Read about how .XXX will block your .COM - GoFuckYourself.com

FightThisPatent · 08-08-2005, 01:09 PM

At the lunch discussion time after the .XXX panel (which Tom and Connor were on fire with their great points), i asked the opening question:

Many websites are run on virtual hosts, where one IP is used by multiple domains. If an ISP, firewall, proxy, etc does a reverse lookup on the .XXX domain and blocks by IP, wouldn't it also block the .COM as well (since it was on the same IP)?

The eventual answer from Jason Hendeles was that it is true that if someone was blocking by IP, that all the domains (ie. .COM) would also be blocked.

So for those thinking of purchasing a .XXX domain, and parking/pointing it to your .COM, your .COM can be blocked.

So if you are going to get .XXX domain(s), put it on a different vhost/IP.

Fight the public service announcement!

Hornydog4cooter · 08-08-2005, 01:11 PM

hum interesting to say the least.......

tony286 · 08-08-2005, 01:11 PM

very fucked up thanks

pornguy · 08-08-2005, 01:11 PM

Damn. Just one more FUCK you from the .xxx

FightThisPatent · 08-08-2005, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornguy

Damn. Just one more FUCK you from the .xxx

a twisted thought.. what if someone pointed their .XXX domain to be resolved to aol.com or yahoo.com ?

Fight the DNS!

Basic_man · 08-08-2005, 01:15 PM

That's one good point mate. That's for thinking about it

Sosa · 08-08-2005, 01:15 PM

intresting, and good info

Tom_PM · 08-08-2005, 01:17 PM

Did anyone ask why they didnt adopt .kids and propose all new pre-installed versions of IE allow only .kids by default? Why not?
That way, any adult buying a computer for themselves could simple go unlock the rest of the domains, other wise you've got a "kid safe" computer.
Do you think major kid domains wouldnt go for it? Are you kidding? Kids drive marketing like nobody's business, they'd flock to convert to .kids in a half a heartbeat. Especially knowing 90% of new computers browsers would be limited to them.

Yeah I know, it wont happen, but a man can dream.

BigRod · 08-08-2005, 01:18 PM

Very interesting

FightThisPatent · 08-08-2005, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

Did anyone ask why they didnt adopt .kids and propose all new pre-installed versions of IE allow only .kids by default? Why not?

that was my opening comment.. that if they ran .KIDS then the adult industry would be 100% behind ICM Registry.

The answer to that comment was there was no money in it.

.KIDS is the way to go.. have a white list.

Cybersitter and netnanny have trouble keeping up the maintenance on their blacklist.. whitelists are easier to maintain.

Fight the Lists!

mardigras · 08-08-2005, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

Did anyone ask why they didnt adopt .kids and propose all new pre-installed versions of IE allow only .kids by default? Why not?
That way, any adult buying a computer for themselves could simple go unlock the rest of the domains, other wise you've got a "kid safe" computer.
Do you think major kid domains wouldnt go for it? Are you kidding? Kids drive marketing like nobody's business, they'd flock to convert to .kids in a half a heartbeat. Especially knowing 90% of new computers browsers would be limited to them.

Yeah I know, it wont happen, but a man can dream.

But then the neo-cons and religious right couldn't use "protect the children" as a way to try to force their will on others

Tom_PM · 08-08-2005, 01:27 PM

Cool cool.. I'm glad someone is bringing this up when the opportunity is there. It's what parents would do for kids emails.. a whitelist approach. Maybe it makes too much sense.
But really, I think anyone with a kid oriented website should think about it. Imagine locking the market like that, my god.. Imagine if all new computers came with IE allowing only .XXX domains? I think everyone in the adult industry would switch faster than light.

Tom_PM · 08-08-2005, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

But then the neo-cons and religious right couldn't use "protect the children" as a way to try to force their will on others

lol yeah.. oops! Too close to the talking point.

teksonline · 08-08-2005, 01:40 PM

The eventual answer from Jason Hendeles was that it is true that if someone was blocking by IP, that all the domains (ie. .COM) would also be blocked.
..............

