put spaces between the x's because, as you know, people get offended by three x's appearing together! Remember the comments in the feedback forum a few weeks ago about how WebmasterWorld had to grow up a little?
| 4:54 pm on Jun 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I see this as something voluntary done by the major players. They'll keep their .com, but add the .x x x extension.
So should I go out and buy sex.x x x ASAP?
| 5:02 pm on Jun 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Considering that they have denied the extension at least once before I have a hard time believing this is solely based on a cash grab, but I don't know the financial situation of ICANN so it may be they need it.
It could be there is just that much pron out there that a new extension is warranted, or both.
| 5:51 pm on Jun 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Sheeee, you guy are trying to argue ICCAN policy? zzzzzzz
Here is the question, folks:
Should Brett (and, you face the same issue) register
Webmasterworld.x x x !?
The answer is, yes, of course.
Now, will it have value? Nah, there are no webmasters in that field, are there? (I would not know).
(If own dot.com, I assume you get first crack at dot.x x x, right?)
| 8:36 pm on Jun 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Its a shame they did not set this up 15 years ago. Now its way too late to force all those websites onto the new tld.
| 8:37 pm on Jun 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
A lot to deal with here. Firstly I heard on the radio news today that a huge number of domains are already registered but awaiting approval to be used. I'd guess all the major players will want to use this extension.
Secondly, why are all the x's in this thread separated by spaces? The x's in the title of the thread will be tricky to search for without the spaces!
Thirdly, in theory I think the new extension is a good idea. Schools and so on can simply block all x extensions. Of course millions more will still exist. But if you see a link that ends in x's, you can be sure what it's about.
Lastly, weeks wrote "there are no webmasters in that field, are there?". Well there must be if each website needs to be created. So I imagine it is a huge market for webmasters (but one no-one likes to talk about?).
| 8:52 pm on Jun 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
This has to be THE MOST STUPID decision ever made. The con-artists behind the tld (the ones looking to make millions from it) have managed to convince un-suspecting parents and right-wing nuts that .x x x is some sort of saviour.
The .x x x tld means there will be MORE p*rn on the web. That is ALL it means.
You've just gone and provided an extra tld so p*rn sellers can buy more domains to put their images on. Will every .com, .co.uk, .info, .biz, .cc ... etc. etc. p*rn site remove their content? No. Will any remove it? Unlikely.
All this does is create more p*rn sites and make the sellers of .x x x very rich. I'm disgusted at it being passed and I'm appalled at the stupidity of everyone that fell for the sales pitch.
|It would make parental controls so much easier. |
To block the .x x x sites only. Not the millions of sites already in existence that will continue to exist. All it will do is block p*rn sites that shouldn't have existed in the first place.
|I agree that this is just another money making scheme / PR stunt from ICANN. |
It's a company called new.net that gets rich off of this isn't it? ICANN were smart enough the first couple of times to realise that this was a money-making exercise for them and was actually a very, very bad idea. They've only given in to peer pressure from idiots that fell for the PR by the company behind it all.
| 9:18 pm on Jun 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Its not a stupid decision once you accept that ICANN works for the registrars....
| 9:35 pm on Jun 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Stable door & bolted spring to mind, though this sort of measure will never work. Any how, in today's tolerant society sex is used to advertise everything, scantily clad women can sell a gullible man anything; FACT. I suppose it just depends of your personal definition of triple X material and how tolerant you are.
| 10:08 pm on Jun 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Of course it's a money grab based on defensive registrations at $60-70/year. Does anybody want their trademarks/copyrights/names associated/diluted by this extension.
The bright side appears that ICANN has only passed it to bypass the legal procedural problems.
It also means that the application has been pushed into a review of the sponsored community support which doesn't exist, and the GAC approval which rejected it before.
ICM has tried to define the "sponsoring community" to be only those people supporting the application.
|ICM’s argument, I believe, is that dot-xx is not intended to be for the whole adult industry but only those that want to sign up to it. |
If it makes it through all that then basically anybody can create a naughty TLD with a few bucks & some hand-picked "community".
I can think of a ton of "adult" keywords that would make nice TLDs. I can even think of a whole bunch of nasty non-adult keywords to use for TLDs.
