RE: .xxx is still a bad idea
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The only people that accidentally stumble onto adult content on other TLDs is children and they cannot pay to view the content, and it would be illegal for them to do so anyhow. Wow. You completely misunderstood my point. Filtering-by-domain will NOT be used just to "protect the children". It will be used by skittish ISPS and overprotective governments to block *consenting* *adults* from *intentionally* accessing those sites. .xxx makes it too easy to limit the choices of adults. You're encouraging censorship at the protocol level, which is a *huge* problem for people living in areas with a limited number of service providers. Here's how I hope the situation plays out (and it might be wishful thinking on my part): The .xxx TLD gets approved. The United Nations steps in and takes control of ICANN (which I think they will). The UN isn't the solution to different cultural standards of adult content; despite what you may think, it has no magical ability to make the nations of the world agree on a definition of "adult content". It still can't get them to agree on a global definition of "racism". Also, the U.S. government is not going to turn control of the DNS to the United Nations. It's just not the kind of thing the United States government does. You know, at this point, the single greatest argument against .xxx may be the poor reasoning abilities of its supporters: None of them actually want the .xxx TLD being proposed; they want a giant government-mandated porn filter that lets the goverment read every communication on the Internet. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.01 iD8DBQFAkeBdcpuEJT2bpHsRAgr3AJ9rGsqosUSs4/0eZwut3QHaYbBHIwCg1xC5 EGIgltIzxPOQ1npqk6Pgp00= =hmON -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |