xxx TLD
June 2, 2005 6:30 AM Subscribe
The proposed .xxx top level domain jumped an ICANN hurdle yesterday and could be available by the Fall. [This is good.] But at $60 a pop will price gouging keep amatuer porn from adopting the addresses?
The stuff I've heard from 'the industry' is that they're very much against it; there are concerns about the domain becoming the "porn ghetto" that gets automatically banned by ISPs and of insane domain resale prices when the TLD launches.
Note that the 'this is good' link leads to a 'fact' sheet created by the company that will be handling the registrations. Of course they're going to say everyone wants the domain.
The $60 price is nothing compared to the auction/resale prices that are out there. Six figures for a decent .com isn't unheard of.
posted by lowlife at 6:44 AM on June 2, 2005
Note that the 'this is good' link leads to a 'fact' sheet created by the company that will be handling the registrations. Of course they're going to say everyone wants the domain.
The $60 price is nothing compared to the auction/resale prices that are out there. Six figures for a decent .com isn't unheard of.
posted by lowlife at 6:44 AM on June 2, 2005
Here's some (NSFW) threads representing the viewpoint lowlife mentioned. I stand by [this is good] as long as the .xxx domain is voluntary. Unlike the U.S. government, I generally trust ICANN. Many adult webmasters see them as one in the same though.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 7:03 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by If I Had An Anus at 7:03 AM on June 2, 2005
You can only see the heads of two of the women on the [This is good] link. Perhaps they're meant to represent the proposed .xxx domain -- I can only assume they're naked.
posted by gurple at 8:31 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by gurple at 8:31 AM on June 2, 2005
It's not just The Industry that's against it; the IETF thinks it's a lost cause too. Given those objections, it's pretty clear to me that this is just a political and financial grab.
posted by mendel at 8:31 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by mendel at 8:31 AM on June 2, 2005
As lowlife said, I don't think the $60 hurdle will be the reason people would avoid registering domain names with the XXX extension. Take a look at some recent domain name sales.
posted by howa2396 at 8:46 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by howa2396 at 8:46 AM on June 2, 2005
Once the gate opens, it'll be fun to watch who can hit the register submit button quick enough to win fucking.xxx. Talk about Press Your Luck!
posted by Peter H at 8:47 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by Peter H at 8:47 AM on June 2, 2005
> To do:
> purchase goatse.xxx
Ha, no way! To do:
purchase benedictxvi.xxx ! (in yr face, modest needs!) (/sarcasm)
posted by Peter H at 8:49 AM on June 2, 2005
> purchase goatse.xxx
Ha, no way! To do:
purchase benedictxvi.xxx ! (in yr face, modest needs!) (/sarcasm)
posted by Peter H at 8:49 AM on June 2, 2005
I think the point is that there are people who feel that eight-year-olds shouldn't be watching explicit sex, especially stuff of the more sado-masochistic variety. I would hope that most people who enjoy the stuff would also feel this way. At present, the extreme stuff available easily, even by accident, on a Google search. Like movie ratings, the .xxx domain represents a way to classify sites without actually censoring anything.
The argument, "If you don't want your kids to see it, you should monitor them" doesn't cut it with me. Today's Internets are like a library in which every third book is porn. You can't seriously propose that parents sit with their kids while they do their book reports. There should be a way to let everyone have the sites they like while still protecting kids.
posted by QuietDesperation at 9:13 AM on June 2, 2005
The argument, "If you don't want your kids to see it, you should monitor them" doesn't cut it with me. Today's Internets are like a library in which every third book is porn. You can't seriously propose that parents sit with their kids while they do their book reports. There should be a way to let everyone have the sites they like while still protecting kids.
posted by QuietDesperation at 9:13 AM on June 2, 2005
I think it's stupid.
