In support of XXX

[Reed Lee <reedlee@xxxxxxxxxx>]

This is a response to the thoughts offered by Jennifer
Anderson in support of ICM's proposal for a sponsored
.xxx tld.

I can understand why support for a .kids (or .juv or other
suitably international tld) would, at first glance, seem
like a "disingenuous attempt by pornographers to shift
responsibility."  But I respectfully submit that such an
initial impression fades upon further thought.

 From what Ms. Anderson says, she might understand the
"attempt . . . to shift responsibility" in one or both
of two ways.  First, by recalling cigarette manufacturers
resistance to labeling (if that's what happened in the
early '60's), Anderson may be addressing those who oppose
any kind of labeling of content to enable any kind of
Internet filtering.  Second, her reference to those "who
should shoulder the cost of labeling" unmistakably sug-
gests that adult webmasters should bear the full costs of
Internet filtering.  Finally, she argues that the a .kids
tld solution "is a juvenile attempt at avoidance."

Let me address each of these three points in reverse order:

The reason that a voluntary .xxx tld will not serve as an
effective filtering mechanism is that it relies on voluntary
compliance with a 'filtering-out' scheme.  That is, it contem- 
plates that those with certain content (in this case, content
inappropriate for children) will voluntarily tag their content
so that it can be filtered out.  But there are numerous ways
(metatagging, net-nannies, etc.) which are already available
to do precisely this.  As with all voluntary filtering-out
systems, the worst offenders simply won't use it.  So as to
them, the filtering opportunities will be altogether unrealized.
And for those who try to use .xxx while abusing IFFOR's "best
practice" standards, the worst that will happen to them is
that they'll be thrown off of .xxx and back into, say, .com,
which will defeat any attempt to filter them out as well.
These problems will beset any filtering-out scheme which
remains voluntary.  There is also the question of who might
use .xxx to filter.  If it were just the end-user heads-of-
household, that would be one thing, but no one has shown why
ISP's for instance could not block DNS calls to any .xxx
address by anyone on their system.  Such a result would
diminish, not enhance, end-user choice.

I respectfully suggest that a voluntary "filtering-in"
would avoid these problems.  If millions of households set
their browsers to default (in the absence of, say, a pass-
word known only to the adult(s)) to accept only .kids or
things like it, there would be a tremendous incentive for
many Internet content producers to get a .kids domain name.
And if .kids were a sponsored tld, there would be an
organization which could very effectively police abuse.
Kicking a site off .kids would mean that it can't reach
all those browsers configured to only receive what's on
.kids.  That would be effective in a way that voluntary
filtering-out can never be.  And, for obvious reasons,
no ISP or other middle-man will ever have any incentive
to filter out .kids wholesale for all of its customers.

And with reference to "shoulder[ing] the cost," .kids
would spread the costs to the point where they would truly
be trivial.  Not just child-specific websites but general
websites would want to be in on .kids.  Professional sports
team websites would be there along with site promoting after-
school soccer.  NASA would be there along with web sites
promoting youthful interest in math and science.  The economy
of scale could fund a truly robust .kids policing organization
at trivial cost to users on either end of Internet communica-
tion.

And finally there is the question of responsibility.  If Ms.
Anderson's comments are directed to those who oppose anything
which would promote any kind of filtering, that is one thing.
I don't know any such people.  But I do know people who want
to promote end-user filtering while _not_ promoting middle-man
filtering by ISP's and the like.  The latter sort of filtering
could be extended into many areas (think what repressive govern-
ments could do) and would ruin the free speech promise of the
Internet.  I agree that adult webmasters should avoid advertising
to children and unwilling adults.  I agree that they should
seriously consider promoting and enhancing systems that let
end-users (but _only_ end users) filter their content.  But in
the end the relevant responsibilities are not theirs alone.  In
its early days, the Internet was referred to an the "information
superhighway" and people wondered then as they do now how to
make the information superhighway safe for children.  As with
a real highway, the solution is not to slow all traffic down
to a speed safe for children playing in the street.  The solu-
tion is a bicycle lane which can operate without burdening the
rest of the traffic.

Although some people don't like it, sexually explicit expression
is constitutionally protected among adults (not just in the U.S.,
as Ms. Anderson suggests, but elsewhere as well, e.g. Section
2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Responsibilities).
To be sure, those exercising those rights have a moral and legal
obligation to avoid knowingly disseminating adult expression to
children.  On the Internet, it's hard to know who you're talking
to, so adult webmasters should also carefully consider coopera-
ting with end-user filtering.  But we live in a world that makes
them properly wary of middle-man filtering and in a world which
some assume that they should bear all of the burdens because they
really shouldn't be talking like that at all.  In the end, fil-
tering is for the end-user.  Adult webmasters should be and are
willing to do their part.  But for the reasons I've outlined
here, .kids may just be a far more effective filtering idea than
a voluntary .kids ever could be.