• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

New Website labeling Law

Y

YoshiSato

Banned
The article can been seen here

Placing a "FDA" label on a web site is just fracken stupid. It would be a whole lot eaiser to just approve the .XXX top level domain and force all the porn sites to use .XXX

 
so does this mean that like drugs and other fun things we'll have to wait 12 years before we can tell if it's good only to find out 6 months later it'll cause stage 4 cancer?
 
Originally posted by: YoshiSato
The article can been seen here

Placing a "FDA" label on a web site is just fracken stupid. It would be a whole lot eaiser to just approve the .XXX top level domain and force all the porn sites to use .XXX
Click to expand...

"force"? Lots of porn site owners would love to use .xxx. I mean, that would open up a bunch of domains that are currently taken for non-porn, and it would make it easy for people to find their stuff.

The only problem is how comprehensive .xxx restrictions get...obviously every company will want to block them, but once ISPs start blocking them, porn sites will break the restriction.
 
I didn't read the whole article, but.... Is it me or does this sound extremely stupid? Like, isn't it already obvious when a site has sexually explicit content? Why do we need a warning label to tell us what we already can just see?
 
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
I didn't read the whole article, but.... Is it me or does this sound extremely stupid? Like, isn't it already obvious when a site has sexually explicit content? Why do we need a warning label to tell us what we already can just see?
Click to expand...

Because of the typo-squatting porn sites that show explicit content to children (not saying I agree or disagree, but that is the logic behind all of this)
 
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
I didn't read the whole article, but.... Is it me or does this sound extremely stupid? Like, isn't it already obvious when a site has sexually explicit content? Why do we need a warning label to tell us what we already can just see?
Click to expand...

Because of the typo-squatting porn sites that show explicit content to children (not saying I agree or disagree, but that is the logic behind all of this)
Click to expand...

Yup. Sounds reasonable to me.
 
Originally posted by: Lucky
more government regulation where the government doesnt need to be. and its FREAKING UNENFORCEABLE.
Click to expand...


So ture. The US has no power to enforce the law on servers out side of the US.
 
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: YoshiSato
The article can been seen here

Placing a "FDA" label on a web site is just fracken stupid. It would be a whole lot eaiser to just approve the .XXX top level domain and force all the porn sites to use .XXX
Click to expand...

"force"? Lots of porn site owners would love to use .xxx. I mean, that would open up a bunch of domains that are currently taken for non-porn, and it would make it easy for people to find their stuff.

The only problem is how comprehensive .xxx restrictions get...obviously every company will want to block them, but once ISPs start blocking them, porn sites will break the restriction.
Click to expand...


From the stuff I've read regarding the .XXX domain all porn content would have to use this domain. They could no longer host porn on a .com or .net domain name.

Sex.com that sold for 14 million will be worthless then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top