All that happens with these extra names is that everyone has to register the new version of their old name. I had someone snap up the .net version of a .com I used to run, and planned to run again, and this guy ripped off my design and everything, pretended to be me. etc.
bleh.
posted by delmoi at 9:14 AM on June 2, 2005
All that happens with these extra names is that everyone has to register the new version of their old name. I had someone snap up the .net version of a .com I used to run, and planned to run again, and this guy ripped off my design and everything, pretended to be me. etc.
bleh.
posted by delmoi at 9:14 AM on June 2, 2005
If there world were simple, it would be clear which sites are pornographic and which aren't. All the sites that are would reside in the .xxx domain. ISPs wouldn't block this domain automatically (seeing as it would probably be a violation of the first amendment), they would rely on users to block them themselves if they don't want to visit them (or don't want their children to visit them).
On my list to buy? amazon.xxx, hehehe.
posted by o2b at 9:15 AM on June 2, 2005
On my list to buy? amazon.xxx, hehehe.
posted by o2b at 9:15 AM on June 2, 2005
I generally trust ICANN
Yowch, it's been a while since I heard that. Read this for starters. It may be a little one-sided, but it nicely highlights some of the problems with ICANN.
posted by fvw at 9:19 AM on June 2, 2005
Yowch, it's been a while since I heard that. Read this for starters. It may be a little one-sided, but it nicely highlights some of the problems with ICANN.
posted by fvw at 9:19 AM on June 2, 2005
If there world were simple, it would be clear which sites are pornographic and which aren't.
Okay, there are sites of erotic art, photographer's portofolios, sites about censorship, and a thousand other categories of sites which one could argue do not deserve an .xxx domain, and which might even be great for kids to look at. That still leaves about 950,000,000,000 straight-ahead porn sites that are easy as hell to classify.
posted by QuietDesperation at 9:23 AM on June 2, 2005
Okay, there are sites of erotic art, photographer's portofolios, sites about censorship, and a thousand other categories of sites which one could argue do not deserve an .xxx domain, and which might even be great for kids to look at. That still leaves about 950,000,000,000 straight-ahead porn sites that are easy as hell to classify.
posted by QuietDesperation at 9:23 AM on June 2, 2005
one in the same
the phrase is 'one AND the same'. see, that makes actual sense. you probably said that on accident due to your low self of steam.
posted by quonsar at 9:27 AM on June 2, 2005
the phrase is 'one AND the same'. see, that makes actual sense. you probably said that on accident due to your low self of steam.
posted by quonsar at 9:27 AM on June 2, 2005
I trusted ICANN to bring in new TLD's eight years ago.
NEVAR AGAIN!
posted by WolfDaddy at 9:35 AM on June 2, 2005
NEVAR AGAIN!
posted by WolfDaddy at 9:35 AM on June 2, 2005
This is not good. It will have the opposite effect to that which is intended.
I've explained why in detail here.
I told Congress the same thing. They listened then, but over a million dollars of lobying later things have changed.
.xxx will not protect children from anything. It's a profit center for ICM designed to look like action. It's a sad day for anyone who actually cares about making things better. Please read the post for more.
posted by SamSugar at 9:40 AM on June 2, 2005
I've explained why in detail here.
I told Congress the same thing. They listened then, but over a million dollars of lobying later things have changed.
.xxx will not protect children from anything. It's a profit center for ICM designed to look like action. It's a sad day for anyone who actually cares about making things better. Please read the post for more.
posted by SamSugar at 9:40 AM on June 2, 2005
I remember when domain registrations cost $100 and we liked it that way.
posted by nathan_teske at 9:43 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by nathan_teske at 9:43 AM on June 2, 2005
opposite effect to that which is intended.
the phrase is "opposite effect OF WHAT is intended". congress probably didn't listen to you because it was too painful.
posted by quonsar at 9:44 AM on June 2, 2005
the phrase is "opposite effect OF WHAT is intended". congress probably didn't listen to you because it was too painful.
posted by quonsar at 9:44 AM on June 2, 2005
I really am skeptical that people will pay extra for this. And the ones already existing will not make the switch.
posted by ringie78 at 9:44 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by ringie78 at 9:44 AM on June 2, 2005
There are two competing ideas behind this: one, make more money from pornography, two protect kids.
