DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

Is this suppose to make me give up coffee? Well, it won't work. I'm an addict and drinking a brew made of bear shit won't kill me. Hell, I saw the Croc Hunter on Animal Planet a few nights ago walking in the Mojave Desert, he sees a pile of shit, picks it up and puts it in his mouth and chews on it, and then says, "Yep, moutain lion poo!" If the Croc Hunter eats shit, then I'll drink it.

 

This thread has turned into DMOZ GONE WILD

 

OK. All the poopy talk made me go see what the Adult section had for a "poopy" cat. Alas, it appears that they lump both "poopy" sites and "pee pee" sites all together under Water Sports. Come on, DMOZ editors. You can do a better job than this. Separate them so when I want to see girls pooping all over each other I don't accidentally get a site with girls peeing on each other.

 

Good for you Anthony, you are showing positive attitude. I think minstrel has tricked me. He started me on this whole positive attitude thing and now he is not joining in for the group hug.

 

I was doing a database backup so I sent SVZ and PortProphecy in my place.

 

this is exactly what I'm talking about. That's a terrible analogy to use, and certainly no better than that of a restaurant owner earning a living and paying taxes to a city which has crime (every city in the world AFAIK). All that post about guilt by association, when I've just detailed why those arguments fall down, and you can't provide a single reason for how my work somehow supports that of an Adult editor. What was the point to the post in that case? I certainly don't see how a single editor that has participated in this thread has backed the Adult branch, or even shown any desire to be associated with the adult branch at all, let alone shown 'quite an associtiation' - it'd be nice if a non-editor could step up and back me up on this.

Besides, not being an official DMOZ editor, what are you doing about the problem? Surely you don't just bitch at (non Adult) editors in webmaster forums?

 

This is one of the myth that is used by DMOZ editors to defend such sites and it is not true. There is a 1973 decision by U.S. Supreme court (Miller V. California) that states:

1. Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , reaffirmed. A work may be subject to state regulation where that work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex; portrays, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Pp. 23-24.

2. The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Roth, supra, at 489, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary. Pp. 24-25.

3. The test of "utterly without redeeming social value" articulated in Memoirs, supra, is rejected as a constitutional standard. Pp. 24-25.

4. The jury may measure the essentially factual issues of prurient appeal and patent offensiveness by the standard that prevails in the forum community, and need not employ a "national standard." Pp. 30-34.

Brizzie

I am sure who ever told you that in US, it needs to be actual images in order to be illegal really didn't mean to make an excuse and just made a mistake.

Therefore, love and hug, bro.

 

I hope that legal information you have quoted gworld assists editors fighting this on the inside. No, it wouldn't be an excuse from someone who wants all possible weapons to get rid of anything whatsoever to do with children in the Adult section. But legalities are for AOL lawyers to decide for DMOZ and this shouldn't come down to a debate on whether the sites are legal or not.

Here is another one. I am aware from what I have been told that this is being debated by editors internally. You will not get any indication here of the result until it is actually decided there. Any information that might be of use to editors fighting for removal would, I am sure, be welcomed, as I am sure that quote by gworld is welcomed. Since I don't really understand the need for debate, I cannot really comment on the motivations of any editor who opposes removal of child rape advocacy sites, the best you could say is wildly and dangerously misguided on where the limits of free speech should end. And a hope that one of their loved ones is never a victim of these sick bastards. I would not expect any instant answers unless it is settled by AOL directive.


Bradley - you will be aware that editalls and above are all by default Adult editors whether they want to be or not. Something I was trying to get changed before I left. You may not be an editall at present but when the time comes you will be an Adult editor whether you want to or not. You should not have to make an all or nothing choice. Other editors have already taken the decision that being a DMOZ editor without the rights there associates them with Adult branch and walked because there are virtually no barriers between the main directory and Adult unlike those between the main directory and the K&T section. It is a personal decision though.

For my part I would not wish to be a part of any organization that included people willing to create a child rape affirmative views category and list sites where child rapists can network. And remember those editors mix freely with underage editors. It is one thing if DMOZ decides to do the right thing and clean this up, quite another if the category remains and so do the editors responsible.

People here can't do anything about what DMOZ lists. You, and every editor who lurks in the background on this type of issue without making their views clear and unequivokable in the internal discussion, can make a difference. You won't be punished for it, DMOZ does not work that way. In fact I can think of a few people who have had strong criticism of Admin policies and got promoted. With all due respect editors who deplore the Adult branch here and not internally are not being listened to where it matters.

