Will Fred Phelps, Exodus International, and Scott Lively Be Allowed to Register .GAY Domains?
CNET interviews Scott Seitz (pictured), the chief executive of dotGAY, one of the groups that hopes to control the forthcoming .gay domain suffix. I've written about it previously here.
CNET wonders if the domain will be open to those who hate gays.
Will someone be able to post content that's legal but offensive? Where do you draw the line?
This is part of the process that we're developing. That's the exact certain type of person we need to find a way to have localized on the site. Like if I have to check a box saying I'm over 18, maybe you have to check a box saying that I'm recognizing that this content is potentially unfriendly to the gay community. Yes, the ex-gay community will want to be on the site. The Mormon Church will want to be on the site.
Let's say I wanted to register ex.gay. Would I be allowed to?
There are two things to that. We're putting together a policy group. This isn't just going to be me saying in this interview how it's going to happen. We can work with some of the best organizations--GLAAD, Lambda Legal. They can help us find a way to filter these people. And help us when they're going to turn around and sue us. I think we have to assume that's going to happen. Second, as a community we really object to filtering in general. But how do we avoid subjecting people to the same type of mental abuse they've been subjected to in the general market?
Previously...
Who Will Control the .GAY Domain? [tr]
Can I just say that Scott Seitz is woofin' hot in that picture? He has that whole sexy daddy bearstud thing going for him.
Posted by: Growler | Feb 14, 2011 12:16:59 PM
Should people allowed to post anti-business sites at .biz, or anti-Canadian topics on a .ca site?
The free flow of information and opinion is integral to the Internet. Yes, idiots like Phelps and Lively are dangerous but, ultimately, who should be allowed to make the final determination about what can be said and what can not?
Free speech trumps everything. It's up to our society to ensure we understand how to utilize it in a way that benefits everyone.
Posted by: Eric Burkett | Feb 14, 2011 12:39:03 PM
It, fortunately, Doesn't matter. This is not how the internet works, this is how businesses want the internet to work. NOBODY is going to use the .gay domains, and anyone that does will be largely ignored with notice being paid to the .gay part. It's not like some kid is going to be like "Man I am young and gay and I have so many questions, lets go to ask.gay and see if I get answers!"
So let them spend their money on failures.
Posted by: Fenrox | Feb 14, 2011 2:03:51 PM
Do the christers get a .GOD domain I wonder?
Posted by: BradK | Feb 14, 2011 3:47:21 PM
If you read the article, he says this will be a FOR PROFIT venture. Is that normal for top-level domain registries? Just curious. If that's true, then who owns and profits from .com and .org?
Posted by: Q | Feb 14, 2011 7:16:32 PM
This is an incredibly stupid idea. For kids with bigoted parents, who then can easily block anything .gay, it can severely restrict access to information and support networks.
Posted by: Jack | Feb 14, 2011 8:55:42 PM
What does these suffixes mean anyway? Tuvalu's suffix (tv) is used for television. Now Colombia's suffix (co) is being use as a "short" version of dot-com.
Because they all seem to go out of control, I don't think we should be encouraging more. Actually, I'm in favour of less. These suffixes are a hold-over from a bygone era. Just get rid of them all at once (grandfathering old sites of course).
Posted by: Randy | Feb 14, 2011 11:54:29 PM