.xxx

[cbk]

Could "Dot Triple X" be the new porn standard in 5 years?

 

[katherine]

In some alternate reality maybe

 

[invincible]

what about this combo xeksx.com?

 

[DomainsInc]

india is saying they are going to block .xxx domains and other countries are to follow.

 

[elius]

it can only become a succes if all other extensions block/censure all adult type domains. I don't see this happen in the near future although it could be possible.

 

[grcorp]

it can only become a succes if all other extensions block/censure all adult type domains. I don't see this happen in the near future although it could be possible.

I have confidence that laws will be made to better restrict the internet, this being one of many ways.

When all it takes is a click of a large, prominent, "I AGREE" link for a minor to access an adult website, there is no way to enforce the laws which keep adult websites adult websites.

IMO, there are 2 reasons why the adult industry is opposed to it...

1. .xxx is not as recognized as .com

How will niche porn sites get found on Google? Will there need to be a Google.xxx just for adult searches?

.com having been around since 1985, that's what people are used to typing in. It will take a long time for .xxx to catch on, and the adult industry will suffer profoundly from it.

2. Minors are a great source of traffic for these sites

While they say that access by those under the age of 18 years is "Strictly prohibited", that's nothing more than a formality so that when minors get past the disclaimer, it's their wrongdoing, and not the webmasters'. I know 100% for a fact that they welcome traffic from anybody and everybody. Who wouldn't?

It's just like liquor stores - they post the signs saying that you need to be of legal age to buy liquor, etc. etc.... but they know that minors, like anybody else, have money to buy liquor with, and will welcome the business because so long as they have fulfilled their duty in preventing liability on their part, it's business as usual.

Now, the argument of "Minors don't have credit cards, so if they can't pay for memberships, why would the webmasters want their traffic?" can be put forth - but all it takes is a simple purchase of a "gift" visa/mastercard from your local grocery store or 7-eleven, pre-loaded with any amount from $25 to $200, and the minor can make the same purchase an adult could.

And guess what? Visa or Mastercard won't comply in restricting this. They make money on the purchase of the card, and get to hold the proceeds without paying interest on it, as well as the processing fees once money is spent.


No matter how much backlash this would get, the internet is far too unregulated, and I can say that even as a domainer who profits off of the lack of regulation, and it won't be long before the governments will start tightening the screws.

DCG said in another thread to start dumping your adult .com's - and I would recommend doing the same. Get that money while you still can.

 

[DomainsInc]

I have confidence that laws will be made to better restrict the internet, this being one of many ways.

When all it takes is a click of a large, prominent, "I AGREE" link for a minor to access an adult website, there is no way to enforce the laws which keep adult websites adult websites.

IMO, there are 2 reasons why the adult industry is opposed to it...

1. .xxx is not as recognized as .com

How will niche porn sites get found on Google? Will there need to be a Google.xxx just for adult searches?

.com having been around since 1985, that's what people are used to typing in. It will take a long time for .xxx to catch on, and the adult industry will suffer profoundly from it.

2. Minors are a great source of traffic for these sites

While they say that access by those under the age of 18 years is "Strictly prohibited", that's nothing more than a formality so that when minors get past the disclaimer, it's their wrongdoing, and not the webmasters'. I know 100% for a fact that they welcome traffic from anybody and everybody. Who wouldn't?

It's just like liquor stores - they post the signs saying that you need to be of legal age to buy liquor, etc. etc.... but they know that minors, like anybody else, have money to buy liquor with, and will welcome the business because so long as they have fulfilled their duty in preventing liability on their part, it's business as usual.

Now, the argument of "Minors don't have credit cards, so if they can't pay for memberships, why would the webmasters want their traffic?" can be put forth - but all it takes is a simple purchase of a "gift" visa/mastercard from your local grocery store or 7-eleven, pre-loaded with any amount from $25 to $200, and the minor can make the same purchase an adult could.

And guess what? Visa or Mastercard won't comply in restricting this. They make money on the purchase of the card, and get to hold the proceeds without paying interest on it, as well as the processing fees once money is spent.


No matter how much backlash this would get, the internet is far too unregulated, and I can say that even as a domainer who profits off of the lack of regulation, and it won't be long before the governments will start tightening the screws.

DCG said in another thread to start dumping your adult .com's - and I would recommend doing the same. Get that money while you still can.

don't you think that its a parents job to make sure their children aren't surfing the net unmonitored? any kid can get someone else to buy dirty magazines, just a click of a button to buy ppv porn on the tv and parents get billed, etc. parents need to start parenting instead of expecting the government to do so. porn has been made a free speech issue, something like that would take decades to fully pass, and even then good luck on getting every country to agree to one set of 'rules' and who determines what is adult content and what is not. want to dump your quality adult com's? pm me, i might buy them for rock bottom prices of course.

 

[Theo]

People should engage in sex more often and fight fewer wars that kill others.

 

[grcorp]

don't you think that its a parents job to make sure their children aren't surfing the net unmonitored? any kid can get someone else to buy dirty magazines, just a click of a button to buy ppv porn on the tv and parents get billed, etc. parents need to start parenting instead of expecting the government to do so. porn has been made a free speech issue, something like that would take decades to fully pass, and even then good luck on getting every country to agree to one set of 'rules' and who determines what is adult content and what is not. want to dump your quality adult com's? pm me, i might buy them for rock bottom prices of course.

I won't comment on whether or not it's a parents' job to do anything. All parents have their own parenting style, and it is not my place to make a statement, as someone else's family life and children is none of my business.

I will say, however, that monitoring a child's access to the internet is a very difficult thing to do for a few reasons...

1. Given the amount of time which is normal for kids to spend online, it would be a very daunting task for a parent to monitor this, especially if the parents are preoccupied in their use of the internet. Multiply the difficulty level for each child in the family.

2. Browsers such as google chrome having incognito modes, as well as history being very easy to delete in non-incognito modes of browsing, seeing what your child is doing online may not be possible.

3. Even if the parents went so far as to view the ISP browsing records, how can accessing adult websites be pinpointed to one particular child? What if there are three children? Who do you accuse? What if it's the father that's watching porn while the wife isn't home and none of the children are watching porn?

What if the child connects to their neighbors' wireless internet to watch porn, thus not showing up on the ISP records for their own home? Or what about the reverse of somebody nearby accessing the family's wireless internet to watch porn and none of the house's occupants are watching porn?


You can't deny that implementing a .xxx tld will cause all of these evasion techniques to be futile; monitoring is not necessary if it is pre-arranged with an ISP to not allow sites in the .xxx TLD, browsing history would be no good if the sites can't be accessed to begin with, and there is no debating who is guilty of watching porn if the site, once again, couldn't be accessed in the first place.

The only workaround would be the use of the neighbors' wireless internet, but with proper security measures on their part, this problem can be eliminated, as well as to program the child's computer to only be able to access the in-house wireless and no other network.

Buying dirty magazines is certainly one option, but that leaves physical evidence for the parents to find (whereas browsing history, as I said above, is much more difficult to utilize as proof). It also can be more easily restricted by the merchant (convenience store clerk might ask for ID, stopping the minor in his tracks), not to mention that the selection of porn found in magazines does not compare to the selection you can find online, especially if the minor has found a taste in more specific niches.

As for PPV porn, most digital TV boxes require a password for it, and even if the child was to get the password, they would only be home free for 30 days at most, because once the charge shows up on the bill, their cover is blown, whereas going on the internet to view porn is billed in the same way that going on the internet to do homework is. Not to mention that the TV is typically in a more public setting than one's personal computer might be, so being walked in on is much more likely to happen, thus, blowing their cover.

While foreign hosted porn might circumvent US laws (or the laws of whatever country is trying to restrict the access of porn to minors), you have to remember that the internet is accessed through an ISP, who is subject to the laws of the country in which it is operating. I have every reason to believe that adequate laws and policies can be passed to prevent minors from accessing porn. And since the parents are the ones who are paying the ISP's, they're the ones who have a say in the matter, given the choice of block porn or don't block porn.

---------- Post added at 03:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ----------

People should engage in sex more often and fight fewer wars that kill others.

If it's easier for people to get any, then the adult industry dies

 

[DomainsInc]

I won't comment on whether or not it's a parents' job to do anything. All parents have their own parenting style, and it is not my place to make a statement, as someone else's family life and children is none of my business.

I will say, however, that monitoring a child's access to the internet is a very difficult thing to do for a few reasons...

