Adult/Offensive Domains

[Richard Stelling]

I think we should scrap the list of Adult/Offensive domains:

https://dotappapp.com/SpecialDomains.aspx

And replace with a sub-string check: *fuck*.app

This covers more domains and is a much simpler list to maintain.

In addition we should allow people to appeal, for example someone might want: scunthorpe.app - totally legitimately.

Also I suggest:

bitch     <--- female dog

bastard  <----- illegitimate child

bum  <---- seriously!!!!! bum? offensive? 

be removed, they are fine and not offensive. 

--
Richard Stelling
Technology

e: ric...@nyxdigital.com
u: http://nyxdigital.com / http://twitter.com/rjstelling / http://richardstelling.com

[Ash Mokhberi]

I apologise if I'm wrong on this I haven't looked back on the discussion, but I'm of the incline that after seeing the posts come into my inbox, that the general consensus is that we adult, offensive sites are not allowed on the .app domain.

I think a better approach is prevention rather than cure. Someone mentioned in a previous post regarding domain squatting that it would be a good idea to disallow the resale of domains for higher than the current retail price, thus preventing the temptation of domain squatters from buying the domain in the first place.

I think we should adopt a similar strategy in this case, whereby any adult or offensive domains purchased under .app are strictly forbidden, any one who is subsequently found to be utilising there domain in this manner, will have their right to the domain revoked, and will incur a penalty charge for the domain equivalent to the purchase price * length of domain registration ( essentially they will not get a refund ).

So I think a good solution flow might look like...

1. clearly state the the punishment and guidelines for use when people are searching for domains. Instead of blocking a domain that may look offensive to a pattern matching algorithm ( Given that a string of two or more words may accidentally construct a string that could be deemed offensive, however in it's true context is not actually an offensive domain ).

2. Once a domain has been purchased or after period after. We send the domain through mechanical turk to check if the domain or it's content is offensive. ( the period of time could be to allow for content to actually appear, or random )

3. If the domain language is offensive but the content is not ( e.g. in the context of the content the seemingly offensive language in the domain could be considered humorous or a play on words  ). The domain is flagged for inspection by the community ( or the staff of .app project ). If the domain is not offensive but the content is. Proceed to step 4. if the both are offensive proceed to step 4 ( other scenarios, could require amendments to that last two clauses ).

4. The domain is revoked after a specified notice period ( may need to look at law to define this period ). Once a notice of intent to revoke the domain has gone out, the current registrants can appeal the decision. At which point the domain will be inspected by the community ( or the staff of the .app project ) to determine whether or not the notice still stands. ( We will need a clause stating that .app project reserves the right to revoke domains as it see's fit, we will also need a non-liability clause for losses or damages, if the domain is revoked and as a result the service is unavailable and is then subsequently re-instated. )

5. Domains can be flagged is inappropriate by any member of the public at any time, at which point the process from step 3 onward is instantiated.

This has several benefits that will cover most issues and is much more flexible than blocking offensive words/pattern matching. It also allows us to cover other aspects of unwanted domains such as spoofing. Which could be a big problem when the .app TLD is new e.g. it could be quite easy for someone to purchase apple.app or yourbank.app or paypal.app and these services could easily be considered legitimate.

I would love to hear ideas thoughts on this.

--

Ash

Tel: 07886 298 285

@mail: m...@ashmokhberi.com

Web: www.ashmokhberi.com

[Jeff Kelley]

Where is the harm in an offensive domain? Why is this being considered? If I make a porno app for Android, why can’t I get redheadedsluts.app? How is that any worse than a .com?

Why would a group start out with censorship of something they don’t even have yet? You don’t have to show it in a directory or anything, but adult sites aren’t inherently evil.

Jeff Kelley

[Ash Mokhberi]

Well firstly it's unlikely that your redheadedsluts.app will be anything more than a normal website with videos in it. Which kind of defeats the point of .app. If anyone can persuade me that you can do anything more than show a video for a porn app I will gladly change my mind ( adding a comments/rating feature doesn't count ).

Secondly there is .xxx, .com, .net, .org etc for porn, they don't need .app. It's important to remember we are not trying to censor the internet, but preserve the quality and integrity of the .app domain. Just as apple preserves the quality of it's appStore with the same restrictions. 

Thirdly this is a community project so the final decision comes down to the majority consensus, and I think it is a topic that is well worth the debate. 

I personally think its is wise choice, and I have nothing against porn. I just think there is a place for it, and .app doesn't fit.

[Jeff Kelley]

But why doesn’t .app fit? There are plenty of apps out there that replicate the functionality of a website that would be considered. Censorship ought to be a last-resort measure, and I just don’t see who it protects here.

Jeff Kelley

[Ash Mokhberi]

Like I said I think it protects the integrity of the .app project and what it aims to achieve, which go beyond just having another gTLD to choose from.