THIS IS TOTAL NONSENSE, You people are ALL on crack... .COM has nothing to do with anything, and the only way a site could block a .COM is the server software and referring URL scams which can be spoofed by any browser anyhow

There is a SIMPLE answer to this adult problem, if anyone cared and I am sure they already know it because it IS OH SO SIMPLE, you are getting fed nothing
but BS propaganda from a bunch of illiterate business men trying to make some cash
on something so STUPID

-----------------------------------
INSTANT SOLUTION
-----------------------------------
The use of any adult content must be put on a IP Range specified for adult sites, such as 12.xx.xx.xx as an example but do this using the new IPv6 protocol which will have enuff ip's to handle today and the next 250 years

now you have to give out more ip's to ISP's etc, but they will be all on a certain subnet, easily filtered by anyone who cares, TLD's can remain the same it wont fucking matter

END OF XXX STORY

geezus

FightThisPatent · 08-08-2005, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teksonline

-----------------------------------
INSTANT SOLUTION
-----------------------------------

i think you have missed the big picture.... putting everyone in one big block is the same "red light district" and "ghettoization" that .XXX brings.

on a technical merit, your idea is a simple "instant solution", but it negates all the ramifications and logistical issues.. the most obvious is WHO is going to make adult related content go into a specific IP block??

Fight the issues!

Cains · 08-08-2005, 01:59 PM

That would be parked pages? and what would you be doing with your main page that resulted in getting blacklisted? any page besides the index would point to the .com, so unless your index page gets blacklisted, it won't have any impact. And again I ask, why is your index page blacklisted?

The reverse IP blocking isn't very common, most filters work on domain filtering as the big-time spammers tend to move their servers around alot (ditto for domains really). Most corporate networks tend to have more complex filtering techniques than reverse IP. This is a weak argument if you ask me

FightThisPatent · 08-08-2005, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cains

The reverse IP blocking isn't very common, most filters work on domain filtering

sure they do.. today... but given the way strong interest by parties outside the industry to regulate it and corral/control it, it's not hard to see Morality in media or other groups petition hardware/software makers to make/use blockers that are IP-based.

the "weak arguments" that i have read have basically been yours.

Fight the transparency!

teksonline · 08-08-2005, 02:04 PM

.XXX IS THE BIG PICTURE? HAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

that's funniest fucking thing i heard in my life

"red light district" no it's call ZONING, the reason why noone cared to consider this is there's no MONEY TO BE MADE in zoning, so by fooling others into spending money when it doesnt have the slightest possibility of working is the way to go...

There's no REAL CONCERN to zone, so it's not to be done, only ones trying to do it are those trying to create a market for themselves. zoning also would also put many businesses out of business, so its catch 22, fight for zoning, puts them out of business so anyone for that idea such as child protection organizations would be out of business, and things such as netnanny etc just for starting points, because there will be no need for lists/filtering or anything
of said nature.

The only people who care are the ones that stand to make a penny, those promoting XXX and filling your mind with utter propaganda of the silliest nature, how can you even buy into .XXX is what makes me cringe and realize how dumb the general public is... fucking halirious shit

Gee, lets develop 5015 different technologies of useless hackable top level solutions, that make money off those who are in the business, and do nothing as anyone who wants to get around it will, or develop 1 low level instant solution that would end all controvery, put all the businesses that are preaching STOP the porn out of business, and ease the minds of all who use the internet. WONT HAPPEN, as you can see the concern IS NOT THERE, only money is concerned about

Cains · 08-08-2005, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

sure they do.. today... but given the way strong interest by parties outside the industry to regulate it and corral/control it, it's not hard to see Morality in media or other groups petition hardware/software makers to make/use blockers that are IP-based.

the "weak arguments" that i have read have basically been yours.

Fight the transparency!