1. Given the amount of time which is normal for kids to spend online, it would be a very daunting task for a parent to monitor this, especially if the parents are preoccupied in their use of the internet. Multiply the difficulty level for each child in the family.

2. Browsers such as google chrome having incognito modes, as well as history being very easy to delete in non-incognito modes of browsing, seeing what your child is doing online may not be possible.

3. Even if the parents went so far as to view the ISP browsing records, how can accessing adult websites be pinpointed to one particular child? What if there are three children? Who do you accuse? What if it's the father that's watching porn while the wife isn't home and none of the children are watching porn?

What if the child connects to their neighbors' wireless internet to watch porn, thus not showing up on the ISP records for their own home? Or what about the reverse of somebody nearby accessing the family's wireless internet to watch porn and none of the house's occupants are watching porn?


You can't deny that implementing a .xxx tld will cause all of these evasion techniques to be futile; monitoring is not necessary if it is pre-arranged with an ISP to not allow sites in the .xxx TLD, browsing history would be no good if the sites can't be accessed to begin with, and there is no debating who is guilty of watching porn if the site, once again, couldn't be accessed in the first place.

The only workaround would be the use of the neighbors' wireless internet, but with proper security measures on their part, this problem can be eliminated, as well as to program the child's computer to only be able to access the in-house wireless and no other network.

Buying dirty magazines is certainly one option, but that leaves physical evidence for the parents to find (whereas browsing history, as I said above, is much more difficult to utilize as proof). It also can be more easily restricted by the merchant (convenience store clerk might ask for ID, stopping the minor in his tracks), not to mention that the selection of porn found in magazines does not compare to the selection you can find online, especially if the minor has found a taste in more specific niches.

As for PPV porn, most digital TV boxes require a password for it, and even if the child was to get the password, they would only be home free for 30 days at most, because once the charge shows up on the bill, their cover is blown, whereas going on the internet to view porn is billed in the same way that going on the internet to do homework is. Not to mention that the TV is typically in a more public setting than one's personal computer might be, so being walked in on is much more likely to happen, thus, blowing their cover.

While foreign hosted porn might circumvent US laws (or the laws of whatever country is trying to restrict the access of porn to minors), you have to remember that the internet is accessed through an ISP, who is subject to the laws of the country in which it is operating. I have every reason to believe that adequate laws and policies can be passed to prevent minors from accessing porn. And since the parents are the ones who are paying the ISP's, they're the ones who have a say in the matter, given the choice of block porn or don't block porn.

---------- Post added at 03:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ----------



If it's easier for people to get any, then the adult industry dies

I simply don't agree. Its not normal for kids to spent lots of time online, the internet if still fairly new, who is supposed to determine what is normal internet use for varying age groups? keep computers in public areas, use netnanny and the like. There is no need to spend billions of dollars on something that will still be inneffective without parental assistance. (dad is not going to want to give up his porn). Anyways, i will leave you with this. There was a law some people tried to get passed that would require all explicit content to be behind an age verification system but was struck down by the supreme court because they felt there was already adequate ways for parents to block porn from their computers.

 

[Theo]

To me .xxx is just another TLD with the added bonus that it's not going to be a surprise when someone types an innocent keyword .xxx - one should know that buns.xxx won't be about Cuban bread loaves.

 

[grcorp]

I simply don't agree. Its not normal for kids to spent lots of time online, the internet if still fairly new, who is supposed to determine what is normal internet use for varying age groups? keep computers in public areas, use netnanny and the like. There is no need to spend billions of dollars on something that will still be inneffective without parental assistance. Anyways, i will leave you with this. There was a law some people tried to get passed that would require all explicit content to be behind an age verification system but was struck down by the supreme court because they felt there was already adequate ways for parents to block porn from their computers.

I don't have the stats to back it up, but kids spending hours on end online is nothing new. It started with chat rooms and MMORPG's in the 1990's, then MSN and AIM in the late 1990's, then MySpace, then Facebook. These are all pretexts to get them on the computer, and can leave parents comfortable with the thought that these are the things they are doing, providing them with ample opportunity to access adult sites unopposed.

I am 100% in favor of keeping computers in public areas, but with laptops being the normal technology nowadays, what is stopping children from moving them to the place of their choosing for privacy purposes? Especially at night, when they'd just be able to sneak the computer into their bedroom.

