so, i heard that there are new URLs available for pr0n now. i heard that (as an example) http://www.pornhub.com can now be typed (or can soon be typed) as http://www.pornhub.xxx does anyone know the if this is soon truth, or just a rumor?

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/06/27/151241/ICANN-Approves-xxx-Suffix-For-Porn-Websites?art_pos=1

Sort of a bad idea though (from what I understand, there's fears that obscene websites could be forced by law to use the .xxx TLD in order to make it easier to control):

http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3675.txt

So if you don't care to read the Slashdot article, here's the tl;dr version:

The group that controls .com, .net, and all those other dot-stuffs has made it possible for sites to use .xxx.

Websites don't have to use it, but they can.

It's not a replacement for .com on existing porn sites, so you can't type in www.playboy.xxx (yet). But future porn sites will probably make use of it, and some current porn sites might one day switch to it, or add it to their site.

"Moreover, the existence of such a domain would create an irresistible temptation on the part of conservative legislators to require controversial publishers to move to that domain and punish those who do not."

There's always a chance of idiots doing what they do, just something you've got to deal with.

Sounds like a way to extort money from celebrities and large companies.
"Don't want your name associated with a porn site? Then you'd better buy it first!"

Is that any different from .org, .net, .ws and God knows how many .co.xx options?

Personally I approve, mostly from an ease of parental blocking.

There are two main dramas with regards to the porn world, the inadequacy of child filtering, and the prevalence of spyware, malicious popups, and general other bad things.

The .xxx domain is supposed to be extremely strict on insuring that the sites that use it are clean of spyware. And, while most likely most porn sites will not transfer over to it, it does drastically ease filtering for parents and schools.

For the most part, I approve of it as the idea stands right now. It's a positive thing for any porn site which wants to be seen as mature, responsible, concerned about preventing underaged access, and virus-free. It seems like the sorta thing that the sorta non-predatory porn sites that you'd want to visit would be overjoyed to join, and set their site apart from the rest.

Marbles said:
Personally I approve, mostly from an ease of parental blocking.

(...)

That sounds good on paper, but in pratice it won't work. Parents won't know how to use the tools effectively enough to prevent their kids from circumventing the block, and the suffix will most likely be used to prevent legitimate customers from viewing the site. Not to mention that all your effected bookmarks won't work, at least until you fix all of them.

It's a method to herd all the porn sites to one area, so they can make the mass-shutdown of them easier. Go soccer moms pestering government!

they're not going to shut down porn sites, take off your tinfoil hat. too many wealthy people are in the porn biz to let that happen.

jebus said:
they're not going to shut down porn sites, take off your tinfoil hat. too many wealthy people are in the porn biz to let that happen.

But it's so damned comfortable! Made right for me, too!

Marbles said:
Personally I approve, mostly from an ease of parental blocking.

"So I just have to block this .xxx thing and I won't ever have to worry about my kids finding porn?"

This will be the popular assumption and it only offers a false sense of security. But whatever, parental control is unnecessary.

arc said:
That sounds good on paper, but in pratice it won't work. Parents won't know how to use the tools effectively enough to prevent their kids from circumventing the block, and the suffix will most likely be used to prevent legitimate customers from viewing the site. Not to mention that all your effected bookmarks won't work, at least until you fix all of them.

Parents already in general don't know how to block anything. The ones that care enough to do get a web-filtering program to do it for them. This would improve the accuracy of web-filtering programs.

In addition, do you really think old companies are going to give up their old .com domain? Of course not. They'll have it redirect to their new .xxx domain. Owning a domain name is remarkably inexpensive compared to hosting costs.

It's not like most companies don't have a half dozen urls already...

gogle.com
gooogle.com
google.net

Just for quick example. As a general rule, if a site has changed their domain, they will never give up their old URL, instead they'll just have it redirect to their new one.

I wanna register xxx.xxx, cause emoticons are awesome :)

Marbles said:
In addition, do you really think old companies are going to give up their old .com domain? Of course not. They'll have it redirect to their new .xxx domain. Owning a domain name is remarkably inexpensive compared to hosting costs.

Probably the other way around, since it's a lot easier to make a new domain redirect to an existing one than switching the old one to a new one.

Personally I hate .xxx, because to me it looks ugly and just looks like one of those other top-specific ones like .biz and .jobs. Just my opinion though.

