LarrysWorld
Are Kid Friendly Domain Names Really the Answer?
Note: This is an updated version of an article that first appeared in the San Jose Mercury News on June 14, 2001.
Sometimes what seems like a good idea turns out to be a bit flawed when you look at it more closely.
On March 7th, a Congressional Panel approved a proposal to create a kid friendly area on the Internet with the top level domain designation of .KIDS. A similar proposal was rejected last year by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the official organization recognized by the United States to create new domain designations and help resolve disputes over Internet names.
The idea for both .kid and .xxx domain name designations has been floating around for years and, when I first heard about it, I was all for it. But, after hearing pro and con arguments and considering the possibility of abuse, I've come to the conclusion that they're not such a good idea.
On the plus side, these domains would make it a lot easier for browsers to filter out inappropriate material and steer kids in the direction of appropriate sites. My suspicion is that most adult Web site operators would be delighted to add .xxx to their name. Even if they weren't motivated to keep kids away, the ``xxx'' designation would work in their favor by making their sites more visible to people looking for such material.
By the same token, many children friendly sites would probably want to use the .kid domain, though most would probably also want to continue to use .com. After all, if you're aiming your site at kids, why not make it easier for kids to find you?
But there is a problem. These designations also leave room for abuse and could lead to a false sense of security. One danger is that pedophiles and others with malicious intentions, could register a .kid address as a way to lure children to inappropriate sites. And I'm not just talking about sex sites. A .kid address could be tempting for someone interested in marketing products to children or getting kids to reveal personal information. Even though it is against U.S. law for commercial sites to solicit private information from children under 13, the practice continues. Besides, U.S. law doesn't regulate the entire Internet.
The only way something like this might work is if ICANN or the United States government created a procedure for applying such a designation and then set up a well-funded agency to monitor all .kid sites to make sure they're in compliance. That would be expensive and difficult to enforce. But even if a .kid site was completely devoid of inappropriate material, it doesn't mean that it has anything of value to children. That's a judgment that is difficult to make, especially by an agency that purports to be objective.
But what about .xxx? After all, we have the ``X'' rating for movies. Why not have it for Web sites? It turns out that .xxx carries the same problems of other efforts to regulate the Net.
It would be virtually impossible to monitor all sites to make sure they're rated properly, and undoubtedly some .com sites would continue to offer adult material. Parents who let down their guard because of such a designation system could unwittingly allow their kids to visit sex sites, hate sites and other inappropriate areas.
If it's not voluntary, that means that some authority -- whether governmental or something quasi-governmental like ICANN, would be in the business of deciding which sites are appropriate for kids and which aren't. And that puts us back right where we were with the Communications Decency Act and the Children's Online Protection Act. Although ratings aren't the same as censorship, they are a form of branding. Forcing a site into a .xxx arena is a de facto way of regulating speech. The ACLU will have a field day.
When it comes to the most blatant pornographic material, I agree with the late Justice Potter Stewart who said, ``I know it when I see it.'' But not all material for adults falls into that obvious category. Some people might feel that certain sites -- say ones that deal with abortion, birth control, or sexual education, might be inappropriate for most children, but that doesn't mean they should be put into the same camp as porn sites.
Once again, the responsibility for regulating children's behavior falls
on the parents and the kids themselves. And, for the most part, that's a
good thing because it puts control at the level of the family rather
than the government or some other authority. Yet, it means that parents
will continue to have to put in a bit of extra time to stay in close
touch with their kids. That, too, can be a good thing. Risks associated
with drug and alcohol abuse, smoking, sexually transmitted diseases and
-- now -- the Internet, have been the subject of numerous conversations
at my house. They're not always the most pleasant, but they're part of
what it means to be a parent in the 21st century.
Links:
