Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States

Kid-Safe Domain Created 657

Jadecristal writes "The Washington Post announces that President Bush has signed legislation to create a .kids.us domain. The legislation mandates that those with a .kids.us site not be allowed to link to any site outside the .kids.us domain." At the very least, it makes filtering easy.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kid-Safe Domain Created

Comments Filter:
  • by c0ol ( 628751 ) on Thursday December 05, 2002 @09:16PM (#4823153)
    you have to agree to the TOS to have the domain, and they can shut u down. this is a moderated domain
  • Well (Score:2, Informative)

    by TekReggard ( 552826 ) on Thursday December 05, 2002 @09:18PM (#4823162)
    This is one of those few good moves that I appreciate. I'm about that age where I will be having kids in the near future, and it makes a big difference to me what kinds of things they're exposed to. Something like this would make myself feel very safe letting my kids roam the internet, and I'm pretty sure most other parents or soon to be parents feel this way too. I would know that if they're on a Disney site, a site about children's shows, or even a local news site, its very unlikely they will accidentally end up on some sexist, racist, or drug related website.
  • Like this (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 05, 2002 @09:23PM (#4823201)
    Apparently, you want to watch this space [neustar.us].

    That was linked from nic.us.. it's the page for the kids.us domain. Apparently Neustar is still holding a public comment period asking for advice on how to run the thing.. apparently they didn't really want to create this domain and don't have any idea how to go about doing the thing, so they seem to be hoping on letting "the community" come up with ideas.

    The public comment period isn't over yet, though, so it *looks* like you can't get one yet.. on the other hand, as an interested party (i.e. an individual with a kids-specific site) this would probably be a great opportunity for you to make your voice heard..
  • Re:Uhm (Score:1, Informative)

    by SweetAndSourJesus ( 555410 ) <JesusAndTheRobot@yahoo . c om> on Thursday December 05, 2002 @09:30PM (#4823274)
    Ah, let me clarify.

    You seem to be unclear on how domain name registrars work, specifically this one. They don't hand you whatever you'd like, if they did, the whole system would be pointless.

    You've got to agree to and abide by a TOS. You can't just waltz in and order hotwang.kids.us.
  • Re:Bad solution. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Jucius Maximus ( 229128 ) on Thursday December 05, 2002 @10:05PM (#4823535) Journal
    "Isn't .ca the TLD for California? I thought Canada was .ca.uk, or .ca.fr, or something."

    No, .ca is Canada.

    And there are subdomains: .bc.ca refers to British Columbia, Canada.

    If I recall correctly, .ca is also a subdomain for .us - Meaning .ca.us would refer to california, USA. I don't think california has a TLD at all.

  • Re:OK so far (Score:5, Informative)

    by robson ( 60067 ) on Thursday December 05, 2002 @10:06PM (#4823542)
    Can we say "Tipper Gore"? How about "Hilary Clinton"? "Joe Lieberman"? Need I go on?

    It's a good and oft-ignored point -- censorship (or, more accurately, attempted legislation of consumption behavior) isn't a Left/Liberal-Right/Conservative issue. There are plenty of folks on both sides who'd love to prevent potentially "offensive" material from being sold in stores.

    There's more on the differences between the "Left/Right" axis and the "Libertarian/Authoritarian" axis here:
    http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/a nalysis2.html [f2s.com]

    Or, if you want to take the test first and see where you stand:
    http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/q uestionnaire.pl?page=1 [f2s.com]
  • When will (Score:1, Informative)

    by AnonymousCowheard ( 239159 ) on Thursday December 05, 2002 @10:10PM (#4823575) Homepage

    You talk about children so profusely that maybe you either have some or be one yourself.

    A Jewish is no longer a child when has reached 13 years old.

    A Amish is no longer a child when reached choice of RumSpringa which is roughly 15 years old.

    The United States [C,c]itizen is DENIED COMPLETE RIGHTS until 21 years of age.

    Who are you protecting? What will happen when I say we are all children of the Creator; be it big bang or John Doe)?

    Cherish your childhood while you can...depending how you interact with the world, it only goes down-hill with more regulation.

    And please don't take me the wrong way on this subject matter, I despise pornography and despise people flaunting any and all things I find disgusting, yet it is all a state of the morality of such people. Give absolute freedom, I hope you're a good preacher, like me.

  • by Animaether ( 411575 ) on Thursday December 05, 2002 @10:11PM (#4823580) Journal
    "Every company is going to be forced to get a kids domain now, or be left out of this "new internet"."

    I weep for John Q. Porn indeed.
    What's the problem here, exactly ?
    That You can't draw attention from the kid-safe domains ? Oh how horrible indeed.
    Here's an idea.. You could setup a kid-safe site, apply, and get in.

    You can't use google ? shoot.. how horrible..
    I guess You're imagining that kids.us won't have an internal search engine then ?
    After all, all the kids should be able to find the information they want just by clicking all over the place ? Nuh-uh.

    And why indeed would You want to link to CNN headlines ??
    "Dominatrix pleads not guilty to murder charge"
    Oh yes, I'm sure kids.us will want to explain that one to the kids ;)

    How about linking to cnn.kids.us
    or just
    news.kids.us
    kid-safe news for the kid-safe domain.

    Here in The Netherlands, we have a special news broadcast called "Jeugdjournaal", it's for kids from age 6-14 or something.
    It presents all the news that is 'fit' for kids (i.e. no dominatrices) in a kid-safe kind of way.
    This broadcast is also government run, and I haven't seen any specific bias.
    They've reported on just about everything the regular news has, just brings it in a more light-hearted tone.

    For example, they'll happily tell kids that Israelis shot dead Palestine kids who were throwing rocks at soldiers.
    But they won't show the blood and gore that's smeared all over the streets and bodybads being carried away.
    They also explain -why- the kids were throwing rocks, and why the Israeli's opened fire on them.
    Totally objective.. the kids can make up their own mind on whether the Israeli's were okay on opening fire and killing them.

    That's the only really scary thing that You might wonder about with kids.us - the -way- information is presented. Not -what- information per se.

    That makes 6cts now...
  • by samyool ( 450631 ) <samNO@SPAMthebridgers.net> on Thursday December 05, 2002 @10:24PM (#4823680)
    Actually, this probably won't be the case.

    There's no prerequisite for one to reside, or operate one's business from the United States in order to have a .us address, and the converse is also true; take a look at any of the online registrars, who will gleefully tell you, "We're sorry that foo.com appears to be taken. We've taken the liberty of researching foo.ca, foo.cc, and foo.ru for you, all of which appear to be available".

    If the only requisite (aside obviously from some heavy content restrictions) for getting foo.kids.us is that you only link to other kids.us sites, I don't think this will prevent non US-based organizations from registering these names.

    -S
  • .ca.... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Barbarian ( 9467 ) on Thursday December 05, 2002 @10:31PM (#4823726)
    Actually you're a bit wrong on that, you MUST be in Canada to register a .ca domain

    http://www.ca/ [www.ca]
  • by Halo5 ( 63934 ) on Friday December 06, 2002 @10:02AM (#4826222) Homepage
    Although IANAL, I don't think First Amendment rights apply here as it is an "opt-in" domain (In other words, A person's rights aren't restricted because they can still use the regular Internet for their content).

    Here is a good analogy: On our college campus, there are designated areas where groups can stage protests/demonstrations. While it is perfectly OK to protest/demonstrate, you can only do so in those areas. This is done in order to make demonstrations "more manageable" for the University administration. While many may not agree with this type of thing, I think there is definitely precedent here.

The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh

Working...