XXX TLD Busted!
Posted by Gizmo on May 23rd, 2006For those of you who don’t follow technology, a TLD is what comes after the catchy part of the domain name, usually a dotcom, as in Amazon.Com
That’s somewhat oversimplified since the domain names do relate to Internet addresses based on something called “Internet Protocol version 4″ (IPv4), which is mathematically limited. According to one estimate, all available IP addresses in this protocol will be exhausted by 2023, which is why Internet engineers have already started working on and implementing a new, bigger address space using “Internet Protocol version 6″ (IPv6). But the point is that the limitations of space in cyberspace are given by mathematics instead of matter, and the space available is based on socially agreed upon protocols.
Like most social compacts, moreover, online protocols are often subject to political pressures. This is what happened recently when ICANN voted down a kind of red-light district for pornographic sites. Folding to pressure from the U.S. Government (and by extension conservative groups), ICANN voted down a proposal last week to create an XXX top level domain (TLD) extension.
The proposal would have designated an extension XXX solely for adult sites. So, for example, if someone wanted to create an adult or porn e-commerce website under the domain name “NudePix,” he could register and conduct business as NudePix.XXX. Pretty catchy indeed.
The proponents of the XXX extension argued that it would both provide a designated place for adult sites (the virtual red-light district) and also allow people who don’t want to view adult sites to more easily filter them out (bypass the red-light district), by blocking any site with the XXX extension. I agree that this might have been a good thing. It absolutely would have made it easier to filter out or block such sites.
The U.S. government, however, presumably themselves yielding to pressure from conservatives, apparently sent emails to ICANN members in opposition to the proposal for the new extension under the argument that creating the extension would be tantamount to a stamp of approval for adult sites. At first I thought this was incredibly short-sided and quite frankly stupid. Designating a space for something, creating boundaries for it (if you will), is not a form of approval but of control. With or without a stamp of approval, adult sites are here to stay. In this country, MONEY RULES. Until demand for adult materials dwindles, there is little chance of wiping those sites off the web, for those who want to do that. Personally, I don’t care as long as they don’t traffic in images that don’t involve consenting adults. Certainly, the XXX extension might have provided a means of control, and that was my initial expectation and why I was so surprised at the government’s opposition and ICANN’s voting it down.
I was at first upset at the U.S. Government’s intervention and inappropriate influence of what was a global commercial and social concern (not a first for our government). I’ve had second thoughts. Like so many proponents of the XXX extension, I saw it as an easier way to filter out sites I don’t generally want to see. Too often, I’ve innocently clicked on a link and had a page pop up showing me way more of the human anatomy than most health care providers see these days.
The pervasiveness of adult pop-ups, emails and web sites has dwindled somewhat in the last decade, mostly due to its incessant interference with other Internet commerce (again, MONEY RULES). Because it was costing so many other businesses money (not because of moral concerns though many sold it that way), better filtering and more control over spamming and hijacking was developed. I was glad that big corporations pressured programmers sufficiently to help bring some of the adult pop-ups under control. I found it overwhelming and sometimes disgusting. I am, by no means, a prude, but there are some things I really don’t need or want to see — or at a minimum, I’d like it to be my choice, and when I’m prepared for it (this goes especially for certain scenes of violence).
That said, I recognize there are others who want to see some materials I don’t want to see. I can’t and would not presume to control what other people want to see or buy. I certainly don’t want anyone attempting to control what I want to see or buy. For that reason, I’m now less upset about ICANN’s negative vote on the XXX extension. Quite simply, who would decide what web sites would be compelled to use those extensions? That’s always been the million-dollar question in issues of obscenity, or rather defining obscenity. “Who decides?” I could easily see sufficient pressure causing art galleries which feature nudes or similarly inclined web sites being relegated to an XXX extension. Some conservatives would too readily and too unilaterally seek to block such content along with the overtly adult sites, however you define that.
For those of you who were initially upset that the XXX extension didn’t’ fly, you may be able to take solace. You can either be relieved, like conservatives, that the “no” vote denied adult sites that “stamp of approval” (if that’s how you read it), or you can be relieved that it avoided the mess of deciding which sites could be forced towards that designation, which could be equated to a stamp of obscenity.
But moral stances notwithstanding, I think the assumption that adult sites can be eliminated under moral pressure is frankly naive. Money, not morality, is the determining factor regarding access to content (adult or otherwise) on the Internet, on television and in the newspapers. As long as sex sells, it will be sold.
For more on the issues and origins of pornography, you may want to take a look at Lynn Hunt’s The Invention of Pornography, 1500-1800: Obscenity and the Origins of Modernity
