1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Application of 2257 to the ODP

Discussion in 'ODP / DMOZ' started by lmocr, May 13, 2006.

  1. lmocr

    lmocr Peon

    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    85
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #81
    I did a little tweaking on the suggested addition to the guidelines - any comments on them?

     
    lmocr, May 15, 2006 IP
  2. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #82
    Please excuse the blood, I have just headbutted the wall several times. Not all guidelines are designed to govern editor behaviour, some grant them options and rights.

    What exactly is the loophole/black hole to which you refer? Other more prominent points in the set I suggested close any loopholes that might be opened when it comes to listing child porn sites. Do not list sites with models under the age of 18. How much clearer and free of loopholes do you want. It says everything on its own. The rest is, to a degree, padding/more information.

    In the context of prohibiting the listing of child porn, sites with models under 18, there are no loopholes whatsoever. None. Zero. Zilch.

    What you are referring to is not the prohibition of the listing of child porn but the enforcement of US laws you have an interpretation of that is at variance with the interpretation of others.

    So what might an editor get away with? Listing a site containing child porn? No. And that is the point isn't it? Unless you have another agenda. Yours is the sort of argument I might expect from the owner of a barely legal teens site with a 2257 warning worried that a revised DMOZ guideline might ignore 2257 as a standard for judging child porn and rule their site out, whilst seeing an opportunity to eliminate foreign competition. Or perhaps the sort of argument I might expect from someone anxious to continue their crusade against all editors by having a hook they can continue to argue on - that editor is a corrupt pedophile because they didn't interpret 2257 as I do.
     
    brizzie, May 15, 2006 IP
  3. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #83
    I agree. It's not that legality is irrelevant - it's not. But it's not enough. That has always been the point: One has to look at social responsibility, even if that overrides legality.
     
    minstrel, May 15, 2006 IP
  4. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #84
    Let's implement the law and if you think the 2257 is falsified or in anyway the site is against the spirit of the guideline then delete it. God knows that DMOZ does not need to fear for it's reputation regarding the fairness of it's listing policies since it is non existence.

    The important question that you should ask yourself is:

    If it is so easy to falsify 2257 then why the inclusion of this scares the editors shit less and they will go any length to avoid it? Ask yourself, if some one is not afraid to forge a federal document, why should that person be afraid to write on the web sites that all models are 18 or over as recommended in guideline? What is DMOZ going to do if they lie, send the people in RZ after them? ;)
     
    gworld, May 15, 2006 IP
  5. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #85
    Aaaarghhh, more blood. You have to define child porn first. Once you have agreed on that you move onto the next step. The next step is to provide guidance on how to test the credibility of age related claims. There are new guidelines that require verifiable information for example. We are still at the beginning - the definition stage. We haven't moved onto the tricky business of how to validate the information yet. Don't jump ahead too far!

    Good imocr.

    Adult being the DMOZ definition as follows I presume - sites whose dominant theme is

    • To appeal to the prurient interest in sex without any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
    • The depiction or description of nudity, including sexual or excretory activities or organs in a lascivious way
    • The depiction or description of sexually explicit conduct in a lascivious way (e.g. for entertainment purposes)

    This is an interesting exercise - demonstrates the sort of thing that happens internally when things that appear uncontroversial are discussed. And there are only a few here, let alone groups of editors with years of experience debating guideline wordings. Gives an idea why these things can take a long time to resolve.
     
    brizzie, May 15, 2006 IP
  6. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #86
    The same comment as to brizzie, define how the jurisdiction that a site must obey by is defined and it is fine. As long as we don't have any mean to define a web site jurisdiction, this portion of the guideline will be meaningless.

     
    gworld, May 15, 2006 IP
  7. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #87
    I'm not scared of 2257, I just don't trust it. I don't want to find myself in the position of having to leave a site listed that has models that look too young just because they have their 2257 documents in order.

    Without a valid reason to delete a site like that we'd be forced to leave it listed or violate guidelines to delete it. Can you imagine if editors were faced with removal for deleting a site like that? Well, you don't have to imagine it, we already lack the right to delete such a questionable site. Look at the directory, it doesn't work.
     
    compostannie, May 15, 2006 IP
  8. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #88
    Gworld, I think you and lmocr are both making the same mistake :eek:

    What I think Annie is describing, and brizzie although he uses a LOT more words, is basically reverse onus. Why should an editor need to justify removing a questionable site? Move them all to quarantine or "test" - if anyone wants to re-list, make that person, whether it's an editor or the webmaster, justify its inclusion by demonstrating that it is both legal and socially responsible. Unless and until you can do that, the site is gone.

