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.

 

NEWS: Public Outcry Delays .XXX Sex Orientated Domains

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Many will oppose anything that legitimizes pornography. Personally, I think that the domain will do little to isolate porn from the .com domain unless it is made illegal and even then that will do little to stop the determined.




posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Always some who can't deal with change trying to stop the world from moving ahead.

Sorry prudes - sex sites are a big part of the Internet & always will be. Opposing the .xxx domains will not make sex sites any more or any less legitimate - though it may help keep your false perception of reality intact. -Sex sells, always has always will.

The Internet is for everyone and so is the world. If you don't let your kids run around the world by themselves you shouldn't let them run around the Internet by themselves either.

Prudes should treat the Internet like the Amish treat technology.

Maybe the porn kings are opposing the new domains - so that don't have more competition or have to spend more money on new domain changes - as they wouldn’t want a squatter to come along & grab their established .com with a .xxx and take some of their customers.


[edit on 19-8-2005 by outsider]



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by orionthehunter
My concern might be what is considered porn. If I go to a medical site with some adult only medical pics on it, is that going to be moved to the .xxx domain or will adults have their information restricted? I don't want information restricted but putting everything into it's proper place does make some sense. There is so much already on the internet maybe it would be easier to put all clean sites on a new address such as .cle for clean rather than worry if someone believes a girl in a bikini in one photo on your site makes it pornographic.


I'll take the flip side of my previous post. Who determines which are the "clean" sites? What is the criteria for a "clean" site as opposed to a "dirty" one. In order for the .XXX Domain to be effective this is going to have to be determined.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Wow, a totally useless post. You see them once in a while.

I'm not religious in the least BUT I still care what my kids see online. I must be a bad parent.

No but Id assume youd want all xxx to be put in a .xxx domain so then you could block access to xxx sites.

Or would you rather have them hijack kids sites and put their porn there.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I'll take the flip side of my previous post. Who determines which are the "clean" sites? What is the criteria for a "clean" site as opposed to a "dirty" one. In order for the .XXX Domain to be effective this is going to have to be determined.

Id be up for that job.


It seems the US has already catergorisec porn as now they have to prove that all models are over 18. Of course this is not the case for medical sites so obviously they know what they consider porn and what they dont.

However, I dont consider a topless woman porn as anyone can buy a paper with topless women in it but religious nuts do as you can see by the poster who said they thought a swimsuit mag was porn.

You cant let extremists control decisions like this.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Utterly bizarre, but consistent with religious psychosis.

I've now read dozens of reports about the "objections" but haven't yet found any single example of the actual content of the objections. Can anyone point me to an actual real live objector's argument?



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
However, I dont consider a topless woman porn as anyone can buy a paper with topless women in it but religious nuts do as you can see by the poster who said they thought a swimsuit mag was porn.

You cant let extremists control decisions like this.


One person's extremist is another person's crusader. Who is right? This is why rating systems don't work. I was in high school during the first space shuttle launch back in the 80's and decided to do my English research paper on the shuttle flight. As I was looking for research information my uncle xeroxed a story from an issue of Playboy where they interviewed the shuttle pilots. Lots of good information there. I wrote my paper turned it in and a couple of days later got hauled into the Principal's Office. There I was informed that it was not proper conduct for a student in the 11th grade to be reading Playboy. I ended up with 4 hours of detention. My parents fought it and I never served the detention. My question is "Do you want that Principal or others like him determining what is and what is not pornographic?"



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   
In short, 99% of porn is clear cut, you get a non religious person to decide the other 1% otherwise they will decide a fashion site where a woman has a see through top on is porn.

People can decide whats acceptable for TV, magazines etc so it should be easy to draw up a set of rules for porn.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mayet
I think the idea is great. I am a parental group in my own right after having six of my own plus 5 stepchildren. So as a parental group I say don't delay.... bring in .XXX today.

Eleven kids, Mayet?? All I can say, is, you get the award for the voice of experience! God bless ya.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Not surprisingly, the main problem that the U.S. government and the religious right has with the .XXX proposal is that it is voluntary. The .XXX designation was conceived and organized by The International Foundation For Online Responsibility (IFFOR), which is a trade group for adult-oriented web-sites.