So you believe corporate filtering companies like Cisco are going to completely re-configure how their appliances work because the evangelists think people looking at porn is wrong? I'm sorry but that kind of argument doesn't stand up

The trend in your ideas against .XXX always comes from a "but they could in the future" .XXX poses no threat now, and the same "in the future they could" arguments are true for .com, so why aren't they doing it now?

teksonline · 08-08-2005, 02:11 PM

one more line about above post

.XXX is not zoning? lol its zoning in the stupidest form

Hustlin Entertainment · 08-08-2005, 02:14 PM

fuck .XXX it would never pass

FightThisPatent · 08-08-2005, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cains

The trend in your ideas against .XXX always comes from a "but they could in the future" .XXX poses no threat now, and the same "in the future they could" arguments are true for .com, so why aren't they doing it now?

.XXX says it will "protect children" children. meaning that it "could in the future" if there was .XXX Do you believe that .XXX will "protect children" ?

NetNanny and other blocking software realized that blocking by IP was a bad idea because of the virtual hosting issue.

There could be website that has text stories about rape, that is on the same vhost as other sites, and it would block the "good" sites (since the other filtering sofware had different categories for blocking/filtering).

the same argument could be applied to my point, but usually "mainstream" sites don't allow "adult" content.. and those that do host adult content, would effectively have the IP lookup be an easy way to identify a domain to be looked up.

snce you feel my "what if" scenarios are far-fetched, please critique ICM/IFFORs position that .XXX will "protect children".

fight the inquisition!

FightThisPatent · 08-08-2005, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hustlin Entertainment

fuck .XXX it would never pass

huh? .XXX has already been approved by ICANN

http://www.icmregistry.com/ICMPressRelease.html

Fight the you are here graphic!

teksonline · 08-08-2005, 02:25 PM

yes, its been approved which is why your hearing all this bs propoganda, so you go and buy all the .xxx domains... Doesnt anyone get it? LOL

It will not be any different than any other TLD, thats what Hustlin Means

Cains · 08-08-2005, 02:35 PM

Simple, .XXX isn't so much a 100% protection method, it's just another tool. No filtering software is ever going to be 100% effective, the proliferation of content means no filter is ever going to even get close.

The number of main content producers (I don't include TGPs in this) is probably around 1000, then multiply by resellers, then by SEO spammers and the number is into the millions. Then you get through the various protocols of the net; WWW/email/p2p and no filter is ever going to get close, especially when you factor in dead-domain purchases. So no, .XXX is not the the saviour of the children, you couldn't even begin to police a move of every adult site onto .XXX, the numbers make it impossible.

.XXX is pitched as a tool to help parents, not a one-stop solution. IE and the other browsers will just add a simple yes/no option of blocking .XXX. Now that in itself is not going to do much to protect children, but it makes parents feel that little bit safer (even if it is somewhat naive). Now isn't that good for the industry? We come across in a slightly better light than the usual "pornographers try to lure children to their adult websites". All the negativity comes from "in the future, they could" scenarios, I haven't heard any negatives for today.

Dalai lama · 08-08-2005, 02:38 PM

Interesting, thanks for this info.

FightThisPatent · 08-08-2005, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cains

.XXX is pitched as a tool to help parents, not a one-stop solution. IE and the other browsers will just add a simple yes/no option of blocking .XXX. Now that in itself is not going to do much to protect children, but it makes parents feel that little bit safer (even if it is somewhat naive). Now isn't that good for the industry?

so why can't websites just use an ICRA labelling to achive the same thing?

i realize that not too many adut sites do this "voluntarily", but it's the same situation about how many domain owners would actually "voluntarily" purchase the .XXX equivalents of their .COM

the argument that anti-.XXX posters have made about how visa "could" make .COM owners use .XXX can also go the other way, that visa "could" make ICRA labelling a requirement.

even IFFOR suggests the use of ICRA ratings...

so given that ICRA blockers already exist today, and its free, and achieves all the same "child protection" points you mentioned, why the need for .XXX then?

