Idea for better control of site blocking

[CodeName62]

Hey there. Well as you can see from the title, I have an idea to help with the control of site blocking on the internet. Todays internet site blocking software is really ineffective. When we put on the block, a good amount of clean wanted sites are blocked. Also it gets annoying when we try search for something, but then it turns out to be porn. I have a simple idea to make the blocking software more effective. As we all know, web addresses are composed of .com, .net, .org, or .gov. My idea is to group a certain genre of sites to it's own .(whatever). Let’s say that there is a porno site has the address of http://www.hotsex.com. Since it is a porno site, it would make sense to group it under .xxx. So it would be renamed as http://www.hotsex.xxx. You would do this with all the other porno sites on the internet. Now on the internet blocking software, just set it up so that it blocks .xxx. Now the user wouldn't have to worry about their children being exposed to pornographic material, when they are on the internet. Also, they would not have to worry about accidentally getting on a porno site when doing research. There has to be a flaw in this idea, because its so simple that it had to of been thought of earlier. The only thing I could see having a problem with it, is that grouping the sites would violate the 1st Amendment-Freedom of Speech. For example, people might argue that child porn is a form of art. Besides this I do not see any other problems with the idea. Now since we are all knowledgeable in different areas, I was wondering if you could see any other flaws with this site blocking method? Thanks in advance.

[Shotie]

Well, freedom of speech might interfer with that a tad. And who's to say that if it's not a business porn site (most of them aren't) and you block it, then the people could complain?

And what would stop someone from registering http://www.hotsex.com, instead of hotsex.xxx

It's a nice theory, but I don't see it working in practice...

[Greg]

I don't think it will interfear with freedom of speach, I just doubt that anyone will actually adhear to it.

[ABDUR101]

On 2002-06-09 23:14, Shotie wrote:
Well, freedom of speech might interfer with that a tad. And who's to say that if it's not a business porn site (most of them aren't) and you block it, then the people could complain?

Merely blocking a business porn site isn't really limiting their freedom of speech. Yahoo I beleive blocks porn searches until you choose to goto their adult search engine. It doesn't work for hentai though hehe. And the last I checked, most porn sites WERE for business, you had to pay to be a member.



And what would stop someone from registering http://www.hotsex.com, instead of hotsex.xxx

A re-write of the data search for such sites. I doubt anyone would do it, because it would be very time consuming and every site would have to be flagged and checked whether it was a porn site or not. It would have been a good idea if it were done in the beginning, but now everything is set, and any change would take a VERY long time to spread.



It's a nice theory, but I don't see it working in practice...

Not now anyways...

[Kent]

Almost all of the time, when site blocking software is used, it is used to keep other people from seeing specific content on the internet, usually used to protect children. If this is the case here, then it shouldn't interfere with anyone's freedom of speech.

[Shotie]

Perhaps I worded what I was trying to get at badly:

Forcing the porn sites to change their address could be getting close to bordering on freedom issues. Especially if they had to pay for it.

People are allowed to block all the porn they want, but when you tell someone, "You can't have a .com anymore, you HAVE to have a .xxx address...well, it might be hard to institute. If it had been done from the start, it might have worked. But now...no way. Not until there's an easier way.

[Rhete]

Wasn't .nu already made for porn sites, and basically never used?

[jazzyfox]

1) You're assuming the entire world subscribes to the US Bill of Rights.
2) "Freedom of Speech" correctly reads that Congress won't abridge your right to free speech.

What does this all mean? ICANN the organization that bascially controls the Internet namespace, can designate that a certain block of names is for a certain purpose. Requiring porn sites to have a .xxx TLD is no different than requiring commercial entities to have a .com, non-profits to have a .org, educational institutions to have a .edu, etc.

As far as content blocking software.. again it comes down to government versus non-government controls. The government is not allowed to pass a law curbing your freedom of speech. Corporations and other private institutions can curb it all they want when you're in areas under their 'jurisdiction'. That's not to say it would be a good idea for them, but hey, people do stupid things every day.