Hey, I'm going to be a gadzillionaire! :)
| 10:51 pm on Jun 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I recommend this short article from The New York Times:
|Mr. Lawley said more than 100,000 domains have preregistered. He said he expected that when the dot-#*$! domains open for business, between 9 and 12 months from now, some 500,000 domains will register, or roughly 10 percent of the five to six million adult online sites. |
But Ms. Duke said many of those are likely to be “defensive” registrations, from businesses that want to prevent their names from being hijacked. Mr. Lawley said businesses can ensure that their names are not misused in the dot-#*$! world by paying a one-time fee, to be set between $50 and $250.
Um, isn't that extortion? "When a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services through coercion." Oh, wait, "unlawfully." This is different. This is legal extortion or blackmail. Gee, I feel better now.
I think this will be reconsidered and ICANN will drop the idea. There are all kinds of problems with this.
But, comics are going to love it!
There is all kinds of material here.
Example, a la Letterman or Leno:
"Here's a scary thought: <insertPersonalitynamehere>dot X X X. Noooo, we don't want to go there! No."
"Or, worse, <insertPersonalitynamehere>dot X X X!" (Shot to band leader, shaking his head; back to host.)
"But, this would work a look: <insertPersonalitynamehere>dot,Triple-X." (Drum rim shot.)
"Yeah, that might be interesting." (Audience laughing as host winks at the camera.) "Yeah?" (Cue band.)
"We'll be right back with Brett Tabke!" (audience goes wild as camera pans out)
| 12:27 am on Jun 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Think. They released the .tv suffix from Tuvalu even though TV companies had already created websites. It proved a big hit. New domains were registered to make use of it. Everyone was happy. Then new suffixes were introduced such as .travel; Why shouldn't this be any different? Existing adult sites can either carry on with their current domains or choose a new one, while brand new websites will opt for the new format from now on. This should clarify the market no?
| 5:23 am on Jun 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
This is the worst idea ever. It is kind of like creating an island for businesses that go against the grain and telling them before hand that they have to pay to go there, but most customers will never be able to communicate with them, or find them.
Yea! Sign me up!
| 5:46 am on Jun 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I work in the adult industry and won't be buying into the this C x x x! LOL - considering its voluntary people will always run with the main TLD's - but you will get companies wanting to hold onto there branding
| 7:29 am on Jun 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Novelty. I bet people will get up in arms when they see public figures names next to the x x x tld. They'll call it obscene and get all riled up (and they'll visit the site in disgust and not stop staring but hey)
Until people stop using search as the primary method of finding things the tld is irrelevant.
| 8:01 am on Jun 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|weeks: (If I own dot.com, I assume you get first crack at dot.x x x, right?) |
Last that I read on it, and apparently it's still a work in process, there is still nothing about whether the .com .net .org or other TLD gets priority.
What if they are all different people?
And regarding the $50-250 to keep your domains off the available list. I'm thinking you will need 1000s of domains to get the lower $$$s.
Money, money, money, money, money............
| 4:26 pm on Jun 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|this is nothing but a money-making scheme |
maybe, but on the upside, it will make it easy for company firewalls to block them.
| 8:51 pm on Jun 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Sgt_Kickaxe: Until people stop using search as the primary method of finding things the tld is irrelevant. |
How else are they to find things? :-)
| 10:05 pm on Jun 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I could use a few of those, and I know quite a few others who would want to do the same (ADDED: Depending on the price level, of course) ... but unlike what you expect it's not at all for pron.
I am certain that dot-X-X-X will never be pron only.
Just like dot-org is not only organisations, and dot-com isn't just commercial sites, and so on.
| 4:53 am on Jun 27, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Hmm. Since Google is smart enough to (usually) know when a search is sex/pron-related, and that .#*$! domains are exclusively for that, then maybe it will give .#*$! a little boost in the SERPs. If that's the case, that would make companies make their sites available on the .#*$! extension.
But of course, there's no reason for them to then *stop* offering the .com version, so yeah, I don't see that filtering is really enhanced.
Is there any benefit here at all? The only one I can think of is that TLD's give a clue to the user as to what a site is about, but it's not as though p*rn is currently hard to find, or that it's hard to identify a p*rn site without a special TLD.
| This 32 message thread spans 2 pages: 32 (  2 ) > > |