That's right, no government imposed scarlet XXX branded on the chests of pornographers.

Under the current proposal, operators of porn sites can opt to purchase a .xxx top level domain (TLD), much like anyone can purchase a .com, .biz, .tv TLD--and retain their current .com storefront. Those who convert to a .xxx will do so voluntarily out of a sense of responsibility to the online community--not because of a mandate imposed upon them by any government.

The issue here is that once you have a large group of sites designated as .xxx, a definition for pornography that is better than "you know it when you see it" starts emerging. You know that this is going to lead to regulation, restriction, banning, etc.

What's more, these sites have self-defined themselves as porn, meaning that when the eventual regulation rolls around, the government gets to absolve themselves of any perceived discrimination, prudishness, and trampling on the First Amendment by pushing it all back on IFFOR. ("Well--you YOURSELF said that you were filth...")

I am an adult and I don't have children. Sure, I don't think kids should look at porn, but my access to it--and the 2 of every 5 Internet surfers that are looking at porn this very moment, shouldn't be in jeopardy because parents don't have time to sit with their rug rats when they are online.

A "free speech zone" or a "free porn zone"--or putting a barbed wire fence around freedom, is not freedom at all. Personal responsibility, people. Live it. Learn it. Love it.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I can see your point there but seriously... would the world be so bad off without images of poor dogs and goats being sexually abused by humans?

I hate regulation... I am the first to admit to feeling the chains... the bondage of humanity...slaves to the NWO but in this case I am sick and tired of porn popups I am sick of doing an innocent search on google and stumbling across a picture of a child smiling a smile of sadness while she is being abused. (that one broke me down for quite a while)

When you say parent regulation as previously said a parent can't be there all the time. They have to allow a child the freedom on the journey to adulthood to be able to stand on their own. The porn all over the net makes that difficult. i remember as a kid my grandfathers national geographic magazines were considered pornography.

A parent cannot stand and watch over their child all the time. I hate what I have had to become as a parent. I won't even send my son to scouts..why? because there is rumours about local scoutmasters. I cannot allow my kids to walk to the park by themselves to explore to learn, because I don't trust the old pervert down on the corner that only comes out when the kids go past.

Why should I have to regulate yet another area of my childrens lives by watching them like a hawk while they are inside my home? Why is this material left where my kids can find it. I have no pornographic movies in my house. That is my choice so my children cannot access them. But the internet takes that choice away from me, in its current form.

if my children decide to walk into an adult shop while they are out of my site, I can trust that they will be stopped from entering due to laws that stop minors. But the internet? I don't see any such laws or regulations. My children even my six year old can press the yes I am over 18 button.

Regulation of this industry should happen before the material gets to my kids screens. This .xxx may not be the answer but I don't see any other good alternatives being put on offer.

So don't tell me as a parent I should regulate my children anymore than I already do. How about instead we tell the sex industry to regulate themselves to keep it out of my childrens easy reach.


Jsobecky, thanks for the reply..most are grown up but I still have five under nine born in 96,98,00,02 and 04 ..geez i am almost due for another in 06

Award for experience? ... damn i can't even remember library days. I guess I am experienced at getting sausage poisoning every two years....

[edit on 19-8-2005 by Mayet]



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   
A couple of months back a college student I know was at my house when he asked me if he could use my computer to go to a web site (a porn site) in order to resolve a billing dispute. He said that the bill for his previous activity had come to his home and really upset his mother. According to him he had cancelled whatever it was he had viewed during the free trial period (or whatever), but the site had billed him anyway and he just wanted to straighten everything out without upsetting his mother further. I told him to go ahead. He did just what he said, resolved his problem and then got off the site. Now; however, I can't get the deluge of porn junk to stop inundating my E-mail. I get dozens of unwanted porn ads every single day--and these are only the ones which manage to get by my filters. I've tried to set up filters to weed them out, but the sites keep changing the spelling, etc. of their subject lines so they can slip past the filters. If all these unwanted adds had a xxx domain name it would be easy to filter them out and I would never have to see the subject lines of the messages (which in and of themselves are extremely offensive). I'm very frustrated with the whole porn issue and just wish there was some way to fend this stuff off.

