Dvorak: On .XXX Domain

Thesifer · 12-14-2005, 10:12 AM

I found this to be one of the best written editorials from Dvorak at PC Magazine. Typically it seems to be a hit or miss with this guy and whether or not he has a legitimate thing to say, this article is discussing the dropping of the .XXX domain creation from the ICANN Agenda. I completely agree with his comments about how stupid some groups fighting against it are.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1896410,00.asp

Quote:

By John C. Dvorak
In a column I wrote in the 1990s, I proposed the creation of an .xxx top-level domain to make it easier to prevent what I then described as a porn storm. These were onerous self-spawning pornography page attacks that took place on the desktops of unsuspecting users. This phenomenon evolved into the "pop-ups" that we still see today and is essentially driven by a flaw in the design of browsers. Since most of these storms were created by porn sites, it seemed as if the easiest way to control them would be to create an .xxx domain for porn and filter the storms out unless you actually wanted to see them.

I harped on this topic on and off for a decade, and it was finally going to happen when, in a surprise move last week, Vint Cerf removed the initiative from the agenda of an ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) board meeting. It appears that a mere 6,000 canned letters sent to the Commerce Dept. did the trick. These apparently stemmed from a cell of evangelical organizations. That's all it took.

If ICANN cannot resist pressure from clichéd theopolitical zealots, then the chances of the organization maintaining control of the Internet—instead of handing control over to an international consortium of United Nations connivers—is nil. This episode marks the beginning of the end for the Internet. It does not bode well for ICANN, an organization that I supported until now.

The group making the most noise about the .xxx domain is a classic checklist-following evangelical group called Concerned Women for America. Its members follow the exact cookie-cutter Jerry Falwell theology promoted by many of these groups. Everything on the group's Web site is in red, white, and blue. Typical articles found at the site might be about the dangers of birth control, how gay marriage is bad, how evolution is just an unproven theory, how stem cell research is bad, and why we should have prayer in school. Mixed in with these are essays attacking the American court system and attempting to equate abortion with homosexuality.

Exactly how these folks became enamored of resisting the .xxx domain is somewhat mysterious, and I suspect the pornographers themselves are behind it. These women have been tricked. Who benefits from the death of .xxx? The pornographers, that's who.

The idea behind the .xxx domain is to make it brain-dead easy to keep porn out of the American family home. That's the reason it was proposed. So why do these people oppose it? The argument against the .xxx proposal seems to indicate either an incredible naïveté regarding the workings of networks and computers or an extreme distrust of computer users themselves. Perhaps it's a combination of both. Concerned Women for America claims that the .xxx domain will increase porn by giving the pornographers a "new platform." What? Can someone tell me exactly how this creates a new platform? Don't these people understand how a ghetto works? Do they know what a platform is? Do they understand that this is like the warning stickers they themselves insist should be put on records and games? How do they not get that?—

It's a warning label, not a platform! It's isolation. It's zoning. Would you allow locating adult bookstores next to churches? It seems that Concerned Women for America would demand doing so.

The idea behind .xxx is to put these porn folks into their own space where they can be somewhat controlled. The idea is not to make getting to porn easier. Getting to porn is easy enough now—even by accident. That's why the current structure is a threat to family values.

If given a choice, I'm certain that most online pornographers would all rather have a .com extension. Now the porn publishers are getting their wish to stay in the mainstream, thanks to Concerned Women for America. Now, thanks to Concerned Women for America and its ideas, every family in America will still get porn flowing into its computers, with no end in sight.

What were they thinking? It seems as if Concerned Women for America was convinced that an .xxx top-level domain would be a magnet for users. What users? Their husbands? One spokesperson thinks that kids will rush over to the .xxx space as if it were a store with candy. Most normal young kids do not want to see porn. And with the .xxx mechanism, they can be prevented from seeing it accidentally with a simple browser filter. Read the press release from Concerned Women of America here. What arrogance!

We wanted to make it a snap to filter porn out. That was the idea. Have I made my point enough times?

Killing the .xxx idea is no victory for morality. It's a victory for porn. Ask any pornographers and they'll tell you that. Without the .xxx domain, porn is ubiquitous rather than marginalized.

Ladies, you may as well crow this: "We won, now porn will be everywhere!" There will now be more porn than ever, and it will be harder than ever to filter it out. It will come in e-mails and show up on search engines. The .xxx idea was going to be a step forward. It was labeling. Instead, the idea was ravished by naïve do-gooders who are clueless as to how the Internet works and what has to be done about porn.