Fight the barbara wa-wa!

Cains · 08-08-2005, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

so given that ICRA blockers already exist today, and its free, and achieves all the same "child protection" points you mentioned, why the need for .XXX then?

Why the need for .POST? .JOBS? .MOBI? there is a market for them and there's a market for .XXX

All the other ssTLDs are designed to provide positives to the internet, the since they're all commercially sponsored, provide some kind of profit.

Do we need them? not desperately, but .com has become so crowded and the internet is such a rapidly growing entity, it makes sense.

ssTLDs are designed to be positive, and commercially viable. Aslong as they don't negatively impact the internet and there is a genuine use for a ssTLD, it'll be approved. It's not a question of zoning, WWW is far too big to even begin to zone sites based on content.

As far as VISA/Mastercard choosing where the process, well that's their business. They have made no announcements thus far, and infact if they do the FSC or some other lobby has a good case against them in court as credit card processors have some obligation to serve merchants.

tony286 · 08-08-2005, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cains

Why the need for .POST? .JOBS? .MOBI? there is a market for them and there's a market for .XXX

All the other ssTLDs are designed to provide positives to the internet, the since they're all commercially sponsored, provide some kind of profit.

Do we need them? not desperately, but .com has become so crowded and the internet is such a rapidly growing entity, it makes sense.

ssTLDs are designed to be positive, and commercially viable. Aslong as they don't negatively impact the internet and there is a genuine use for a ssTLD, it'll be approved. It's not a question of zoning, WWW is far too big to even begin to zone sites based on content.

As far as VISA/Mastercard choosing where the process, well that's their business. They have made no announcements thus far, and infact if they do the FSC or some other lobby has a good case against them in court as credit card processors have some obligation to serve merchants.

Visa/mastercard can decide to process and not process anyone they want. They have no obligation to serve anyone , they are not a government agency.Amex dropped adult as it is their right to do.

FightThisPatent · 08-08-2005, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cains

Why the need for .POST? .JOBS? .MOBI? there is a market for them and there's a market for .XXX

in case no one asked, or i had missed the anwer from previous threads.. are you an adult industry webmaster or a non-industry person?

Fight the ringers!

Cains · 08-08-2005, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

Visa/mastercard can decide to process and not process anyone they want. They have no obligation to serve anyone , they are not a government agency.Amex dropped adult as it is their right to do.

You're right there, but they have some obligation, ie why haven't they dropped online gambling given the US government's position on US customers gambling online. It makes them money, they may up the rates to deal with the chargebacks but that's all. Amex is notorious for their merchant policy, it goes way beyond adult.

Even though VISA/MC could take away online adult processing, I doubt they will. With managers like Ron Cadwell around, adult is in capable hands, let them deal with it.

Cains · 08-08-2005, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

in case no one asked, or i had missed the anwer from previous threads.. are you an adult industry webmaster or a non-industry person?

Fight the ringers!

Yes I own some adult 'sites', if you can call TGPs and other non-involved stuff adult. Most of my business is mainstream, feel free to use this against me

FightThisPatent · 08-08-2005, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cains

Even though VISA/MC could take away online adult processing, I doubt they will. With managers like Ron Cadwell around, adult is in capable hands, let them deal with it.

you must not be aware of VISA pulling the plug on online tobacco sales, their issues with onlline gambling and alcohol sales that ties into the issue of age verification then.

adult transactons are a small percentage of visa's overall portfolio, that they don't really need adult...

Fight the visa giveth and visa taketh!

FightThisPatent · 08-09-2005, 08:02 AM

Fight the Bump!

polish_aristocrat · 08-12-2005, 05:17 AM

good thread

StatsJunky · 08-12-2005, 05:42 AM

A solution I had in my mind would be to have the registry maintain something similar to the ICRA. Make it voluntary and promote it thru the registries and registrars.

Funding could be easily allocated by governments or child protection agencies around the world.