Marbles said:
Parents already in general don't know how to block anything.

Adding a suffix won't change that.

As a general rule, if a site has changed their domain, they will never give up their old URL, instead they'll just have it redirect to their new one.

And if you've ever bookmarked a site that has moved, you would know that redirection doesn't always work.

It sounds like you're just making excuses for a false solution. I'm hearing a lot of valid arguments against this change, but I have yet to hear one valid argument for the change.

arc said:
Adding a suffix won't change that.

And if you've ever bookmarked a site that has moved, you would know that redirection doesn't always work.

It sounds like you're just making excuses for a false solution. I'm hearing a lot of valid arguments against this change, but I have yet to hear one valid argument for the change.

oh wow, my pron site is down, there's no where else i can go to get my fap? if that's teh case, it sucks for those who rely on e621 for thier faps

arc said:
I'm hearing a lot of valid arguments against this change, but I have yet to hear one valid argument for the change.

Odd. I was thinking the exact opposite.

Unless by "valid argument" you mean "conspiracy theories" then okay, sure.

jebus said:
oh wow, my pron site is down,...

My point is that it's "a solution in search of a problem." Redirection isn't a big issue, if there was a valid reason for the change.

Marbles said:
Unless by "valid argument" you mean "conspiracy theories" then okay, sure.

Okay, then let's compare:

For .xxx:

• Parental control.
• The suffix will make the site's content clearer to visitors.

EDIT:

• The suffix will filter out sites containing malware.

Against .xxx:

• The proposed parental control issue won't be fixed.
• Sites will have to pay for an extra domain name, and use redirection to keep bookmarks and hyperlinks working.
• The content on the other side of a hyperlink will not be made clear, because of redirection.
• The change segregates certain businesses, and could be used to censor certain material to adults.
• It's not clear when a site gets the suffix.
• There is no justification for this change.

Calling my arguments conspiracy theories is not a valid rebuttal here. I've yet to be convinced that the suffix is a good solution (or even a solution at all) for the incapability of parents to monitor the online activities of their children.

The two parties that will benefit the most from this change are big players in the porn industry (not us), and domain name registrars. A majority of the industry is against this change, because it will eat into their revenue.

I'm also curious as to what a porn site is. Not only do different countries differ on what is considered a porn site, but states can't even agree on a definition. Do message boards with NSFW content count? What about sites like deviantart, which have nude models? If not, does that then mean there are loopholes around having to use the .xxx suffix? Furthermore, if sites are never forced to use the suffix, the purpose of the change would then be mute.

arc said:
My point is that it's "a solution in search of a problem." Redirection isn't a big issue, if there was a valid reason for the change.

Okay, then let's compare:

For .xxx:

• Parental control.
• The suffix will make the site's content clearer to visitors.

Don't forget the biggest benefit.

.xxx is having stricter requirements for registration, the main purpose of which is mitigating and controlling spyware and viruses.

You cannot deny that the porn world is plagued by unscrupulous websites that try and install every sort of malware onto your computer. This helps solved that.

The idea is that .xxx is supposed to be for "higher class" porn sites. A badge of quality that a site should be proud to have. By having .xxx, you are saying you are a responsible website.

Marbles said:
Don't forget the biggest benefit.

.xxx is having stricter requirements for registration, the main purpose of which is mitigating and controlling spyware and viruses.

You cannot deny that the porn world is plagued by unscrupulous websites that try and install every sort of malware onto your computer. This helps solved that.

The idea is that .xxx is supposed to be for "higher class" porn sites. A badge of quality that a site should be proud to have. By having .xxx, you are saying you are a responsible website.

says who?

Marbles said:
Don't forget the biggest benefit.

.xxx is having stricter requirements for registration, the main purpose of which is mitigating and controlling spyware and viruses.

Where did you read this?

arc said:
Where did you read this?

Uhhhh...

Fuck... uh...

... shit

I read it like a week or so before I came across this thread. It was something the orchestrator of the .xxx domain, who has been trying for years to get to a position where he would be allowed to use it, said. Like I read it on like, the day it was approved, July 25th I think?

Marbles said:
I read it like a week or so before I came across this thread.

I would like to see walware disappear, I have some issues with using a "higher class" domain suffix to weed out good sites from bad sites.