diabloii.xxx? Well you can now!

AeroJonesy

Diabloii.Net Member
Hey, this way the people who know what they are looking for will be able to find it, and it should be easier for parents to control too.
 

Freemason

Banned
I've been saying they needed to do this for years. .xxx will make parental and corporate controls much more effecient as well as the search engines.

Next they need to make .puk for congressional and senatorial sites :thumbsup:
 
Freemason said:
Next they need to make .puk for congressional and senatorial sites :thumbsup:
Or just .lie to make it more simple?
Anyway, yes, it could have some real advantages, but since theres probably already millions of porno .com sites, they cant be forced to move if they dont want to, if im not mistaken. But yea, parental blocks are things could just do a total block on .xxx sites.
 

Suicidal Zebra

Diabloii.Net Member
Freemason said:
I've been saying they needed to do this for years. .xxx will make parental and corporate controls much more effecient as well as the search engines.
*gasp*

I'm agreeing with Freemason. Help, the sky is falling!!

As the man says, about bloody time too. Now all we need to do is boot all the porn into the .xxx domain and have done with it.


*secretly registers slippers.xxx*
 

Freemason

Banned
farting bob said:
Anyway, yes, it could have some real advantages, but since theres probably already millions of porno .com sites, they cant be forced to move if they dont want to, if im not mistaken.
It would require all websites that want to operate to register their content and have it verified. I don't think the porn sites would object in the least. It would make their marketing easier as well as eliminating the main weapon the anti-porn people use against them - misidentification.

You say verification is impossible? Wrong. A gov't contract would make such a task profitable and you know what happens when capitalists are offered money. Too expensive for the poor nations? I'm sure the various churches could be convinced/forced (loss of tax exempt status) to cooperate in assisting with this.

A calendar year to make the conversion would be long enough. If not, too bad. Any non-registered site would be blocked from sending/receiving content. The ISPs can do this.

I know I'm simplifying this. I don't know the nuts and bolts of any of this. I pay other people to know this stuf. Let them hammer out the details, I want the result.
 
In a ideal world, yes freemason, that would be great. But you try getting all countries to fully co-ioperate on something like this? It would only take 1 country to say that they dont want to impose these rules, and they would suddenly get millions of web domains registered there from all kinds of people.
 

Freemason

Banned
Then you make the ISPs that operate in your country not accept any content from the offending country. They become isolated and subsequently wither and die.
 

xOSERx

Diabloii.Net Member
First, you'd have to get the porn companies to cooperate with this. This whole .xxx idea sounds great for parental controls, but do any of you really think that playboy is going to give up playboy.com? These companies don't CARE if their product is being sold to/used by children. In a legal sense, sure they do. But they're not going to give up their grip on the mainstream internet unless they're legally forced to. And, for some reason I don't quite understand, the resistance against this is HUGE. Probably some 1st amendment BS, coupled with some well placed $$$ coming from those very companies. =P

I agree with you guys that this kind of stuff SHOULD be segregated. But I have just about zero hope that it ever will be.
 

axeil

Diabloii.Net Member
Freemason said:
Then you make the ISPs that operate in your country not accept any content from the offending country. They become isolated and subsequently wither and die.
But smeg that would be government interference in the free market. And we all know that's what those pesky liberals want. Why do you hate Capitalism Smeg?
 

Suicidal Zebra

Diabloii.Net Member
axeil said:
But smeg that would be government interference in the free market. And we all know that's what those pesky liberals want. Why do you hate Capitalism Smeg?
:lol:

*cough* Rights of the individual *cough*?
 

Freemason

Banned
xOSERx said:
First, you'd have to get the porn companies to cooperate with this. This whole .xxx idea sounds great for parental controls, but do any of you really think that playboy is going to give up playboy.com?
Yes I do. To enforce this you punish the ISPs for transmitting content from unregistered websites. Playboy would be forced to change it's extension if it wanted to do business in the US.

These companies don't CARE if their product is being sold to/used by children. In a legal sense, sure they do. But they're not going to give up their grip on the mainstream internet unless they're legally forced to. And, for some reason I don't quite understand, the resistance against this is HUGE. Probably some 1st amendment BS, coupled with some well placed $$$ coming from those very companies. =P
Money is always the problem. Good thing is that they also have enough to make the change.