How it would work:

I buy/receive a domain and my intended use is for pornography or something that would be inapropriate for children. Upon receipt or purchase I would be presented with a page that asked if my intended use of the domain would be inapopriate for children. If yes, I would verify that it is. This information would be passed on to a non profit/non government organization such as ICANN. ICANN would solely maintain the list of domains that are inapropriate for children.

ICANN would distribute freely thru its registrars software available for end users to access and block these sites that are deemed inapropriate for children.

If a domain becomes deleted/expired the domain would be removed from the database of inapropriate sites for children. If there becomes a new owner, that person would intiate the process over again stating if the domains intended use is inapropriate for children.

No need for another TLD and no need for government intervention this way. Webmasters block access to children, parents feel safer alowing their children to use the net and children don't stumble across adult content.

StatsJunky · 08-12-2005, 05:52 AM

Oh and I support .XXX. Not because it will do anything to prevent children from seeing or accessing adult content. Because it will be a cash cow for domain speculators and resellers.

Don't beleive the hype regarding protecting children. It won't be any better than the filtering software that is available now. If anything it will make it easier for children to find pornography.

JFK · 08-12-2005, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

.XXX says it will "protect children" children. meaning that it "could in the future" if there was .XXX Do you believe that .XXX will "protect children" ?

NetNanny and other blocking software realized that blocking by IP was a bad idea because of the virtual hosting issue.

There could be website that has text stories about rape, that is on the same vhost as other sites, and it would block the "good" sites (since the other filtering sofware had different categories for blocking/filtering).

the same argument could be applied to my point, but usually "mainstream" sites don't allow "adult" content.. and those that do host adult content, would effectively have the IP lookup be an easy way to identify a domain to be looked up.

snce you feel my "what if" scenarios are far-fetched, please critique ICM/IFFORs position that .XXX will "protect children".

fight the inquisition!

".XXX says it will "protect children" children. meaning that it "could in the future" if there was .XXX Do you believe that .XXX will "protect children" ?"

I do not believe that for 1 second

jimmyf · 08-12-2005, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JFK

".XXX says it will "protect children" children. meaning that it "could in the future" if there was .XXX Do you believe that .XXX will "protect children" ?"

I do not believe that for 1 second

I don't believe it will either.

.XXX is a bunch bullshit. And I wonder what it will be after .XXX, cause it sure the fuck won't protect children.

08-08-2005, 01:09 PM	#1
FightThisPatent Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 4,090	Read about how .XXX will block your .COM At the lunch discussion time after the .XXX panel (which Tom and Connor were on fire with their great points), i asked the opening question: Many websites are run on virtual hosts, where one IP is used by multiple domains. If an ISP, firewall, proxy, etc does a reverse lookup on the .XXX domain and blocks by IP, wouldn't it also block the .COM as well (since it was on the same IP)? The eventual answer from Jason Hendeles was that it is true that if someone was blocking by IP, that all the domains (ie. .COM) would also be blocked. So for those thinking of purchasing a .XXX domain, and parking/pointing it to your .COM, your .COM can be blocked. So if you are going to get .XXX domain(s), put it on a different vhost/IP. Fight the public service announcement! __________________ http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! \| http://www.FightThePatent.com \| ICQ 52741957

08-08-2005, 01:11 PM	#4
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,897	Damn. Just one more FUCK you from the .xxx __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

08-08-2005, 01:15 PM	#6
Basic_man Programming King Pin Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Montreal Posts: 27,360	That's one good point mate. That's for thinking about it __________________ UUGallery Builder - automated photo/video gallery plugin for Wordpress! Stop looking! Checkout Naked Hosting, online since 1999 !