Won't work protecting kids for the same reason ICRA never worked, it's voluntary regulation so forget that, total red herring.
Will it help the pornography industry in it's marketing efforts? Sure, it will draw even more attention to online porn than there is already, so it will work to some extent at least just because of that. Will it make more money through sales of domain names, yes as well.
As delmoi indicates, if xxx proves useful commercial operators will add these new names to the ones they already have. In some cases sites have registered hundreds (thousands?) of names that all link to the exact same place already. So they'll just take whatever profile-raising advantages there are in xxx while avoiding the alleged access-limiting disadvantages.
If the question was really about $60, the answer is no, it won't matter. It's a small amount of money to begin with, amateur sites won't have to go xxx if they don't want to, and it would be a tiny percentage of operational costs for commercial sites.
posted by scheptech at 10:02 AM on June 2, 2005
Won't work protecting kids for the same reason ICRA never worked, it's voluntary regulation so forget that, total red herring.
Will it help the pornography industry in it's marketing efforts? Sure, it will draw even more attention to online porn than there is already, so it will work to some extent at least just because of that. Will it make more money through sales of domain names, yes as well.
As delmoi indicates, if xxx proves useful commercial operators will add these new names to the ones they already have. In some cases sites have registered hundreds (thousands?) of names that all link to the exact same place already. So they'll just take whatever profile-raising advantages there are in xxx while avoiding the alleged access-limiting disadvantages.
If the question was really about $60, the answer is no, it won't matter. It's a small amount of money to begin with, amateur sites won't have to go xxx if they don't want to, and it would be a tiny percentage of operational costs for commercial sites.
posted by scheptech at 10:02 AM on June 2, 2005
quonsar wins, as per usual.
And I have to agree that assuming the new TDL will create a "category" for porn is unrealistic. I mean, weren't .net and .org supposed to create categories, too?
posted by ArsncHeart at 10:13 AM on June 2, 2005
And I have to agree that assuming the new TDL will create a "category" for porn is unrealistic. I mean, weren't .net and .org supposed to create categories, too?
posted by ArsncHeart at 10:13 AM on June 2, 2005
quonsar - thanks for not being a dick about my mistake. That's big of you. Congress is spelt with a capital 'C'.
There is no money in a new domain. No advantage to the traffic either. It's a cake that's being split. Look at .tv (and adult sites did) - it never took off as a stand-alone destination and even the TV companies ignore it now.
If people want to protect children this is not the way. Commercial adult sites have no interest in children. including Traci Lords there have been 4 incidents involving underage performers in adult in the past twenty years and they were all people who deliberately lied in order to become involved.
Porn's way ahead of the organised religion on the protecting children front.
.xxx is about making money from a lucrative area of the web. Nothing more.
(eas98 - I have worked with an adult website that makes over $300 million a year. Yes - people still make a lot of money in porn).
posted by SamSugar at 10:26 AM on June 2, 2005
There is no money in a new domain. No advantage to the traffic either. It's a cake that's being split. Look at .tv (and adult sites did) - it never took off as a stand-alone destination and even the TV companies ignore it now.
If people want to protect children this is not the way. Commercial adult sites have no interest in children. including Traci Lords there have been 4 incidents involving underage performers in adult in the past twenty years and they were all people who deliberately lied in order to become involved.
Porn's way ahead of the organised religion on the protecting children front.
.xxx is about making money from a lucrative area of the web. Nothing more.
(eas98 - I have worked with an adult website that makes over $300 million a year. Yes - people still make a lot of money in porn).
posted by SamSugar at 10:26 AM on June 2, 2005
This is as good a place as any to mention the wikipedia entry on goatse is excellent. I just read it this morning for the first time. Such legacy.
posted by Peter H at 10:38 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by Peter H at 10:38 AM on June 2, 2005
The argument, "If you don't want your kids to see it, you should monitor them" doesn't cut it with me.