They must be so proud of themselves. And Vint Cerf, known as one of the "fathers" of the Net, should be ashamed of himself for knuckling under to knuckleheads. It's a sad day for freedom. The pornographers will be lifting their glasses. Now the purveyors of porn may as well own the whole Net.

gear02 · 12-14-2005, 10:19 AM

pretty good article. If ICANN can't stand up against 6000 then they have no chance against the world, many countries (including many in the EU) want stricter controls on the internet.

TruckStuff · 12-14-2005, 11:01 AM

I'd be curious to know more about the philosophy behind CWA's opposition.

But its nice to see that you don't have to be "mainstream" media to hate Christians.

Merlin · 12-14-2005, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Now the purveyors of porn may as well own the whole Net.

I see his point but think he is being a tad bit melodramatic.

Jeffbx · 12-14-2005, 11:24 AM

I agree 100% with his message (drama aside). It would be SO much easier to block, filter, detect, (find, if you're in the market!), etc. offensive sites if they were all segregated into the .xxx domain. I'm really puzzled as to why anyone would be against that.

Grimm · 12-14-2005, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TruckStuff

But its nice to see that you don't have to be "mainstream" media to hate Christians.

I don't think it has anything to do with their religion. It's that they aren't exceptionaly bright that irks him.

I disagree with the statement "It's a sad day for freedom." It's a happy day for freedom. Free speech wins again. Speech on sexuality will now not be marginalized by being placed into the .xxx domain. First it would be .xxx for porn, eventialy other categories of speech would be categorized and controlled.

Jeffbx · 12-14-2005, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grimm

I don't think it has anything to do with their religion. It's that they aren't exceptionaly bright that irks him.

But I don't think it has anything at all to do with free speech, either - it's an issue of catigorization, not censorship.

Back in the day when things were still organized, .com was for commercial sites, .net was for network providers, .gov for government, .edu for education, etc. The lines between these have been been blurred quite a bit as people grab onto whatever name they get. As they add more top level domains, they will (hopefully!!) be able to categorize the sites much more easily. It makes perfect sense to have a top level domain reserved exclusively for adult content, assuming they can get the adult sites to move to it.

DarkFury · 12-14-2005, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffbx

I'm really puzzled as to why anyone would be against that.

Because honestly, they probably didn't understand the purpose for setting up a separate domain name for porn.

Pretty much in their eyes... all they saw was XXX and all their buzzers went off... "OMG... we can't let our 'family values' be corroded by creating such a thing." What they didn't realize is... by their own actions they aren't going to stop the proliferation of porn... in fact they have done the opposite by letting it roam free within the .com domain where it will continue to hide and grow at an alarming rate.

Bires · 12-14-2005, 02:54 PM

So, if the XXX thing (new to me) went through, what would stop some porno site from setting up shop on a .com?

Is there an authority to shut it down?

ArkiStan · 12-14-2005, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffbx

It makes perfect sense to have a top level domain reserved exclusively for adult content, assuming they can get the adult sites to move to it.

Yeah, that's probably the bigger concern. Creating this .xxx domain is one thing. Getting the pornographers to actually migrate there will be an even greater challenge. It's a measure to limit their exposure. The key to successful pornographic websites is maximum exposure, regardless of the audience. I'm afraid the pornographers will start adopting deceptive veils to cover up the nature of their site content, which will make it harder to crack down on them. How do you define a "porn site" anyway? Is there an organization equivalent to the MPAA that officially rates internet websites as "adult content?"

A police/govt crackdown may immediately reduce the level of drug trafficing, but it can also push the dealers to find a more secure and systematic route for fulfilling their agenda. I just hope it works.

Jeffbx · 12-15-2005, 05:48 AM

That's absolutely going to be the big issue. ICANN is the organization that oversees domain names, but they have almost no power at all in terms of regulating the names that are assigned. They're pretty good about not assigning .GOV or .EDU names to the general public, but all of the other top level domains are pretty much a free-for-all.

I can see the adult sites picking up the .XXX domain names like candy, but what I CAN'T see is them giving up their .COM names. Otherwise, how would whitehouse dot com get any traffic? No one's going to accidentally go to whitehouse dot xxx.

DarkFury · 12-15-2005, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bires

So, if the XXX thing (new to me) went through, what would stop some porno site from setting up shop on a .com?

Is there an authority to shut it down?

pretty much when it is time to renew.... the ICANN could say "Hey.. you must register as a .xxx because we are revoking your .com status."

But then again... does the ICANN have the power to do this?