08-08-2005, 01:17 PM	#8
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	Did anyone ask why they didnt adopt .kids and propose all new pre-installed versions of IE allow only .kids by default? Why not? That way, any adult buying a computer for themselves could simple go unlock the rest of the domains, other wise you've got a "kid safe" computer. Do you think major kid domains wouldnt go for it? Are you kidding? Kids drive marketing like nobody's business, they'd flock to convert to .kids in a half a heartbeat. Especially knowing 90% of new computers browsers would be limited to them. Yeah I know, it wont happen, but a man can dream. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

08-08-2005, 01:18 PM	#9
BigRod Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 3,685	Very interesting __________________ Rod Macdonald Mainstream Ad Agency Owner ICQ: 607306

08-08-2005, 01:11 PM	#2
Hornydog4cooter Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,859	hum interesting to say the least.......

08-08-2005, 01:11 PM	#3
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	very fucked up thanks

08-08-2005, 01:15 PM	#7
Sosa In Tushy Land Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Nebraska Posts: 40,149	intresting, and good info

08-08-2005, 01:27 PM	#12
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	Cool cool.. I'm glad someone is bringing this up when the opportunity is there. It's what parents would do for kids emails.. a whitelist approach. Maybe it makes too much sense. But really, I think anyone with a kid oriented website should think about it. Imagine locking the market like that, my god.. Imagine if all new computers came with IE allowing only .XXX domains? I think everyone in the adult industry would switch faster than light. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

08-08-2005, 01:40 PM	#14
teksonline So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: At My Desk Posts: 2,904	The eventual answer from Jason Hendeles was that it is true that if someone was blocking by IP, that all the domains (ie. .COM) would also be blocked. .............. THIS IS TOTAL NONSENSE, You people are ALL on crack... .COM has nothing to do with anything, and the only way a site could block a .COM is the server software and referring URL scams which can be spoofed by any browser anyhow There is a SIMPLE answer to this adult problem, if anyone cared and I am sure they already know it because it IS OH SO SIMPLE, you are getting fed nothing but BS propaganda from a bunch of illiterate business men trying to make some cash on something so STUPID ----------------------------------- INSTANT SOLUTION ----------------------------------- The use of any adult content must be put on a IP Range specified for adult sites, such as 12.xx.xx.xx as an example but do this using the new IPv6 protocol which will have enuff ip's to handle today and the next 250 years now you have to give out more ip's to ISP's etc, but they will be all on a certain subnet, easily filtered by anyone who cares, TLD's can remain the same it wont fucking matter END OF XXX STORY geezus

08-08-2005, 01:59 PM	#16
Cains Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 407	That would be parked pages? and what would you be doing with your main page that resulted in getting blacklisted? any page besides the index would point to the .com, so unless your index page gets blacklisted, it won't have any impact. And again I ask, why is your index page blacklisted? The reverse IP blocking isn't very common, most filters work on domain filtering as the big-time spammers tend to move their servers around alot (ditto for domains really). Most corporate networks tend to have more complex filtering techniques than reverse IP. This is a weak argument if you ask me

08-08-2005, 02:04 PM	#18
teksonline So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: At My Desk Posts: 2,904	.XXX IS THE BIG PICTURE? HAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA that's funniest fucking thing i heard in my life "red light district" no it's call ZONING, the reason why noone cared to consider this is there's no MONEY TO BE MADE in zoning, so by fooling others into spending money when it doesnt have the slightest possibility of working is the way to go... There's no REAL CONCERN to zone, so it's not to be done, only ones trying to do it are those trying to create a market for themselves. zoning also would also put many businesses out of business, so its catch 22, fight for zoning, puts them out of business so anyone for that idea such as child protection organizations would be out of business, and things such as netnanny etc just for starting points, because there will be no need for lists/filtering or anything of said nature. The only people who care are the ones that stand to make a penny, those promoting XXX and filling your mind with utter propaganda of the silliest nature, how can you even buy into .XXX is what makes me cringe and realize how dumb the general public is... fucking halirious shit Gee, lets develop 5015 different technologies of useless hackable top level solutions, that make money off those who are in the business, and do nothing as anyone who wants to get around it will, or develop 1 low level instant solution that would end all controvery, put all the businesses that are preaching STOP the porn out of business, and ease the minds of all who use the internet. WONT HAPPEN, as you can see the concern IS NOT THERE, only money is concerned about

08-08-2005, 02:11 PM	#20
teksonline So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: At My Desk Posts: 2,904	one more line about above post .XXX is not zoning? lol its zoning in the stupidest form

08-08-2005, 02:14 PM	#21
Hustlin Entertainment So Fucking Banned Join Date: May 2002 Location: Nassau,Bahamas Posts: 2,326	fuck .XXX it would never pass

08-08-2005, 02:25 PM	#24
teksonline So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: At My Desk Posts: 2,904	yes, its been approved which is why your hearing all this bs propoganda, so you go and buy all the .xxx domains... Doesnt anyone get it? LOL It will not be any different than any other TLD, thats what Hustlin Means

08-08-2005, 02:35 PM	#25
Cains Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 407	Simple, .XXX isn't so much a 100% protection method, it's just another tool. No filtering software is ever going to be 100% effective, the proliferation of content means no filter is ever going to even get close. The number of main content producers (I don't include TGPs in this) is probably around 1000, then multiply by resellers, then by SEO spammers and the number is into the millions. Then you get through the various protocols of the net; WWW/email/p2p and no filter is ever going to get close, especially when you factor in dead-domain purchases. So no, .XXX is not the the saviour of the children, you couldn't even begin to police a move of every adult site onto .XXX, the numbers make it impossible. .XXX is pitched as a tool to help parents, not a one-stop solution. IE and the other browsers will just add a simple yes/no option of blocking .XXX. Now that in itself is not going to do much to protect children, but it makes parents feel that little bit safer (even if it is somewhat naive). Now isn't that good for the industry? We come across in a slightly better light than the usual "pornographers try to lure children to their adult websites". All the negativity comes from "in the future, they could" scenarios, I haven't heard any negatives for today.

08-08-2005, 02:38 PM	#26
Dalai lama Strength and Honor Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 16,540	Interesting, thanks for this info. __________________ A program you can trust. Gallerybooster Run multiply TGPs of 1 script

08-09-2005, 08:02 AM	#34
FightThisPatent Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 4,090	Fight the Bump! __________________ http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! \| http://www.FightThePatent.com \| ICQ 52741957

08-12-2005, 05:17 AM	#35
polish_aristocrat Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 40,381	good thread __________________ I don't use ICQ anymore.

08-12-2005, 05:42 AM	#36
StatsJunky Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Checking My Stats Posts: 639	A solution I had in my mind would be to have the registry maintain something similar to the ICRA. Make it voluntary and promote it thru the registries and registrars. Funding could be easily allocated by governments or child protection agencies around the world. How it would work: I buy/receive a domain and my intended use is for pornography or something that would be inapropriate for children. Upon receipt or purchase I would be presented with a page that asked if my intended use of the domain would be inapopriate for children. If yes, I would verify that it is. This information would be passed on to a non profit/non government organization such as ICANN. ICANN would solely maintain the list of domains that are inapropriate for children. ICANN would distribute freely thru its registrars software available for end users to access and block these sites that are deemed inapropriate for children. If a domain becomes deleted/expired the domain would be removed from the database of inapropriate sites for children. If there becomes a new owner, that person would intiate the process over again stating if the domains intended use is inapropriate for children. No need for another TLD and no need for government intervention this way. Webmasters block access to children, parents feel safer alowing their children to use the net and children don't stumble across adult content.

08-12-2005, 05:52 AM	#37
StatsJunky Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Checking My Stats Posts: 639	Oh and I support .XXX. Not because it will do anything to prevent children from seeing or accessing adult content. Because it will be a cash cow for domain speculators and resellers. Don't beleive the hype regarding protecting children. It won't be any better than the filtering software that is available now. If anything it will make it easier for children to find pornography. Last edited by StatsJunky; 08-12-2005 at 05:53 AM..