I agree with you guys that this kind of stuff SHOULD be segregated. But I have just about zero hope that it ever will be.
Quitter.

axeil said:
But smeg that would be government interference in the free market. And we all know that's what those pesky liberals want. Why do you hate Capitalism Smeg?
There is always need for some regulation. The scumbags do need to know that if they get out of line there is a big hammer poised to squish them. Otherwise we'd wind up with the landscape looking like eastern Europe after the Soviets raped and pillaged everything in sight.

Anyway, have you no concept of the technological advancements that come from regulations? Pesky scumbag companies are always trying to get around the regulations and coming up with new and exciting technology. Where do you think home air filtration systems came from?
 

DrunkPotHead

Diabloii.Net Member
I'm not sure yet, depending on the answers to these questions:

1.Would sites with non-graphic sexual matters (such as this be required to register under the .xxx name? Will the answer be different if the content is educational/recreational?

2.Would sites containing graphic sexually explicit material used for educational purposes (rather than recreational) be required to register under the .xxx domain?

3.Would sites who have small sections with sexually explicit material have to register a new domain name to those sections?
 

Freemason

Banned
DrunkPotHead said:
I'm not sure yet, depending on the answers to these questions:

1.Would sites with non-graphic sexual matters (such as this be required to register under the .xxx name? Will the answer be different if the content is educational/recreational?
Educational sites would have to have the sexual material at least one page in from the start page. That would allow for them to use a .edu extension. This is where the registration process comes in. Porn sites would try to claim they are for "educational purposes" to avoid the .xxx extension. Proper registration would aid in preventing this. Further inspections by bots or dedicated surfers would have to police the sites afterwards. It's not a perfect system but it's the best I can think of right now.

2.Would sites containing graphic sexually explicit material used for educational purposes (rather than recreational) be required to register under the .xxx domain?
If it was a strictly educational website then I say no. Again the registration and policing actions would have to work to keep things under control.

3.Would sites who have small sections with sexually explicit material have to register a new domain name to those sections?
Yes. However, having links to sexually explicit sites wouldn't require the .xxx extension. The porn sites would quickly realize this is the way to avoid further regulations (resulting in their eventual dissemination) and would comply with this.
 

xOSERx

Diabloii.Net Member
smeg, don't get me wrong, I agree with you on the basis of the points your making.

However, you're just making up laws as you go along. At this point, it would be illegal to enforce the types of "punishments" on ISPs you're proposing. And it's not going to be made legal. Our culture wouldn't stand for it. I'm right wing, probably farther than most, and I don't want a government that turns the internet into a virtual police state.

What we need is not random imaginings. What we need is solid, viable ways to get this done. This .xxx is a step in the right direction, but at this time, it's still a very small step.

The ultimate fact about internet porn is this: If you don't want your kid looking at it, YOU take care of it.

a) What kind of an example are you setting? Are you the kind of parent that says to your children, "Don't look at porn" but your internet history paints a different story?

b) Do you have the courage to talk to your children up front about it? Or do you just tell them, "It's bad, mmmkay".

c) Do you allow your kids to have their own computer with unmonitored access to the internet?

d) Do you monitor what your child looks at on the internet

These are all steps to helping teach your children purity without the state coming in to babysit. Despite a strong stance against pornography, I refuse to have my country's government dictate regulations on free speech.
 

DrunkPotHead

Diabloii.Net Member
Freemason said:
Educational sites would have to have the sexual material at least one page in from the start page. That would allow for them to use a .edu extension. This is where the registration process comes in. Porn sites would try to claim they are for "educational purposes" to avoid the .xxx extension. Proper registration would aid in preventing this. Further inspections by bots or dedicated surfers would have to police the sites afterwards. It's not a perfect system but it's the best I can think of right now.


If it was a strictly educational website then I say no. Again the registration and policing actions would have to work to keep things under control.
Then i would want to know the exact policies of that proper registration. The link i gave in my previous post is both educational and recreational, like many other sites. How would policies reflect that?

Yes. However, having links to sexually explicit sites wouldn't require the .xxx extension. The porn sites would quickly realize this is the way to avoid further regulations (resulting in their eventual dissemination) and would comply with this.
I don't really understand that too well. If you have a clean site with one porn section, would that section be .xxx? You answered yes. Then how would a link not have that .xxx extension?
 

xOSERx

Diabloii.Net Member
DPH, I think he's speaking of sites that have no porn on them, but have links to .xxx sites.

Such as a registration site for playboy being playboy.com, but any pages with "free tours" or any pornographic content would have to have the .xxx
 
Top