Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

.XXX says it will "protect children" children. meaning that it "could in the future" if there was .XXX Do you believe that .XXX will "protect children" ?

NetNanny and other blocking software realized that blocking by IP was a bad idea because of the virtual hosting issue.

There could be website that has text stories about rape, that is on the same vhost as other sites, and it would block the "good" sites (since the other filtering sofware had different categories for blocking/filtering).

the same argument could be applied to my point, but usually "mainstream" sites don't allow "adult" content.. and those that do host adult content, would effectively have the IP lookup be an easy way to identify a domain to be looked up.

snce you feel my "what if" scenarios are far-fetched, please critique ICM/IFFORs position that .XXX will "protect children".


fight the inquisition!