Will .xxx HELP our industry?

[marcjacob]

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?

[gaystoryman]

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:

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:

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

[wnc]

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.

[Matt 26z]

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.

[gaybucks_chip]

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.

[Lee]

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

[basschick]

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.

[marcjacob]

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.

[basschick]

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

[gaystoryman]

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.

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:

[desslock]

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

[marcjacob]

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 Why are they still considering it??

[basschick]

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.

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 Why are they still considering it??

[alexey]

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.

[XXXWriterDude]

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.