 

Sure we can do a lot, we have done a lot since these threads became popular here

If we had no influence then all the DMOZ editors would have never joined here, I got bad reputation thrown at me by one of them yesterday for an old post suggesting that all the editors be fired and replaced by robots, so there are folks listening

If we put enough heat on AOL then Time Warner and Google will force change and that is what we want!

 

Holy smokes, after reading this shocking thread yesterday I decided to do some role playing and learned about becoming a DMOZ editor. A must read for ANYONE seeking a DMOZ listing.

These editors have to adhere to some pretty strict content guidelines. I couldn't find out more about 'editor's responsibilities' i.e. re-reviewing. The reason I am looking for this is to find out how this may have happened here.

I mentioned this earlier in the thread because I am NOT sure if this case was corruption OR an editor NOT re-reviewing a submission afterwards. I couldn't see anything in the editor's guidelines that states 'an editor must re-review submissions...'

A few years ago I tried an adult venture. I met many prominant adult webmasters and can say that these webmasters are sharper than most when it comes to working the net...some are very sneaky, sly and VERY web savy.

What I am getting at is this case may very well be that, beyond that we have to conclude that there really is some corruption here...that needs to be dealt with!

 

haha DMOZ.

Quality huh. Good job servicing your members.

 

DMOZ has a special category for sites dealing with men servicing their "members."

 

I could think that you meant something "nasty" but I won't; because I have positive attitude now.

 

A positive attitude? In the DMOZ Forum? I give it one day!

 

Yes, you can raise a subject, you can provide information, but when it comes to the actual decision, only editors get a say. But you are right when you imply it is possible for a directive from AOL to settle it. Though I know of very few instances where AOL have intervened, historically they will let DMOZ sort out its own problems. They might intervene if DMOZ does not act themselves and enough pressure is put on them at that stage. And at this moment there is no concern on my part that it isn't being taken seriously.

 

Lawsuits and media attention have a magic effect on multi-Billion dollar companies like AOL and Google for some odd reason

 

There are no guidelines on the subject and re-reviews are not done routinely. When a new editor takes on a category they will need to re-review the whole lot. Or when one quality control problem is spotted more often than not the rest of the listings will be re-reviewed at the same time. Otherwise nothing. If you think about it, 20,000 new sites are added per month. Which involves maybe 100,000 reviews. With 4,800,000 listings it would take 4 years to re-review the whole lot if every available resource were assigned to it.

But editors will risk manage it. For example when purging hotel booking affiliates I would target categories where they might be found and run through every listing. In one US city I eliminated 75% of the travel agent sites because they had turned into affiliates. No-one told me or asked me to target hotel booking affiliates or knew I was doing it though, I just developed an expertise and got on with it. There is no real direction of editor efforts until a major problem comes up then a team will band together to attack it.

In the case of pedophile advocacy sites neither I would say. Just outright stupidity or complete lack of morals. Or worse, that I don't even want to think about. They were listed deliberately, not bait and switch or hijacks. Cherryboys - probably since UGAS changed what it does, lack of re-review. But not being able to maintain such a huge number of gallery listings with such a tiny editor resource caused by most editors avoiding it like the plague, will result in this sort of thing. If Adult followed conventional practises and only listed one related site per owner, the main one, they would have significantly fewer listings making it a lot easier to maintain.

 

Considering child porn and child rape a form of free speech is the most despicable argument ODP editors can ever make. An ODP administrator stopped by to say some thing that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Is that how this project is being run? Let’s forget about the 500 ton gorilla in the room and comment on the banana that is lying on the floor. I do not know if any one else has contacted the authorities. I am going to stop by the local FBI office to see if they have any interest in curbing the advancement of child pornography in the name of free speech. I will post the result of my discussion tomorrow. I am also writing my state attorney general and the congressman representing me.

 

Well here comes the NY Times again.......

 

brizzie;

You are right. Even if your previous statement was wrong about US law as I showed by the quote from US Supreme court, there is no need to discuss the legal aspects of it.

IT IS AGAINST DMOZ TOS ALSO.

Following these guidelines, editors should not use terms for subcategory names that would incorrectly suggest a category contains links to illegal content (e.g., "Warez" or "Bootlegs") or advocacy of illegal activity. Similarly, ODP descriptions should not suggest that a listed site will help users commit illegal acts or obtain illegal content (e.g., pirated software or music), as such descriptions could incorrectly suggest an intent by an individual editor or the ODP to promote the commission of such acts or distribution of such materials.

Is there any editor that can argue child rape is legal and not against DMOZ TOS?

But the positive me will not imagine anything about why there is still a discussion and editors will not remove materials which are both illegal and against DMOZ TOS and instead will think that all of this is just a big innocent mistake.

I love my new positive attitude, love and hug, bro.