Dmoz (aka AOL) Changing Guidelines In Sketchy Way Note the date of this post: October 24, 2000. That's interesting because apparently some of those editors who didn't like the new rules were able to effectively ignore them for almost 6 years. It's interesting to see the old "free speech" rationalizations being trotted out back then, including one comment that says, Now that is just dumber than dumb. "The more things change, the more they stay the same"?
The second quote is from a comment to that same Slashdot post. My point is 1. that those "new guidelines" were apparently enacted in late 2000. Why is it necessary for DMOZ Admins to be still debating them in 2006? 2. the same tired and misguided objections to DMOZ reform that are being trotted out in 2006 were apparently also trotted out in 2000. Is it any wonder some of us are cynical/skeptical about the "new" 2006 proposed changes?
No, it's quite understandable. Failure in the past doesn't mean we're doomed to failure now so we have to try and if we don't succeed, we'll try again some other time. Those are our only choices in life, we keep trying or we give up.
At last you have discovered Minstrel what I have been trying to tell you. The ODP has never supported child porn. To the best of my knowledge (and I've been in the ODP a long time) no editor has ever argued with the no-child-porn part of the no-illegal-sites guideline you refer to. The Cunctator was fretting over other issues, as you can see for yourself. In fact I would say that the greatest unity the ODP community has ever shown is in its support for NOT listing child porn, which is not only illegal in most jurisdictions, but regarded with solid horror around the world. The recent debate by Admins was another round in a series of discussions over grey areas. The "what if it's legal, but we feel it's suspect" question. As in previous cases the conclusion essentially was to treat suspect sites with suspicion. No change there. But things got a little clearer about how to apply that to the paedophilia category.
Well then what's the problem? If the DMOZ doesn't support child porn as per their rules then how comes the websites are still there under the reasoning that it's at the editor's descretion or it's a grey area? Did I miss something? Looks pretty clear to me.
People have been grossly misled by a blaring thread title on this forum. The concern (and it was a very strong concern within the ODP) was over sites which were not, repeat not, child pornography in any legal sense, but which nontheless could be seen as appealing to prurient interests of paedophiles. Those were the sites which sidjf and many other editors wanted delisted and succeeded in getting delisted. The idea that the ODP supports child porn is insane. What legitimate organisation would do so? You really think Netscape, AOL or Time Warner (owners of the ODP) would support child porn?
There is no difference morally between a child pornography site and a pro-pedophilia site. Both are equally dangerous to future child rape victims. Stop splitting hairs and spewing garbage, sidjf and Genie. That is total BS and I hope to God you know that! If you do not understand that one is as bad as the other, it can only mean one of two things: (1) you CHOOSE not to understand for your own reasons/agenda; or (2) you are waqy to dim to be an editor of anything except perhaps your own HotMail address book.
Whether they are equally bad or not is not the issue (and as far as potential future harm to children, I agree with you). They are two seperate things. The ODP does not list child pornography. That's not splitting hairs, it's reality. Get your facts straight.
Get your head straight, sidjf! You are arguing semantics while children are being raped and killed and pedophiles are planning, some with the help of sites promoted and endorsed by DMOZ, their next assaults. If your little semantic games help to create even one more victim, may you and your cronies rot in hell for all eternity.
Pornographic material can be both text and images. What you are saying is that DMOZ would not list a pornographic material that included images but it seems there was no problem with listing web sites that described child molestation. The correct assessment of situation will be that child porn with pictures was not listed but child porn without images was listed.
I don't believe that AOL Time Warner would support child pornography. However, I think any DMOZ editor would have to consider Minstrel's: Could one of the 8,000 editors let in some bad stuff? Sure, whether AOL likes it or not. Just saying "There's no issue" won't ensure that DMOZ isn't putting children in danger.
What's going on here? Suddenly gworld is making sense and minstrel is talking idiocy... mdvaldosta insinuated that dmoz lists child pornography. They don't. You are the one trying to make a semantics game out of it. Does the ODP list sites about pedophilia? Yes Does the ODP list child pornography? No. If you want to call that "arguing semantics" then fine - but I like to call it "reality"...you should look into it sometime. gworld - I agree that "Pornographic material can be both text and images" and I have promoted removing (and have removed) stories that involve sex with children. I personally also support removing any site that promotes sex with children - although I wouldn't define that as pornography (it's worse than pornography).
There is definitely an issue, I don't think anyone is denying that! The issue has been discussed extensively both here and in the ODP forums, and a lot of changes have been made (making a vast improvement). There is an issue. Minstrel and gworld would rather just sit here and play silly games instead of dealing with it as a few editors have done though.
There is no difference morally between a child pornography site and a pro-pedophilia site. Both are equally dangerous to future child rape victims. Which in fact is the crucial point of the whole discussion. Thanks to some co-editors large progress has been made, Genie you are right when you wrote that sites got removed "which nontheless could be seen as appealing to prurient interests of paedophiles". The new guidelines in place now, seem to be a good tool for the future. Nevertheless personally, I very much object one listing, that still can be found at DMOZ. # On Boys and Boylovers - A scholarly article by Benjamin Jarod regarding the phenomenon of boy love. The paper attempts to refute commonly held beliefs and explore alternative aspects of man-boy relations. (January 1, 1997) This one tries to point out solely positive views/aspects on pedophile relations. (The description has been changed from positive to alternative aspects; admittedly, there is no "prurient" material on the site itself, thatfor according to the new guidelines, the site could stay listed). Digging into this listing, it contains all the links necessary for pedophiles entertaining themselfes via http://www(.)fpc.net Where in any guidelines does it state, that a listing has to stay listed no matter what?
I don't believe you brought this link up internally when we had discussion on this site. I agree that this is a valid concern but as an editor it's your job to point these things out internally if you come across it so we can deal with it.
DMOZ has never listed child pornography which is obviously targetted at pedophiles. A (subsequently removed) DMOZ editor did list other sites obviously targetted at pedophiles IMO in defiance of an AOL staff ruling. This is now been corrected and, I understand, much clearer and tougher rules implemented to prevent recurrence. Sites "seen as appealing to prurient interests of paedophiles" are now prohibited which gives fairly broad discretion to reject and remove not just image galleries, forums and chats, but erotic fiction and other material where a child and sexuality is involved. It does list sites with educational information about the medical condition of pedophilia. And sexual education sites aimed at young people.
A classic example of projection. I spent a significant portion of this past week helping adult survivors of child sexual and physical abuse. What did you do, sidjf? You helped to foster a debate about whether it was acceptable to endorse and promote the concept of adult-child "love". Let me be very blunt about this: pedophilia has absolutely NOTHING to do with "love" - it has to do with egocentric narcissistic gratification of the sexual desires of one person (the pedophile) at the expense of the other (the victim). The only people who would even try to make a case for anything else are (1) pedophiles trying to rationalize their own behavior, (2) people trying to make money by exploiting interest in child pronography and pedophilia, and (3) the hopelessly ignorant and blind.
OK. But it's been brought up now. Does it really matter when, where, and how an issue is brought to light as long as it is? As I think you yourself have acknowledged, among others, the DMOZ inner sanctum can be intimidating and even punitive.