.XXX in the media thread

[AdultKing]

Seems like .XXX is getting off to a bumpy start.

On the radio in Melbourne one commentator referred to it as XXX.COM while espousing how children everywhere would now have easy access to copious amounts of pornography thanks to .xxx.

USA today ran a less than glowing article, even referring the Middle Men the movie in the opening paragraphs!

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/st...ain/51680590/1

Then on the radio a few minutes ago , in Australia, it was suggested that Australia's proposed mandatory Internet Filtering scheme could be used to block all .xxx sites entirely.

[seeric]

long story short, the media is butchering this story for them. i watched two LA networks promoting XXX.COM and telling everyone that this new domain name makes the internet have twice as much porn.

in more positive news, the guy that owns XXX.COM is loving life and serving millions more ad impressions for his publisher account with the ad network that he gets his ads from.

[AdultKing]

Excellent read in the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...?newsfeed=true

You may be able to see the flaw in ICM Registry's logic. Why would porn sites which rely on being easily found in search engines want to be corralled off into a virtual red-light district that web filters are guaranteed to block?

So .xxx isn't going to get all the pornographers presently filling every nook and cranny of .com, .org, .net and so on to up sticks and head to .xxx. It almost certainly won't make the web a cleaner place. But it should make a tidy sum for ICM Registry as worried brand-holders buy the corresponding domains in order to stop their names being besmirched by association. Already 100,000 businesses have signed up.