Will .xxx HELP our industry?

This is sparked from the thread about Chads C&D letter thread. i dont wish to hijack that as its a great thing Chad did!

Does anyone think that .xxx being compulsory would actually help the serious Adult Webmasters?

Think about this...

Its far too easy to start an an adult website. .xxx would be a barrier to entry.

That could mean less free porn and less theft of content on blogs and free sites.

Webmasters who make nothing but push out free sites and galleries with stolen content wouldnt. Who would bother with the process and costs? That means the only freesites are serious webmasters which means less free porn which forces the surfer to buy porn.

No?

Would it be beneficial?

No, most certainly not as it also includes ICM setting standards on how you can collect funds, what you can do basically, SUch as this:

Quote:

---

C reate and support an independent, globally representative, and credible forum (IFFOR) where all stakeholders are able to discuss and actively respond to concerns about online adult entertainment, allow the sponsoring community and other stakeholders to participate in the development, implementation, and enforcement of best practices.

---

(source ICANN summary)

That alone should make people want to defeat this proposal, as it is vague and no where does it allow for US to influence changes, and when you add this:

Quote:

---

Provide financial support for child safety organizations and to sponsor development of technology to enhance the ability of Internet users to control their online experience.

---

(same source as above)

You really should write a letter in complaint of this veiled attempt at giving religious groups the say in developing anything that relates to us. No matter how much they claim it is to protect children.

Can having the major search engines ban listing XXX be far behind once this implementation happens?

my 2 cents

Having a ghetto area with only those with money, or those creating free sites with a "pure - true" intent (??) - it would be too easy for USA ISP's to simply set as full ignore. Why would a person pay a premium retail price for such when the rest of the world will not comply.

The only good argument for .xxx is child protection, and the exact same thing can be accomplished with the RTA label.

In theory .xxx could cut down on competition, but a lot of stuff has to happen. Namely every major country passing .xxx legislation and then enforcing it. That's not going to happen. Don't assume that ICANN has the ability to limit porn to .xxx domains. They don't.

The ONLY reason for buying .xxx domains would be that your government MIGHT require them in the future. You could easily be paying over $1,000 a year to protect your .xxx counterparts.

Now imagine your government requiring .xxx, but the rest of the world is still on .com for under $10. That's not to mention you'd still need to pay for your .com to redirect years of traffic buildup to the $70 .xxx domain.

I'm not so sure .xxx laws would even cut down on the number of webmasters or sites anyway. I think you'd just see more sub domains and folders.

There is no possible way that .xxx will be in any way beneficial to adult webmasters, except to the 24 major companies that have allegedly made backdoor deals with ICM to get a choice selection of the .xxx domain names in exchange for backing the proposal.

$60 is not a barrier for entry for much of anyone... and even if it is, I guarantee there will be a bunch of off-brand TLDs from tiny countries that will still accept adult domains even if .xxx becomes mandatory.

But .xxx will be used to marginalize access to adult content. A number of state legislators and various others have already talked about using the .xxx to restrict access to adult content. Further, it's entirely plausible that Visa could decide not to process for any domain in the .xxx TLD, or to ONLY process for adult in the .xxx TLD.. Either would be bad.

As for preventing access by minors.... no, that won't work either. As I said, there will always be plenty of small, off-brand domains hosting porn in other countries, people will have blogs and feeder domains and the like that will be outside .xxx.

So the whole idea is completely flawed and simply a money grab by ICM.

Whilst i would agree that the .xxx is a money grab, part of me also does feel that in some respect it could be good for the industry in the long run.

Taking aside the cost factor (which is just outrageous) and hoping that it would be a voluntary thing for the life of the TLD there is a lot to be said about putting porn on its own TLD.

Not only would it show that those of us in the industry are concerned about kids accessing child porn, to some extent it would also do what the Senate (i think it was The Senate?) said that we should do by having a labelling system in place a few months back whilst all that Justin Berry stuff was happening.

Dont get me wrong, as it stands right now i am firmly against the .xxx TLD however, under different circumstances, this could very well be beneficial for the industry.

