Comments on: Why .xxx Is a Bad, Ineffective Idea http://pervscan.com/2005/06/07/why-xxx-is-a-bad-ineffective-idea/ An Index to the Sordid and Depraved Fri, 12 Mar 2010 06:18:54 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Koby Joachim http://pervscan.com/2005/06/07/why-xxx-is-a-bad-ineffective-idea/comment-page-1/#comment-2973 Koby Joachim Mon, 20 Jun 2005 18:44:13 +0000 http://www.pervscan.com/2005/06/07/why-xxx-is-a-bad-ineffective-idea/#comment-2973 Granted, you can hardly trust pornographers to be honest and use a domain extension that would easily identify their site as pornographic in content, but you must also consider how the kids are likely to react to being confined to .kid extensions (or whatever else it might be called). Older children would want to go to the "big kid" sites, not the childish .kid sites. Personally, I would suggest a combined system of more domain extensions. Adding .kid, .xxx, .teen, etc. would help to categorize the internet. The only issue with any type of categorization is that the internet defies any kind of categorization. Everyone has a different concept of what constitutes teen- or kid-friendly content, so these categories and boundries would be forever tested and modified. Perhaps a viable solution would be for parents to actually supervise their children instead of foisting responsibility on everyone else? Granted, you can hardly trust pornographers to be honest and use a domain extension that would easily identify their site as pornographic in content, but you must also consider how the kids are likely to react to being confined to .kid extensions (or whatever else it might be called). Older children would want to go to the “big kid” sites, not the childish .kid sites. Personally, I would suggest a combined system of more domain extensions. Adding .kid, .xxx, .teen, etc. would help to categorize the internet. The only issue with any type of categorization is that the internet defies any kind of categorization. Everyone has a different concept of what constitutes teen- or kid-friendly content, so these categories and boundries would be forever tested and modified. Perhaps a viable solution would be for parents to actually supervise their children instead of foisting responsibility on everyone else?

]]> By: Jack Malebranche http://pervscan.com/2005/06/07/why-xxx-is-a-bad-ineffective-idea/comment-page-1/#comment-2726 Jack Malebranche Thu, 09 Jun 2005 02:18:58 +0000 http://www.pervscan.com/2005/06/07/why-xxx-is-a-bad-ineffective-idea/#comment-2726 Excellent rebuttal. I personally would not have much of a problem with the idea, except for the price difference. The price difference makes it a bad business decision--so long as it isn't required by (at least the U.S.) government--so why bother. If they really wanted to encourage pornographers to participate in this, they would make it cost effective to do so.. If you want to motivate businessmen, talk to their accountants. Make it *cheaper.* Instead, this seems like a vice tax that, instead of penalizing the users, penalizes the purveyors. This entire move seems as though it was authored by the Christian right, as a predecessor to some piece of censorship legislation that would, likely, sail through Congress. Who's going to publicly stand up for 'the pornographers.' Excellent rebuttal.

I personally would not have much of a problem with the idea, except for the price difference. The price difference makes it a bad business decision–so long as it isn’t required by (at least the U.S.) government–so why bother. If they really wanted to encourage pornographers to participate in this, they would make it cost effective to do so.. If you want to motivate businessmen, talk to their accountants. Make it *cheaper.* Instead, this seems like a vice tax that, instead of penalizing the users, penalizes the purveyors. This entire move seems as though it was authored by the Christian right, as a predecessor to some piece of censorship legislation that would, likely, sail through Congress. Who’s going to publicly stand up for ‘the pornographers.’

]]>