I think in certain places "censorship" is relevant and should be considered from the outset. Although I don't like the word "censorship" because I think that's a very different thing to why I think we should block them.

But again this is a community decision your on the "FOR" side and I'm on the "AGAINST". We are entitled to discuss both sides, but I have yet to see someone put a very strong case for allowing them.

I think I explained some very good arguments, and those arguments may sway some people towards my way of thinking. 

You are welcome to do the same, if your argument is strong enough you might even sway me.

[Matthew Baxter-Reynolds]

I've tried to gently say this before, but there is a significant moral difference between:

a) Being an innocent bystander wrt to porn,

b) Providing services to the industry.

Those tasked with running the gTLD have to move from group "a" to group "b".  Personally, do I like the idea of moving from group "a" to group "b" - I find that I do not.  One of the hats that I wear is protecting the rights of the people with that closer involvement and I have to wonder whether others would feel the same way.  I assume that they mostly would.

Another point is that we can only do this if we get a decent lot of sponsors on board.  My view is that a good number of these would not have a laissez faire attitude towards offensive content.  (Look, for example, at Apple.  They have done pretty well in this position and you have to wonder what iTunes and the App Store would be like if they didn't have these restrictions.)  I can't imagine for an instant Disney feeling comfortable about it, and even non "family brands" like Starbucks and Coke.

We have mooted allocating xxx.app for this.  There is an argument that we could farm off the running of the xxx.app portion of the registry to another affiliated organisation.  That would seem to solve at a stroke most of the problems that I personally would have to deal with.

[Luke Bennett]

Something to consider with allowing adult/offensive apps is that with most major app stores banning adult content, we don't want .app to become known as the place for adult apps to flock to. We don't want to develop this kind of reputation. Plus what would the purpose of the sites be if the apps can't actually be downloaded by the vast majority? (ie most iPhones couldn't install an adult app as they wouldn't be able to get it from the app store).

[Matthew Baxter-Reynolds]

Excellent point.

[Ash Mokhberi]

Yep.

What are your thoughts on the alternative screening process, outlined at the start of this topic.

[Luke Bennett]

I like it - it would prevent us from causing any consternation by blocking perfectly valid domains like scunthorpe.app plus would give us a reliable process to pick up unsuitable domains that any pattern-matching might otherwise have missed. The only suggestion I would make is that perhaps a smaller subset of domains (ie those that are unequivocally offensive - so not bum for example, which might be purchased for an app for tramps or something) might still be blacklisted for registration simply to avoid any unnecessary overhead (and potential cost) in having to go through a process to get the domain rescinded when it's clear what the outcome's going to be from the outset. Bearing in mind that once a domain is successfully revoked, it becomes free for anybody else to purchase and kick the whole process off again - for the obviously offensive domains we could spend a lifetime going through red tape to get them back off people (who could potentially deliberately repurchase just to give us grief).

[Paul Ardeleanu - Hello24]

Guys,

I've been following your discussions from the back and I would like to drop my $.02 in here:

- Banning names based on random rule (the adult theme in this case) would only create a precedent and anyone will use it to ask for certain names to be banned (eg. on religious grounds). We are effectively introducing censorship and, from personal experience, I can say that's really bad. There is no way in this world that everyone will be happy about a particular name and not wanting it to be banned.

- Secondly, you are creating a lot of work, both in terms of managing all the domain requests but also in terms of legal action that will result from this. One way of another, our asses will eventually be dragged into court. Apple is happy to censor the apps that go in because they have a brand to protect and can afford it (make couple of billions of year from apps).

Just my $.02.

Paul

[Tass Skoudros]

Have to agree with Paul.

It would be really difficult provide this level of censorship on every domain. It might be possible that if we store this data publicly, like on the dotappapp website we do not display any domains with these words. The owners get the domains they want but understand our disclosure rules.

This could mean that if we had an .app directory they will be excluded from it.

Or;
We take the moral high ground and proclaim any domain with a subset of words or phrases that we add to a exclusion list are not permitted.

Both of these cases are transparent, I personally prefer the moral high ground. The market of people wanting a honest domain is big enough to sustain us.

[Jeff Kelley]

Calling it the “moral high ground” assumes that what you believe to be “moral” or “right” is shared by everyone. Is this project about forcing your value systems on others, or about getting a domain name that ends in .app?

Jeff Kelley

[Tass Skoudros]

Definitely the latter, the former was merely me wanting to take part in the conversation.

I am new to this group and by looking at all the discussions, this one was the most active.

[Matthew Baxter-Reynolds]

What it's *about* is creating a registry whose rules and procedures serve the needs of mobile and desktop app ISVs.  If that community feels it's better served by including adult content or excluding adult content, how they feel about it is what we will do.*

*mileage may vary

Matt

[Matthew Baxter-Reynolds]

I'm *not*... delighted its the most active topic.  We do have more than this to sort out!

Please do feel free to start your own topics as well.  :-)

Matt