Kick children off the internet. Problem solved.
Lazy, semi-hysterical parents are then freed to go obsess over some other threat to America's Most Precious Resource.
posted by trondant at 10:53 AM on June 2, 2005
Kick children off the internet. Problem solved.
Lazy, semi-hysterical parents are then freed to go obsess over some other threat to America's Most Precious Resource.
posted by trondant at 10:53 AM on June 2, 2005
I don't see the upside for pornographers, so I see no reason it will be adopted.
posted by McBain at 10:59 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by McBain at 10:59 AM on June 2, 2005
Oh, and whatever happened with good old .ws?
posted by ArsncHeart at 11:01 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by ArsncHeart at 11:01 AM on June 2, 2005
Kick children off the internet. Problem solved.
Seconded. Or create a new domain that's safe for kids (though who will deem it so seems problematic). Or what SamSugar said.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:16 AM on June 2, 2005
Seconded. Or create a new domain that's safe for kids (though who will deem it so seems problematic). Or what SamSugar said.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:16 AM on June 2, 2005
Seconded. Or create a new domain that's safe for kids (though who will deem it so seems problematic). Or what SamSugar said.
This is actually a much, much better idea. Arrange for mainstream "kid safe" sites to apply for a free additional mirrored domain suffix, like .com.k .org.k, and set up your children's account to only access those sites.
I still say the best option is to keep your kids off the internet except for directly monitored use.
posted by McBain at 11:39 AM on June 2, 2005
This is actually a much, much better idea. Arrange for mainstream "kid safe" sites to apply for a free additional mirrored domain suffix, like .com.k .org.k, and set up your children's account to only access those sites.
I still say the best option is to keep your kids off the internet except for directly monitored use.
posted by McBain at 11:39 AM on June 2, 2005
the phrase is "opposite effect OF WHAT is intended".
[insert snarky remark about grammar police here]. [allude to tolerance police here]. [tie it all together with comment about UN as world police here].
[relevant quote from Ren and Stimpy here].
posted by davejay at 11:48 AM on June 2, 2005
[insert snarky remark about grammar police here]. [allude to tolerance police here]. [tie it all together with comment about UN as world police here].
[relevant quote from Ren and Stimpy here].
posted by davejay at 11:48 AM on June 2, 2005
As someone who works in a library - organizing information - and as someone with children, I've gotta say the .kids (or whatever) for child-friendly sites makes a lot more sense than the .xxx idea.
posted by stinkycheese at 12:10 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by stinkycheese at 12:10 PM on June 2, 2005
Ok, you people win. I'm convinced [this is bad].
posted by If I Had An Anus at 12:17 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by If I Had An Anus at 12:17 PM on June 2, 2005
Unless it is mandatory, I would say it has NO value at all.
If it is not mandatory, surely Hustler will not abandon their .com and move completely to the .xxx
It should be mandatory, and any site that contains X rated content that does not migrate to .xxx their registration should be revoked. That would work wonders.
But, all this hysteria about "ISPs would just block the entire TLD" is just that, hysteria.
ISP's know that sex sells as well. The surest way for AOL to loose 75% of their market share would be to blanket disallow the .xxx domain.
However, wouldn't giving a subscriber the OPPORTUNITY to disallow an entire domain be reasonable? Don't we like choice?
Shit, broadband was driven in the early days almost solely by men wanting to look at pornography faster. Between porn and online games, that's the only reason we even have broadband at home in the first place.
I heard someone say once that porn was the "killer app" for broadband.
The .kids discussion has merit too, but basically the notion would be that every site in the world that is NOT porn would have to register a .kids domain. Everything from Amazon to Zombo.
Isn't that MORE of a money-making scheme for the registrars? Even though there are 9,999,999,999 porn sites, there are surely that many legitimate (albeit mundane) sites out there.
