"By the end of this year, Internet users could have an extraordinarily
convenient place to find pornography: a new .xxx top-level domain...
Under [initiator Stuart Lawley's] proposal, submitted last week to the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), .xxx domain names would be
sold for $70 to $75 each. Child pornography would be verboten, but pretty much
anything else would be permissible, Lawley said. "Apart from child pornography,
which is completely illegal, we're really not in the content-monitoring
business..." The problem, in other words, is that as soon as .xxx launches,
conservatives in Congress will begin to clamor for laws to make the domain
mandatory for sex-related Web sites. That may not be a big deal for hard-core
pornmeisters who prefer that virtual street address, but what about sex
education sites that include explicit graphics and don't wish to be blocked by
filtering software? And where should Salon.com — which features images of
topless women — or Playboy.com — which publishes important interviews with U.S.
presidents — end up?" — ZDNet.com (US)
While at first it probably sounds like a good idea to have a domain extension
for explicit or pornographic web sites, it opens a Pandora's box of
controversial issues that might be better left unopened.
First, so long as the usage of the .xxx domain name remains voluntary, it
might not present any real problems — but what are the odds that usage would
remain voluntary?
Second, if the .xxx domain is to be used for pornographic web sites, who is
to say what is pornographic? Would PervScan.com be considered pornographic
because it focuses on perversion? Then again, all of PervScan's stories come
from standard news outlets. Furthermore, there are no pictures here. You could
jerk off better to Victoria's Secret than to PervScan — so would Victoria's
Secret be obliged to use .xxx? Or what about the site of shock jock Howard
Stern? Or, to look at it the other way, would a news site jeopardize its
non-pornographic status by publishing a picture of a bared breast (e.g. Janet
Jackson)? Would National Geographic have to censor photos of indigenous people
who only wear loincloths?
Third, if registration remains voluntary, what are the odds that porn sites
will actually bother with it? If you register fuck.xxx, you know that
Google and other search engines will penalize you in their rankings on the
assumption that you're a smut purveyor. Since most sites get the bulk of their
traffic from search engines, they may well avoid the .xxx domain precisely in
order to avoid jeopardizing their standings in the search rankings.
Fourth, the people most likely to use .xxx voluntarily are not porn operators
but rather subcultural types who think it's cool to flaunt a deliberately louche
or risqué web address. It will seem rebellious to get an .xxx domain. Marilyn
Mansons of the future are more likely to use .xxx than the Marilyn Chambers of
the future.
Fifth, legitimate businesses will feel obliged to buy up useless .xxx
domains. You think Microsoft won't snap up the rights to microsoft.xxx and that
Coke won't be forced to buy coke.xxx so that they can prevent their brand names
from being tainted by association with sex sites? This creates pure economic
waste, since these domain names are not exactly cheap. (Compare the projected
$75 for an .xxx domain name to the $10 or sometimes even less for other domain
names... Why are the .xxx domain names so pricey, anyway? Is it like a sin
tax?)
In sum, though the .xxx domain would seem to have the noble purpose of
organizing the web and preventing adult material from falling into the hands of
children, odds are that this is a poor way of accomplishing such an objective.
It's essentially the web equivalent of the scarlet letter — the scarlet domain
name. And you know how that turned out...
Niecodzienny