What about iPhones and iPod touches? They are so concealable that they can be taken anywhere and used for any purpose, including to watch porn.

Netnanny is old news - kids are too savvy and know how to uninstall such software, and excuses can be made such as asking their parents to disable netnanny as it's blocking something they need for research for a school project. Also, with sex being a much more widely taught subject in schools, researching anything sexual in nature is sure to cause netnanny to block it, being counter-productive in preventing them from using the internet for legitimate purposes.

Given how the iPhone OS is structured, it would also be virtually impossible to implement netnanny-like software to block out adult content, while recognizing an entire TLD as prohibited is much easier to restrict.

I wouldn't mind seeing that court case, BTW... I can almost guarantee you it was decided in the early 2000's before this became a known issue, and technologies allowed for easier monitoring (i.e. desktops were in the majority rather than laptops, so they are not movable to accommodate privacy).

---------- Post added at 03:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ----------

To me .xxx is just another TLD with the added bonus that it's not going to be a surprise when someone types an innocent keyword .xxx - one should know that buns.xxx won't be about Cuban bread loaves.

It's just about impossible to innocently mistype .xxx versus .com, and even if a minor was to say "Oh, I was curious about what .xxx is so I tried going to some websites", a TLD is easier to block at the browser or ISP level than an ambiguous criteria of content.

 

[DomainsInc]

I don't have the stats to back it up, but kids spending hours on end online is nothing new. It started with chat rooms and MMORPG's in the 1990's, then MSN and AIM in the late 1990's, then MySpace, then Facebook. These are all pretexts to get them on the computer, and can leave parents comfortable with the thought that these are the things they are doing, providing them with ample opportunity to access adult sites unopposed.

I am 100% in favor of keeping computers in public areas, but with laptops being the normal technology nowadays, what is stopping children from moving them to the place of their choosing for privacy purposes? Especially at night, when they'd just be able to sneak the computer into their bedroom.

What about iPhones and iPod touches? They are so concealable that they can be taken anywhere and used for any purpose, including to watch porn.

Netnanny is old news - kids are too savvy and know how to uninstall such software, and excuses can be made such as asking their parents to disable netnanny as it's blocking something they need for research for a school project. Also, with sex being a much more widely taught subject in schools, researching anything sexual in nature is sure to cause netnanny to block it, being counter-productive in preventing them from using the internet for legitimate purposes.

Given how the iPhone OS is structured, it would also be virtually impossible to implement netnanny-like software to block out adult content, while recognizing an entire TLD as prohibited is much easier to restrict.

I wouldn't mind seeing that court case, BTW... I can almost guarantee you it was decided in the early 2000's before this became a known issue, and technologies allowed for easier monitoring (i.e. desktops were in the majority rather than laptops, so they are not movable to accommodate privacy).

---------- Post added at 03:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ----------



It's just about impossible to innocently mistype .xxx versus .com, and even if a minor was to say "Oh, I was curious about what .xxx is so I tried going to some websites", a TLD is easier to block at the browser or ISP level than an ambiguous criteria of content.

It was decided in 2007. Block porn but continue to allow online predators prey on kids in chatrooms. Oh and as someone who grew up before the net, it certainly didn't stop my access to getting porn.

 

[mjnels]

it will change the world as .mobi has :cheesy:

 

[BostonDomainer]

Could "Dot Triple X" be the new porn standard in 5 years?

idi.ot in ohhhh.... right now

 

[kingberto]

People should engage in sex more often and fight fewer wars that kill others.​

Couldn't have said it better myself. but i do think the the .xxx tld will be more like the .me than the .co. It will be hot for a few months and some people will make money on it but i dont see it as becoming a domainer "need". It will be unfortunate for companies and non profits that have to register it for brand and copyright purposes just to save their name or prevent legal issues. can you imagine peta.xxx ? now that is taking care of animals isn't it?

 

[grcorp]

can you imagine peta.xxx ? now that is taking care of animals isn't it?

Oh, how much opportunity is there for bad jokes here? Everything from "doggy style", to "they're going at it like animals!".

A porn network should re-name themselves PETA - "Properly Entertaining The Adults". Think that would get them the rights to peta.xxx? :smilewinkgrin: