Mormons demand ICANN plugs net smut hole Mormon anti-pornography activists led by SCO Group chairman Ralph Yarro III are calling on ICANN to give more political clout to those who want to kick porn off the web. Scores of Yarro’s followers have this week petitioned ICANN to OK the formation of a new “Cybersafety Constituency” which would help develop binding policies …
Much better to create a new clean internet on port 8888 or something that 'cleanies' can connect to, and wait for the rest of the world to slowly bit by bit reconfigure their HTTP servers to support. That way they get to live in a new clean world, untouched by normal internet web pages. Port 80 can be blocked to Utah, or anyone who declares themselves to be a Mormon. Job done.
This is clearly what the .xxx TLD was going to be used for. But that got killed off by some other daft religious septics.
Setting up a .xxx TLD would be so much easier all round. Very simple to filter for ISPs and home users. And I expect the sex industry would be keen on that as it does not require many technical changes anyway.
Why does one religion think it knows better than another religion? Leave my internets alone :)
<quote>Yarrow, who is also the chairman and largest shareholder of controversial Linux vendor SCO</quote>
Yarro, no dubya. But *Linux vendor*? Can it be that you don't know about SCO v IBM? SCO sells Unixware, and maintains that Linux 2.6 and beyond is a knockoff of their IP. They haven't sold/distributed Linux for bloody years. They're also in Chapter 11 bankruptcy and the courts have ruled that they don't own the Unix copyrights. Sounds like a great company to be Chairman of.
I want all religion banned from the web. Make them use port 666 for it if we can't have it removed. Oh, and I'm not keen on sport, either, so let's get rid of that, too.
Come on, let's make a definitive list and ban everything that anyone doesn't like. Won't be much left after that, of course, but at least someone will have thought of the children.
Sarcasm? Moi? Never!
*Lie mode off*
I guess it figures that someone would come up with a new way of censoring web content.
This article reminds me of a comment by one Athony Kennedy, US Supreme Court justice. He said (and I am not certain he coined it) "everytime someone proposes that censorship should be engaged they are the same persons suggesting they be the ones to impose it".
And, of course, there are many ways to implement some form of censorship upon oneself other than imposing it upon everyone else. And that is particularly so on the Internet.
I think I need somebody to explain in simple monosyllabic words exactly why a special Pron Port is such a great idea when the proposed XXX tld was really bad.
I see no difference between having a dedicated pron port and setting up a dedicated pron tld.
I wouldn't expect pron-mongers to be bound by either convention[*] if it was ever agreed on by ICANN or the US Department of Commerce. So, why even discuss it?
Lastly, it seems to me that the people who are now behind the pron port are the same bunch who shouted down the .XXX tld, so what has changed?
[*] I said 'convention' because either idea is utterly unenforceable within a global Internet.
Are the worst offenders?
Sort it out Utah. If you don't want kids seeing porn then use filters. If you don't want to see porn then don't go looking for it!
Also, I don't really get what the point would be of moving to a new port, it doesn't mean you can't point a browser at it...
These people wonder why folks either simply disregard anything they say or have hatred for them. It's this self righteous attitude which makes them think they are some how in a position to speak for everyone and force their point of view on the rest of the world that causes those reactions.
I'd like to propose a counter measure to ICANN, create a standard that routes any traffic from an ISP in Utah to a sanitized version of the disney channel. That way these holier than thou assholes can have the "clean" internet they desire and leave the rest of us alone.
ahahahahahh. Ha.
Oh dear.
Couldn't they just petition their own state and own ISPs to implement a blacklist system similar to Australia or the IWF? Then they'll be happy and safe and free from scary porn, without interfering with the rest of the internet, or trying to change things they know nothing about.
This scam artist Yarro has got to be kidding - of course, his previous efforts of getting his plan approved by government, through his "connections" to Sen. Orrin Hatch, failed miserably - so now he tries an end-around, using the gullible sheeple of the LDS to do his bidding; all in an attempt to position HIM as the source of all that network filtering hardware that would be required, and most likely single-sourced, so that only CP80 can make a killing selling it. Still, it's a more lucrative gig than a failed Microsoft Paint graphics designer, so you do have to give Ralph credit for that.
This greedy fucktard needs to be blacklisted from anything to do with IT, NOW.
Morons.
The arguments against blocking on the Internet have been discussed to the point of ridiculous. Will people like this just keep hammering and hammering until the clears heads get tired of fighting against the idiocy?
Paris, hammering and hammering until someone gets tired.
The extremists are at it again, thinking that everyone should think like them and willing to get in bed with 'Big Bussiness' to get it done so they can force there own form of 'ideals' at everyone and make it law.
*\. Getting my coat, as there is a war against terrorists you know (well apparently)
Because, you know, the whole CAN-SPAM act worked so well to totally prevent anyone from sending us email spam. Why couldn't we legislate porn away as well?
It would be interesting to take a vote and see how many wish to continue receiving porn on port 80 vs how many want it banned.
Paris...who else?
"Utah is 58 per cent Mormon, and according to a recent study has the highest consumption of internet pornography of any US state"
This isn't an attempt to make it less likely that innocent [insert item here] view porn, it's an attempt at making it easier to find porno sites! Might I suggest the .utah domain?
because linking to www.porn.com or www.porn.com:81
I don't see much difference, it's not going to reduce internet pron.
it's not going to make it harder to find.
and it'll still be logged by search engines that follow links...
so this will have how much effect of stopping internet porn? (unless we count the internet as only things that happen on port 80)
“Utah is 58 per cent Mormon, and according to a recent study has the highest consumption of internet pornography of any US state, boasting an average of 5.47 porn subscriptions per 1,000 broadband users.”
If they don’t want to see porn, then don’t look for it. If they are referring to getting spammed with porn, then do us all a favour and legislate against the spammers.
Morons! Sorry, Mormons!
There are a lot of crackpot religions out there but this one is soooo funamentally flawed! It firgues that SCO Group chairman Ralph Yarro III would be part of this ridiculous waste of time. They're asking for Censorship at the ISP level. This should be entertaining to watch. Where's the popcorn?
There are already technical means which people may use block materials from their or their childrens internet screens.
better to leave port 80 alone, and create a new port for akidsafe.net
for sites that sign off on some list of mormon-approved subject areas a simple DNS upgrade would be all that is required.
or perhaps we need a .LDS TLD.
i won't insult whats her name by putting her pic on this post.
One person's smut is another person's eye candy and another person's medical images, ...
This would be ripe for political censorship.
In the immortal words of Tom Lehrer: ''For filth, I'm glad to say, is in The mind of the beholder. When correctly viewed Everything is lewd.''
http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/smut.htm
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