Of course, when it comes to stopping children accessing porn i still also firmly beleives that a .kids TLD or similar would be the most logical route to go in that respect.

Regards,

Lee

i really considered this question when icm first announced .xxx last year. not seeing any advantage, i wrote to the folks at icm. their response was that .xxx would work with filtering software and that they would help educate parents.

we can already label adult sites so that they can be blocked by filtering software and i am seeing a push to educate parents without a new TLD.

as far as helping the adult webmasters, nope. there's still free hosting, subdomains and $60 isn't enough to keep newbs out. as far as i can tell, and i've really really thought about this, the only person or group to benefit from .xxx would be icm. and the worst case scenario - the mandatory use of .xxx only for porn and other adult materials - could harm the industry greatly and also challenge free speech for art and medical sites that show nudity in a medical or artistic context.

Yeah i see all the points raised especially the fact that it wouldnt be a barrier.

I also agree with the .kids idea. Its much easier to block unwanted sites by only allowing access to sites on a white list and that is also 100% effective. Blacklists have been tried for years and wouldnt stop violent or hate sites, or much of the porn.

I do think as a non US citizen that it effects me too. If the US make it mandatory, i will have to play ball as link lists wont link to me, processors wont process etc etc. It will be 2257 all over again.

ah, but a lot of good link lists aren't in the u.s. and they won't care...

INteresting however this is not JUST a USA problem, it is in fact GLOBAL as ICANN regulates domains GLOBALLY. ISPs and domain registars all HAVE TO conform to ICANN regulations and rules, and so it really is not about just happening in one part of the world.

Quote:

---

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an internationally organized, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions. These services were originally performed under U.S. Government contract by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and other entities. ICANN now performs the IANA function.

---

(source ICANN)

IF xxx passes, it isn't just for porn sellers inthe USA but will effect everyone globally. It does not require governmental approval to pass even though some countries might object. In which case there is a process for that, but until that process is successful, XXX would be in force, unless ICANN itself suspended it pending resolution.

$60 isn't prohibitive, though it will cut down on the number of domain names individuals will purchase but the real issue of XXX is that it deliberately segregates a group of people. In addition, the purpose is to supposedly protect children and in reality, this process will do the opposite.

Parents already don't pay enough attention to what their kids do online, with xxx in force, they will pay even less attention because they will wrongly believe that the issue of predators will be solved thanks to XXX. In fact it makes access easier to children because now at least, if you specifically search for porn terms, it doesn't guarantee only adult sites in the mix, with xxx a kid only has to enter xxx to find us. So much for protection.

Predators are more likely found in social network groups, in chat rooms frequented by kids. As to sites that draw kids in to expose them to porn, those people already know it is illegal, and so when have you seen a criminal change their behaviour to accomodate a new law? Having XXX isn't going to change their behaviour, so once more, protection for children is not going to be happening on that front.

Keep in mind that if all legit adult sites are moved to be within that designation, with all of our records held by a private company, just how hard do you think it will be for that information to find its way into some crusador against porn hands?

When MSN and YAHOO were ordered to supply db information to the DOJ to satisfy a claim about porn and filters, they didn't argue, they handed it over. Even Google did eventually, so how far off do you think it would be for them to be pressured to simply deny any entry of xxx sites in their index? Take them what, ten minutes perhaps and there goes a lot of traffic and sales.

With weakened sales, traffic, how long can organizations fight laws in court if the people who pay them suddenly are scrambling for revenue?

Everyone needs to comment before March 9th

EMAIL LINK TO COMMENT

:morning:

Zoning the Internet is a bad idea.

It also .... much like real world zoning and land use regulations... will probably not even have the desired effects of the designer's intentions.

In my opinion, it is like applying Plessy v. Ferguson's legal principles to what should be a free Internet and to our freedom of association.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

ah, but a lot of good link lists aren't in the u.s. and they won't care...

---

Thats very true. But if the link lists have us sponsors and us hosts they may want to apply to us law.

