It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: Dot XXX Domain Names Approved

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I think you guys are speaking from your hearts and not from your heads. You read the word "regulation" and your heart cries for freedom lost. We're talking classification here, not control. That's all. Has your freedom to visit government sites been taken away because they're classified .gov? No. Has your right to visit anti-tyrrany websites like Amnesty International been quashed because they're classified .org? No. This regulation is simply calling a spade a spade.


First of all, I think I have provided several realistic (read: not emotional) arguements against this.

Secondly, if we're talking about pay porn sites, those are already classified - as businesses. Companies. (.com)

Zip




posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   

So what would make this kind of undertaking possbile? Stricter laws. More laws. The U.S. government's hand forcing changes.

The prudent choice is to police your own children, since you'll have to end up policing your own children anyways.


I agree with most of what you say, but I believe that as far as pr0nograhy is concerned, it is the two-pronged combination of responsible parenting, and responsible regulation by the relevant bodies that is required. In this (rare for me) case, yes, I would endorse government bodies stepping in to enforce regulation on this particular aspect of the industry if, and only if, the industry failed to regulate itself. The Netnanny works? Great. But saying that bullet-proof vests protect you fine from bullets doesn't mean that guns should be left lying around on the street.

Responsible provision, and responsible use. Again, in this specific case, I see no harm in it.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
The Netnanny works? Great. But saying that bullet-proof vests protect you fine from bullets doesn't mean that guns should be left lying around on the street.


Yes, in this case, the guns would all be moved to a stockpile. The stockpile would still be right next to the playground, though. Moving all porn to .xxx does not by itself imply that children wouldn't be able to view it.

To restrict access would require further "regulation."

At this point, the government will have been "on a roll," having successfully passed legislation to move porn to .xxx sites, and now they will steam forward into legislating access details. Before ya know it, when signing on to the net, you'll be passing through a virtual gate that will identify you and tag you.

Do you think that legislation to move all porn to .xxx sites would stop there? The movement of the material to .xxx sites would not by itself accomplish anything effective whatsoever and would necessitate follow-up changes in regulation.

Zip



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Moving all porn to .xxx does not by itself imply that children wouldn't be able to view it.

The movement of the material to .xxx sites would not by itself accomplish anything effective whatsoever and would necessitate follow-up changes in regulation.


Hmm...okay. You convinced me.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I remind everyone that I am merely talking about the theoretical legislation to move all porn to .xxx sites, as called for by ATS members previously in this thread. This isn't actually being considered by any legislative body, it's just surprising to me how many people on ATS are chanting "Need More Government. Can't Look After Ourselves. Need More Government. Can't Look After Ourselves. Need More Government. Can't Look After Ourselves."

EDIT:

Hmm...okay. You convinced me.


Sweet!


*Looks around*

*... Sips Coffee ...*

DAMMIT!


Zip

[edit on 6/3/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   


Whether you'll admit it or not, finding porn on the Internet requires active motion, not passive browsing of business, education, recreation, etc. related web pages.


Untrue. Just about a half hour ago, I was searching on a UFO topic. I came to a page that discussed the alien autopsy, however, in the ad banners, there was nothing but porn! This was on my work computer, so I quickly got out of there! I have NEVER accessed such sites at work.

I'll agree with it being the parent's responsibility as to what the kid sees on the internet. That's why any such surfing is done in the living room, so it won't be in a closed off room and she won't be chatting with some 40 year old pediphile or something.... But I can certainly see the value in restricting porn to a .xxx domain. And, man, I'm a guy, so I like a little porn now and then...
This isn't a restriction, it's organization. Changing those domains wouldn't affect any legitimate reader from access. To be honest, I'm surprised we haven't seen more such domains. We've got edu and gov for example, and others might be helpful as well.



Before ya know it, when signing on to the net, you'll be passing through a virtual gate that will identify you and tag you.


You already are, by IP address and your ISP....

[edit on 3-6-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Corporate firewall software such as Saint Bernard and consumer protection software such as NetNanny block any ad links that are known to be associated with pornography or contain context phrasology that is associated with pornography.

Consider that the webmaster of your alien autopsy page thought it appropriate to link with that ad exchange - the webmaster thought that people who enjoy alien autopsy articles would also enjoy some of the old in-out. You were included in a marketing demographic - congratulations.

I'm not against future categorization - I am against retroactively moving web pages to the .xxx domain.

Zip



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I think all porn sites should require a membership, like most, but without giving a free "preview", that way kids don't get to see any previews without getting a paid membership.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   
That's an admirable suggestion, but the issue here is, "who is going to enforce it?"

I think we need more elephants in the streets of Houston.

Who is gonna put em there?

Zip



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Very many porn sites exist only for the purpose of entrapping naive surfers so that their trojans and whatnot can be downloaded onto the unsuspecting surfers' computers.

Exactly. Er, I mean, what are you talking about, er, whats a porn site? er, nevermind.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   


I'm not against future categorization - I am against retroactively moving web pages to the .xxx domain.


Ahh. I see.

I agree that it shouldn't cost the sites to move to the domain, but I'd like to see such a move... I should mention, the site I saw today was only the 3rd time I've seen such a thing on an alien site...just a weird coincidence it was today. I was using Dogpile to search on "UFO CoverUp Live alien biology eyes" and it was an article touching on the eyes of the alien autopsy vid... I could find the site if truly curious....but linking to it here would violate the TOS....



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Don't get me wrong, I'm against it beyond monetary reasons, although those are important - let's talk about those.

So, 70 or so percent of the Internet is made up of pornographic web sites.
To you and I, these are a nuisance and a bother - vile and uncivilized. All that.

To the American government, however, those that operate within the U.S. are seen as taxpaying businesses. 70% of the Internet. That's a lot of revenue. Still surprised that porn is rampant on the Internet and that it hasn't been "regulated" or "curbed" yet?

I fear what happens when the government answers the call of the peoples' outcries - that's what I'm saying.

I could imagine things going wrong when the government decides "hey, the people asked for it. Hell, they begged for it. The Internet is our territory now."

First comes the legislation - then the taxes - then Internet monitoring "improves" and whatever else happens, and the Internet is no longer The People's Internet - it now finds itself The Coalition of Governments' Internet. This kind of "one ring to rule them all" approach is required to make any real changes on the Internet, and guess what!? It fits right in with our fellow members' beliefs in whatever NWO type stuff they believe in.

And so on.

Police your own damn Internet, parents - it's yours, not the government's. With great power comes great responsibility. All that!

Zip



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join