EDIT: In light of what was say prior to this post... well then the ICANN or whatever "regulatory" agency would have to be given the power to be able to revoke .coms from the sites who are operating commercially as porn sites. Granted, this might not stop someones "free webcam" peep show... but it would be a start.

ArkiStan · 12-15-2005, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkFury

well then the ICANN or whatever "regulatory" agency would have to be given the power to be able to revoke .coms from the sites who are operating commercially as porn sites.

Although it's for a noble cause, that's a LOT of power to give to any one organization. The Internet doesn't have any borders. ICANN would be like the strongest organization in the world, practicing its omnipotent regulatory authority over the endless amount of information accessible over the internet. Once again, I'm all for controlling pornography, but at the same time, it would be terrifying to know that it is possible.

Thesifer · 12-15-2005, 10:15 AM

I got an email back from CWA when I sent them a post asking them exactly what they were thinking. Basically their "thoughts" are that since there is nothing in the works to "force" porn sites to move to a .XXX domain then they believe that the porn companies will then buy up and run two sites (IE "Hotlove.COM" and "Hotlove.XXX")

And on the other side of the spectrum, a lot of porn sites put in money to keep .XXX from appearing for the fear that their will be Legislation or a "Rule" forcing them to move to .XXX.

I completely agree that they should be in .XXX for the same reason that they decided that games and movies need a rating system.

CWA Claims that porn sites on .XXX would be no easy to filter out then .COM names would be. Obviously they are lacking computer knowledge in the fact that it would make it 30000 times easier to filter an entire Top Level Domain.

I am not against porn being on the internet nor it being available. But I am definately for moving Porn to one place.

Merlin · 12-15-2005, 10:25 AM

It also seems like it would be a tremendous policing problem. Who runs around determining what porn is? And then what do you do?

In the end I'm sure that they have much better things to spend their time and limited resources on.

DarkFury · 12-15-2005, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArkiStan

Although it's for a noble cause, that's a LOT of power to give to any one organization. The Internet doesn't have any borders. ICANN would be like the strongest organization in the world, practicing its omnipotent regulatory authority over the endless amount of information accessible over the internet. Once again, I'm all for controlling pornography, but at the same time, it would be terrifying to know that it is possible.

If that is the case... then why have a body registering names at all?

For example.... when I apply for personalized car tags... I can't just put anything I want on the tag. The BMV limits what can be said on that tag... I'm paying for the use of that name for one year.

So what is the difference?

ArkiStan · 12-15-2005, 11:57 AM

Local regulations on car tags VS. A single entity exercising global-scale censorship rights of the world's primary source of information?

Hmm. I'm not exactly sure what to say DF. There seems to be a bit of a difference. It's hard to explain....but I think it's there.

Once again, I'm all for isolating pornography. It's just the idea of there being one single organization controlling all the information in the WORLD that seems a bit scary to say the least.

DarkFury · 12-15-2005, 12:08 PM

Gotta start somewhere... I suppose.

Cubsfan · 12-15-2005, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merlin

Who runs around determining what porn is?

I think this is the biggest problem. Look at the difference of TV in the USA versus Euopean TV (so I've heard). Is Michelangelo's David porn?

I don't really want to see this go down the same road as TV/Radio.

DarkFury · 12-15-2005, 12:41 PM

Pretty much that is why I was mostly speaking on "commercialized porn"... where they want you to pay to view it. (as a start)

Pretty much you can tell the "art" from the "porn" on those sites ... when you start having to whip out your credit card for verification and membership purposes.

Don't think too many "art" sites have that feature.

Merlin · 12-15-2005, 01:41 PM

Sure the haed core stuff is easy but where do you start drawing the line? I just think that it will wind up being way more hassle than it is worth. A boondoggle. Resources can better be spent elsewhere where they might actually do some good.

Bires · 12-15-2005, 04:30 PM

From the discussions here. it sounds like, in the grand scheme of things, that Dvork is...wrong.

Thesifer · 12-16-2005, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bires

From the discussions here. it sounds like, in the grand scheme of things, that Dvork is...wrong.

I wouldn't say wrong, but like any other editorial, I think some of his opinions miss the mark a little bit. But in essence he is correct in that they are pretty much fighting for the wrong thing.