Who thinks .xxx was a done deal BEFORE they started consulting? I cant find one webmaster with anything good to say about it! I tried to and was persuaded that my points were bs lol Why are they still considering it??

i don't think it's a done deal. i think ICANN is clueless - which is pretty sad - and ICM is both forceful and full of the kind of "protect children" doubletalk that attracts agencies and ignorant people to considering it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marcjacob

Thats very true. But if the link lists have us sponsors and us hosts they may want to apply to us law.

Who thinks .xxx was a done deal BEFORE they started consulting? I cant find one webmaster with anything good to say about it! I tried to and was persuaded that my points were bs lol Why are they still considering it??

---

I think it would hurt the biz.

when .xxx would arrive, lots of people will realize 'porn' is a big thing and that might set their minds on making money via porn themselves... Which would lead to more competition for us.

I also assume search engines might 'Filter' .xxx from their results.

Unfortunately, I don't feel that this particular vision for a TLD will be helpful to our community, BUT I do believe in keeping porn in one place. I'm old-fashioned that way, and I have strong beliefs that there is a REASON why the government comes down so hard on porn. Because it's not supposed to be seen by kids! We ARE doing something that is inappropriate for anyone under the age of 18 to see, and we need to admit that. We are NOT making children's books here, folks, so we need to be honest about what it is we do. We profit off people having promiscuous sex, and some of it is pretty rotten and nasty and raunchy.

Common sense tells me that porn should be kept in a place where it is harder for kids to access it. There's a reason why video stores have a special section (aka a back room) for adult material. It should be no different on the Web.

Unfortunately, I don't think this particular company has the adult industry's best interests at heart, and therfore, this particular version of .XXX should not be supported by us.

ken, the simplest and most effective version would be to keep kids on a .kids TLD.

the truth is that there will always be guys who jump on a new geocities or other free hosting account and put up stolen porn, and there is no real way to stop it since they are not commercial webmasters nor are they in any way part of the adult industry. there are probably millions of those, and having .xxx won't affect that in any way.

and what about medical sites that show surgery? not really suitable for kids but it won't be kept on .xxx. what about gory war pics? do you think those are suitable for 5 year olds? of course not! .xxx won't solve every problem and while filtering could solve most if we educate the parents, it won't solve protecting children from other things that are grossly inappropriate for them like hate sites. the active use by parents of .kids would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

.xxx won't solve every problem and while filtering could solve most if we educate the parents, it won't solve protecting children from other things that are grossly inappropriate for them like hate sites. .

---

Yes, but the rest of it is not OUR problem, Patti. We're not talking about medical sites and hate sites, so it's no point in even bringing those things up. We should only be responsible for our OWN content. Let the government or whoever deal with the rest of the trash that's out there.

In a perfect world, a TLD similar to .XXX would make the filtering of adult content very effective, and would be a "free trade" domain that was protected by the First Amendment, and there would be no interference from anyone attempting to police our content.

But as far as the alleged "ghettoization of porn" is concerned, I'm of the solid belief that we SHOULD be kept in one place together, where access by children is prevented. .XXX is a great idea that, unfortunately, is being disastrously executed by a company that seems to have its own interests in mind, rather than those of an industry that wants to be responsible, but is rarely looked upon as being so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

But as far as the alleged "ghettoization of porn" is concerned, I'm of the solid belief that we SHOULD be kept in one place together, where access by children is prevented.

---

While I agree with this in principle, I do believe that it's in conflict with free speech regulations, and no matter how well intended the process is, the right wing loonies will use any method they can to isolate and limit access to legal adult content simply because it doesn't match their philosophical beliefs.

AJ and I were tossing about the idea of an "industry cooperative" venture that ran a nonprofit .xxx top level domain registry (this, of course, assuming you could get the industry to agree on anything, and that you could keep the sleazebags from subverting the honest intentions of the process.) While I think it's a nice thought, I think the problem with the right wing loonies would doom it to failure, not to mention the unrealistic notion of getting cooperation from the industry as a whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

While I agree with this in principle, I do believe that it's in conflict with free speech regulations, and no matter how well intended the process is, the right wing loonies will use any method they can to isolate and limit access to legal adult content simply because it doesn't match their philosophical beliefs.

---

I know what you're saying, but to me, it's no different that a video store relegating all porn to the back room and limiting access to that back room to only those who are over 18. I know that evidently there's something in the First Amendment law that says that free speech should not be ghettoized or something to that effect, but I still have a problem with porn just being so freely accessible to people on the Internet. As unpopular as it is for someone in this industry to say, I think we SHOULD be more effectively policed and scrutinized. It's a good way to keep us on our toes. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

In a perfect world, a TLD similar to .XXX would make the filtering of adult content very effective, and would be a "free trade" domain that was protected by the First Amendment, and there would be no interference from anyone attempting to police our content.

---

That's a classic straw man right there. We could apply that to any speech, and conclude that because of our imperfect world, it's ok to restrict it.

In the marketplace of ideas, there will be bad ideas, or offensive ideas. And they will live or die under such spontaneous conditions, not because the government passes a law about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

But as far as the alleged "ghettoization of porn" is concerned, I'm of the solid belief that we SHOULD be kept in one place together, where access by children is prevented. .XXX is a great idea that, unfortunately, is being disastrously executed by a company that seems to have its own interests in mind, rather than those of an industry that wants to be responsible, but is rarely looked upon as being so.

---

Well who are you or I to decide what this "proper place" should be? (it's a fair question) I think the Internet has effectively done a very good job at self organization. Why do you think the government would "organize" it better? And better for whom?

Maybe political websites should be in another special "appropriate" place, or religious sites, or how about sites that promulgate cigarette smoking? We could suggest that talking about cigarette smoking hurts those impressionable kids too... and who could possibly be against the children?

To me, this is exactly along the lines of the weirdly intentioned "Net Neutrality" law. Everyone here seethes over how terrible the federal government is in regulating communications and the media. So why the hell should the same government be deemed better at organizing the Internet and portioning out its use? In both cases, it hopelessly politicizes the Internet, ultimately making it a less of a place for new ideas, innovation and business.

I just don't get it.... but then I'm an old libertarian at heart.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desslock

Well who are you or I to decide what this "proper place" should be? (it's a fair question) I think the Internet has effectively done a very good job at self organization. Why do you think the government would "organize" it better? And better for whom?

---

Every now and then, I think you have to take a stand on something, and my stand is that porn should not be viewed by children, and its proper place is somewhere where kids can't access it. Whatever that means in a situation that would be effective is not of particular importance, as long as it was, in fact, effective.

There are certain issues that require a little bit of moral self-righteousnous, and this, I think, is one of them. And I say that as a bonafide pornographer myself. ;)

Yes... for me, it's late Thursday afternoon, and a wonderful time to, instead of working, start making some grand rhetorical speeches. :-)

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

Every now and then, I think you have to take a stand on something, and my stand is that porn should not be viewed by children, and its proper place is somewhere where kids can't access it.

---

On that statement I absolutely agree, but I think that limiting access to porn should be granular, not global. In other words, I think it would be fine to requre every site containing adult content to have a keyword or label or something on every page identifying the content as adult, so that anyone that doesn't wish to view it, intentionally or otherwise, could simply "flip a switch" on their browser, and content would be automatically filtered.

This, to me, would be a solution that's enforceable, would provide a greater level of protection than .xxx, wouldn't allow a profiteer like ICM to take advantage of the industry, and would still protect everyone's rights to speak freely. It would also provide a solution for mixed-content sites, such as video sales sites that offer adult and non-adult content. XXX offers nothing to solve that problem.

While I agree with Ken that children ought not to see porn, I don't agree with the concept that it be kept hidden behind anything like XXX. To use the Video store analogy, it is generally another room or curtained off space of the entire store... It isn't unaccessible, something that anything like XXX has the distinct potential of becoming.

In a perfect world, sex wouldn't be considered dirty, in a perfect world people would all get along, but this isn't a perfect world, but it doesn't mean we can't try to make it one. Owning up to one's responsibility is one way, and adult sites should be adult labelled.

I can't stop the local hooligans from knocking on my door, I can warn them off, but it is up to the parents of those kids to discipline and control them, not me. To begin with I don't have that right. I can call the parents, call the Police, but I can't do anything more than warn them off. A website is not any different. If its objectionable for someone, they can either go away or if illegal, call the feds in. They have no right to force me to greater expense or to force it to be hidden and segregated from the rest of the Internet.

If parents care so much for protecting what little johnny or suzie see, then they need to park their asses next to them and watch.

If we want to make it a perfect world, giving in to some screaming nutjob who isn't doing their job as a parent isn't the answer. As much as I don't want kids reading or viewing my site, I'll be damned if I'll shut my doors simply to appease some parent who can't or won't control the actions of their offspring. It isn't my responsibility to go further than providing warning of what will be viewed.

i'd like to see the law hold parents responsible. you don't leave children unsupervised in public places - your kids can be taken away for that. i see the net as the same thing - a public place. and it should remain a public place. when i was a teenager, parents were held legally responsible for their kids and i have no problem with that. if they can't handle the simple task of turning on filters, their kids shouldn't be browing online except in yahooligans or aol kids.

imo webmasters shouldn't have to be so responsible for someone else's kids that they are held responsible even if they have the proper code so ANY and EVERY filtering software will block their sites and there's also a warning page up. i absolutely feel that children should NOT be exposed to porn, violence, hate speech, religious controversy or a large number of other things.

but why aren't parents responsible for supervising their children? i was. i checked out kids shows before i let my son watch them and checked out movies to make sure they were okay for him. it can be done and should be done.

besides, look how that situation was handled with DEVELISH. the german child protection people contacted him over an issue and he fixed it. here, they build a case for years while kids keep seeing whatever it is and then try and throw you in jail.

that argues a lack of the spirit of what protecting children is all about.

While .xxx seems like the perfect solution for stopping kids from accessing porn. The way it's being executed is wrong and will most likely lead to some pretty disastrous consequences for the adult industry in general. There's already other ways of stopping them from accessing our stuffs.

One thing that I envision would be that we're eventually forced to use this new domain if we want to keep running, and then certain countries completely banning .xxx or crippling it in such a way that will make it impossible for us to do business anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaystoryman

While I agree with Ken that children ought not to see porn, I don't agree with the concept that it be kept hidden behind anything like XXX. To use the Video store analogy, it is generally another room or curtained off space of the entire store... It isn't unaccessible, something that anything like XXX has the distinct potential of becoming.

---

I think that putting a .xxx label on all the porn sites is not keeping them behind the curtain at the local video store - it is more like designating a specific location where adult videos can be rented - a location isolated on the outskirts of your city, where your usual methods of transportation (AOL, IE and others) might not like taking you to.

HERE IS A LITTLE POLL:

At what age can you remember first seeing porn, what was your reaction and how has this experience changed your life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

i'd like to see the law hold parents responsible. you don't leave children unsupervised in public places - your kids can be taken away for that. i see the net as the same thing - a public place. and it should remain a public place.

---

If you run for President I will vote for you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

ah, but a lot of good link lists aren't in the u.s. and they won't care...

---

wait a minute, wouldn't ICANN have the power to take your domain if you put porn a none .XXX domain regardless of your country ?
like ICANN can do if you put wrong contact details in the whois ?

sure - if they find it ICANN isn't in charge of policing the web, and people will just move their porn from free host to domain to free host.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twinker400

wait a minute, wouldn't ICANN have the power to take your domain if you put porn a none .XXX domain regardless of your country ?
like ICANN can do if you put wrong contact details in the whois ?

---

Dont you think that webmasters should be responcible for who sees the material we publish?

I wonder how much free traffic and tgp traffic is actually under 18?

I have to say that a new breed of AVS where they actually verified the customers age, maybe by voter lists, would really help the industry's name and reputation.

I was 17 when i joined Badpuppy. All you need to get access to porn when your aged 15 - or any age, is to find one of the many tgps and free site link lists. There is no control over who access's these sites and a warning page does very little.

I agree 100% that parents should take more responcibilty for the kids in their care, but we as an Industry, for the main part, do very little other than put up a warning page or filter code.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

sure - if they find it ICANN isn't in charge of policing the web, and people will just move their porn from free host to domain to free host.

---

i'm sorry my English is not very good as i am foreign, can you please elaborate your answer ?

marcjacob - just HOW is this to be accomplished? it's nice to say we "should" do this but it's not really possible.

i know people who have warning pages with simple terms and a script that won't let you in unless you input your age. they add code so every and any filter can be used to keep kids from seeing their sites. some even have censored tours. but ultinately kids can steal their parents cards and join.

yet parents can certainly easily keep their pre-13 kids out of all that mess by using filters. sure, some 17 year olds may be smart enough to bypass those filters.

i believe kids should be kept away from porn, violence, hate and many other sites but in the u.s. we have not been given the means to really do so. so what is your solution if not making the parents responsible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marcjacob

Dont you think that webmasters should be responcible for who sees the material we publish?

I wonder how much free traffic and tgp traffic is actually under 18?

I have to say that a new breed of AVS where they actually verified the customers age, maybe by voter lists, would really help the industry's name and reputation.

I was 17 when i joined Badpuppy. All you need to get access to porn when your aged 15 - or any age, is to find one of the many tgps and free site link lists. There is no control over who access's these sites and a warning page does very little.

I agree 100% that parents should take more responcibilty for the kids in their care, but we as an Industry, for the main part, do very little other than put up a warning page or filter code.

---

ICANN is the organization that is responsible for domains. they do not spend millions of hours annuallly looking for violations - that would be impossible. so the only way they know if a site is violating a rule is if that site is reported.

i know guys who have had fake info on their domains for over a year and neither ICANN nor their registrar has noticed. the same thing will apply to porn sites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twinker400

i'm sorry my English is not very good as i am foreign, can you please elaborate your answer ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

marcjacob - just HOW is this to be accomplished? it's nice to say we "should" do this but it's not really possible.

---

I guess what im really saying is that we need to show that were making more of an effort.

The fast food industry in the UK is under pressure right now because they havent ever made much of an effort to show whats really in their food. Now they are realising that if they dont introduce voluntary schemes, the government will legislate.

Thats where i feel we are.

We shouldnt have to control what kids look at but there are many more parent voters than adult webmaster voters. When it comes to the push, politicians will act against us if we dont show that we are trying to stop kids accessing porn.

We need to act as an industry. How about more debate about how change the industry and how to regulate ourselves? If we show we are capable of self regulation, the politicians may be less likely to legislate.

A classic example for me are the payment processor who process for programs like Bucks Factory - they are more interested in making money than protecting the industry, so they process for sites where the boys look 12. If that continues, of course the government will step in.

I have no magic answers, but saying "not my problem" doesnt help.

Im calling for more debate and consultation about to correct the industries ills.

There are three existing initiatives/projects that I think will help if webmasters make use of them.

One is the new voluntary site labeling program ("Restricted To Adults") at RTALabel.org. That will work in any browser that has content filtering capabilities, and they are working on getting future versions of browsers to recognize the tag and refuse to display the content if the filtering options are turned on.

The second is Digimarc's adult content watermark, which does the same thing, the image itself won't display if the browser filter is turned on.

The third thing is an identity system project to actually identify the user sitting at the computer through a third-party system similar to DNS; the idea being you would, in order to join a site with ccbill or epoch (or any other site that wanted to use the identity verification), have to provide information that a third party would use to verify your actual age. The cool thing about it is that the site you're viewing wouldn't have to know who you are at all, and the identity verification service wouldn't know what site you're visiting, so anonymity would be preserved. (Of course, if you're paying with a card, the payment processor would know from your card info, just as it does now.)

So I think that all of the technology that we need to responsibly keep children away from our content is there and, for the most part, already implemented. All we need is for the industry to agree to use it. But of course, the problem is that until most everyone in the industry starts using it, no one will want to, because it will no doubt cut down on conversion and probably on sales as well.