Any statistics on porn vs non-porn domain registration?
posted by Ynoxas at 1:27 PM on June 2, 2005
If it is not mandatory, surely Hustler will not abandon their .com and move completely to the .xxx
It should be mandatory, and any site that contains X rated content that does not migrate to .xxx their registration should be revoked. That would work wonders.
But, all this hysteria about "ISPs would just block the entire TLD" is just that, hysteria.
ISP's know that sex sells as well. The surest way for AOL to loose 75% of their market share would be to blanket disallow the .xxx domain.
However, wouldn't giving a subscriber the OPPORTUNITY to disallow an entire domain be reasonable? Don't we like choice?
Shit, broadband was driven in the early days almost solely by men wanting to look at pornography faster. Between porn and online games, that's the only reason we even have broadband at home in the first place.
I heard someone say once that porn was the "killer app" for broadband.
The .kids discussion has merit too, but basically the notion would be that every site in the world that is NOT porn would have to register a .kids domain. Everything from Amazon to Zombo.
Isn't that MORE of a money-making scheme for the registrars? Even though there are 9,999,999,999 porn sites, there are surely that many legitimate (albeit mundane) sites out there.
Any statistics on porn vs non-porn domain registration?
posted by Ynoxas at 1:27 PM on June 2, 2005
You can really tell who has kids around here and who doesn't. The .kids domain might work fine for Naruto or Fun With Play-doh, but kids get older. My 11-year old has his own website, and is learning Flash and HTML. He does school reports and uses the Web for research on occasion. A lot of what he looks at is not on kid-specific sites already. I happen to have my own life, and I'm not quite able to sit in the room with him every moment he's working. To suggest that I should give up considerable amounts of my time to supervise his every Google search just so that I don't have to inconvenience pornographers seems bizarre to me. Rather, people who are peddling stuff that is extremely inappropriate for kids should have to make some effort to keep it from common view.
posted by QuietDesperation at 2:11 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by QuietDesperation at 2:11 PM on June 2, 2005
Ha, IIHAAnus, timestamps seem to say I was indeed ripped off! (laughs) Ah well, all love and war in the bidness of thievin pope names for gambling and porn.
posted by Peter H at 3:36 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by Peter H at 3:36 PM on June 2, 2005
I've posted some thoughts on .XXX. (I'm an ICANN board member...)
I look forward to metafilter.xxx. ;-)
posted by Joi at 5:55 PM on June 2, 2005
I look forward to metafilter.xxx. ;-)
posted by Joi at 5:55 PM on June 2, 2005
Then take it up with Google. Your child is of no concern to anyone but you.
posted by trondant at 2:15 AM on June 3, 2005
posted by trondant at 2:15 AM on June 3, 2005
stinkycheese writes "As someone who works in a library - organizing information - and as someone with children, I've gotta say the .kids (or whatever) for child-friendly sites makes a lot more sense than the .xxx idea."
Problem is who do you allow to police it? Who is legally responsible? Would someplace like www.scarleteen.com be permitted? How about www.vatican.va? Disney.go.com? www.sesameworkshop.org/sesamestreet?
Who is going to pay for that policing?
Never going to happen.
posted by Mitheral at 10:50 AM on June 3, 2005
Problem is who do you allow to police it? Who is legally responsible? Would someplace like www.scarleteen.com be permitted? How about www.vatican.va? Disney.go.com? www.sesameworkshop.org/sesamestreet?
Who is going to pay for that policing?
Never going to happen.
posted by Mitheral at 10:50 AM on June 3, 2005
Your child is of no concern to anyone but you.
But, but but ... it takes a village!
posted by mrgrimm at 11:22 AM on June 3, 2005
But, but but ... it takes a village!
posted by mrgrimm at 11:22 AM on June 3, 2005
QuietDesperation: .xxx will not eliminate porn from the .com, .org and .net domains.
posted by mischief at 2:49 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by mischief at 2:49 PM on June 4, 2005
« Older Bike me! | A sort of vagabonds, rascals, and runaways Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
purchase goatse.xxx
posted by bertrandom at 6:44 AM on June 2, 2005