12-14-2005, 11:01 AM	#3
TruckStuff Commander Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 1,335	I'd be curious to know more about the philosophy behind CWA's opposition. But its nice to see that you don't have to be "mainstream" media to hate Christians. __________________ DISCLAIMER The preceding statements are meant to be taken as a whole, in their entirety. They may not be quoted in part and then used to flame me. They also do not imply that I believe the exact opposite of their meaning. They do not make any implication about any group, race, ethnicity, age group, or other cohort beyond what is stated above. They do not make any implications at all. They have no "tone" or "attitude." They are words. Nothing more.

12-14-2005, 02:54 PM	#9
Bires Admiral Join Date: May 2000 Posts: 5,064	So, if the XXX thing (new to me) went through, what would stop some porno site from setting up shop on a .com? Is there an authority to shut it down? __________________ Five years...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-14-2005, 10:19 AM	#2
gear02 Admiral Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 7,223	pretty good article. If ICANN can't stand up against 6000 then they have no chance against the world, many countries (including many in the EU) want stricter controls on the internet.

12-14-2005, 11:24 AM	#5
Jeffbx Fleet Admiral Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Michigan Posts: 9,390	I agree 100% with his message (drama aside). It would be SO much easier to block, filter, detect, (find, if you're in the market!), etc. offensive sites if they were all segregated into the .xxx domain. I'm really puzzled as to why anyone would be against that.

12-15-2005, 05:48 AM	#11
Jeffbx Fleet Admiral Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Michigan Posts: 9,390	That's absolutely going to be the big issue. ICANN is the organization that oversees domain names, but they have almost no power at all in terms of regulating the names that are assigned. They're pretty good about not assigning .GOV or .EDU names to the general public, but all of the other top level domains are pretty much a free-for-all. I can see the adult sites picking up the .XXX domain names like candy, but what I CAN'T see is them giving up their .COM names. Otherwise, how would whitehouse dot com get any traffic? No one's going to accidentally go to whitehouse dot xxx.

12-15-2005, 10:15 AM	#14
Thesifer Vice Admiral Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 4,338	I got an email back from CWA when I sent them a post asking them exactly what they were thinking. Basically their "thoughts" are that since there is nothing in the works to "force" porn sites to move to a .XXX domain then they believe that the porn companies will then buy up and run two sites (IE "Hotlove.COM" and "Hotlove.XXX") And on the other side of the spectrum, a lot of porn sites put in money to keep .XXX from appearing for the fear that their will be Legislation or a "Rule" forcing them to move to .XXX. I completely agree that they should be in .XXX for the same reason that they decided that games and movies need a rating system. CWA Claims that porn sites on .XXX would be no easy to filter out then .COM names would be. Obviously they are lacking computer knowledge in the fact that it would make it 30000 times easier to filter an entire Top Level Domain. I am not against porn being on the internet nor it being available. But I am definately for moving Porn to one place.

12-15-2005, 10:25 AM	#15
Merlin Admiral Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Square On My Arse Posts: 7,410	It also seems like it would be a tremendous policing problem. Who runs around determining what porn is? And then what do you do? In the end I'm sure that they have much better things to spend their time and limited resources on.

12-15-2005, 11:57 AM	#17
ArkiStan Admiral Join Date: May 2000 Location: Recession Central Posts: 5,898	Local regulations on car tags VS. A single entity exercising global-scale censorship rights of the world's primary source of information? Hmm. I'm not exactly sure what to say DF. There seems to be a bit of a difference. It's hard to explain....but I think it's there. Once again, I'm all for isolating pornography. It's just the idea of there being one single organization controlling all the information in the WORLD that seems a bit scary to say the least.

12-15-2005, 12:08 PM	#18
DarkFury Secretary of the Navy Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Chillin' N Da 'Hood Posts: 34,997	Gotta start somewhere... I suppose.

12-15-2005, 12:41 PM	#20
DarkFury Secretary of the Navy Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Chillin' N Da 'Hood Posts: 34,997	Pretty much that is why I was mostly speaking on "commercialized porn"... where they want you to pay to view it. (as a start) Pretty much you can tell the "art" from the "porn" on those sites ... when you start having to whip out your credit card for verification and membership purposes. Don't think too many "art" sites have that feature.

12-15-2005, 01:41 PM	#21
Merlin Admiral Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Square On My Arse Posts: 7,410	Sure the haed core stuff is easy but where do you start drawing the line? I just think that it will wind up being way more hassle than it is worth. A boondoggle. Resources can better be spent elsewhere where they might actually do some good.

12-15-2005, 04:30 PM	#22
Bires Admiral Join Date: May 2000 Posts: 5,064	From the discussions here. it sounds like, in the grand scheme of things, that Dvork is...wrong.

User Name
Password
Remember Me?