[edit on 19-8-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   

According to him he had cancelled whatever it was he had viewed during the free trial period (or whatever), but the site had billed him anyway and he just wanted to straighten everything out without upsetting his mother further.


I had that huge problem...except mine was with real networks real player
I cancelled after trial and they hit me with small transactions like 15 and 8 dollars every week for two months before i cottoned on. I have many transactions coming out of my visa for domains and hosting so i didn't notice until I checked to see if one particular transaction had gone through and i noticed all the odd ones. I tried to cancel again I sent them numerous mails. I even had an American friend ring them to cancel to no avail. they kept going more and more. I had to put a hold on my card in the end and change numbers.

That issue sucks.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 01:00 AM
link   
I thought software filters work pretty good to stop unwanted url addresses. My isp must be blocking spam because I just don't get it like when I had a dialup connection.

I think the real opportunity might be a combination of hardware/software business that has been overlooked instead of trying to restrict everything to the software. What I mean by this is that pc manufacturers and software manufacturers may have missed an opportunity to sell this to worried parents.

If a computer is sold to a parent, the computer could be set up with a lock and key hardware and software with an 18 and over id tag on it and an under 18 tag for the kids. The parent then could set up light security or high security for total control over their kids. High security would restrict all internet access to approved sites only with a software key identifying the age when they logged into your pc. Light security would just use normal internet filters to keep kids out but it could still use the hardware key age id info on the parents computer. Parents or adults who want nothing to do with the system could just buy a pc without the id tags or get it set up as unrestricted. My two cents. Instead of a key, I suppose parents could require their home pc require a smart card to be able to boot up and log onto their pcs with the age identifying info already on the smart card. Their kids just wouldn't be able to log on without the card. This sounds like a simple system to me and I believe software sites could be set up to identify card information when surfing. Everyone not interested in restrictions could just forget the cards.

The only law I see that would be required by this would be for all web sites to restrict access to those who present via software an id tag for under 18. If no tag is found or an 18 and over tag, then no restrictions on access. Of course this would have to be globally enforced for it to work and then some kids will always find a way to steal cards or beat the system but it would put more control back with parents.

[edit on 20-8-2005 by orionthehunter]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 06:11 AM
link   

I thought software filters work pretty good to stop unwanted url addresses. My isp must be blocking spam because I just don't get it like when I had a dialup connection.



This is a tad off topic but the reason you get more spam, than with your cable/asdl/adl is that more ports are open on a dialup connection. It is nowhere near secure as broadband.



[edit on 20-8-2005 by Mayet]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mayet
This is a tad off topic but the reason you get more spam, than with your cable/asdl/adl is that more ports are open on a dialup connection. It is nowhere near secure as broadband.




posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by orionthehunter
The only law I see that would be required by this would be for all web sites to restrict access to those who present via software an id tag for under 18. If no tag is found or an 18 and over tag, then no restrictions on access. Of course this would have to be globally enforced for it to work and then some kids will always find a way to steal cards or beat the system but it would put more control back with parents.
[edit on 20-8-2005 by orionthehunter]


I agree 100% with your post and wish it were that easy. The largest problem when you are dealing with the internet is that it is worldwide. The nations of this world can't agree on how to solve the major problems that we face, how are we going to get an agreement on a minor one like pornographic websites. Ever if such law were to be passed, how would it be enforced and by who? Look at internet gmbling. Once the U.S. declared it illegal the companies and their websites simply moved to a country where it wasn't illegal and setup shop. I'm sure that they are paying a hefty tax to that country's government, but it is chickenfeed compaired to what they are making.

One thing that I have to say is that the major pornography website operators in the U.S. would probably be the first to jump on the .XXX Domain if it becomes available. Over the last few years they have taken great care to try to keep the contents of their sites from underage viewers. What we are being assulted with now is primarily from sites outside of the U.S.. The last thing that these site operators want is for the government to get involved. These are the people who have helped programs like "Net Nanny","Cybersitter" and the search engine preferences to work. They are also why if you run a search sometimes you get a listing that has a description which has every possible pronographic term in it. This is to allow the filters to know that it is a pronographic site and to not list it in your search if your filters are on. I don't know if site operators from other countries are doing the same. My guess would be probably not since in my experience when it comes to pornography the U.S. has the most conservative views of any country in the world.




top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join