    Now of course it's a bit more complicated than that (which accounts for some of those extra brizzie words) but that should be your starting point.

    And then the same approach should be applied to those pro-anorexia, pro-suicide, pro-self-injury sites.
     
    minstrel, May 15, 2006 IP
  9. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #89
    Move onto the "guidelines on assessment of age declarations" - next step once we have the basic definitions agreed. Editors are not scared shitless of 2257, just that it is one country's law with debateable applicability. Debateable means loopholes. And in a complex federal document there will be enough debateable points to keep this forum busy until 2010 working out the DMOZ interpretation of each. Biggest flaw is that it applies only to the US. From an editor perspective it is best to avoid things that add loopholes even if the intention is to close them. It doesn't mean anyone is frightened of it.

    There is a use for 2257. The absence of a declaration would be a legitimate reason for rejecting or removing a clearly and unambiguously US site. It's presence can be a factor in assessing the credibility of age claims provided it accompanied by other supporting verifiable information. But as I keep saying, that is the next step once we agree this first bit.
     
    brizzie, May 15, 2006 IP
  10. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #90
    The concept of Reverse Onus (if that is the term) is now enshrined in DMOZ guidelines under trustworthyness. A new one announced in the latest monthly report. Imocr used the term trustworthyness so I don't think she is making that mistake.

    Can you see which person or entity is responsible for it? Does it give enough information about the source for a user to judge its reliability? While we cannot assess the accuracy of every site we list, we can select sites which give verifiable information.

    For example, the site of a trustworthy business or organization typically displays its official name and address, or includes industry-appropriate information about itself verifiable through a recognized third party. A trustworthy informational site typically gives its authorship and/or sources, as appropriate, and makes clear any commercial sponsorship. The information necessary to verify a site's trustworthiness will vary depending upon the topic and the category.


    The webmaster can lie, cheat, falsify federal documents, claim to live in Ghana, host their site on the moon, or stand for President of the United States, but if they don't put a verifiable name and address on their site then it can be rejected. Is a child porn webmaster going to put their real name and address on a site? Unlikely. Result - reject. This, if enforced by editors when reviewing sites, is the single biggest weapon in the armoury, it is a fantastic progression.
     
    brizzie, May 15, 2006 IP
  11. lmocr

    lmocr Peon

    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    85
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #91
    Perhaps you don't pay attention to what I say - that's the only way you can say that Gworld and I are speaking about the same thing, when in fact I am saying the same thing that Annie and Brizzie are saying.

    You cannot move a listed site to test or delete it without a valid reason - it's against the guidelines. You also cannot use US only guidelines in an International directory. You don't like me - fine. I don't like you - fine. Now instead of dreaming up insults about me (and others you don't like) - why don't you help instead of hinder? Or at least stop hindering in this one instance.
     
    lmocr, May 15, 2006 IP
  12. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #92
    The guideline is for the future. The actual deleting of a site is never a problem. The guideline gives a lot of free room for interpretation because while it mentions that they should obey by local laws, it also mentions that if editor believes that any model is under age, it should not be listed or according to the same reasoning be deleted. 2257 or any other declarations are just the MINIMUM requirement, it does not necessarily automatically qualifies for a listing or continuation of a listing.
     
    gworld, May 15, 2006 IP
  13. lmocr

    lmocr Peon

    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    85
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #93
    I added the word Adult (meaning exactly that definition) on the off chance that this proposed guideline may end up in the regular guidelines - there are areas in the ODP that have models under the age of 18, that this guidelines shouldn't apply to. One example would be in the K&T area, another would be child modeling agencies.
     
    lmocr, May 15, 2006 IP
  14. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #94
    Brizzie

    How about this definition for jurisdiction:

    If both web site owner and server are in the same jurisdiction, this is considered the jurisdiction of the web site.
    If the owner and server are located in 2 different legal jurisdiction then the jurisdiction with stronger legal requirements is considered the web site jurisdiction.
     
    gworld, May 15, 2006 IP
  15. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #95
    Both these statements are true. When it came to the pro-pedophile chat rooms the reasons why they were not deleted was because no-one could agree that a valid guidelines existed to permit their removal. They needed to debate and change the guidance in the cat description to ban the sites, then they could be removed. So a new guideline on child porn should contain the necessary authorities for rejecting and removing sites. In this case there are 3 major ones - verifiability of contact information, conformance with local laws, editor discretion on their judgement of the models' ages.
     
    brizzie, May 15, 2006 IP
  16. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #96
    You are nothing if not persistent gworld. Routine assessment of jurisdiction means an editor is expected, and will be held responsible for, knowing and applying any one of 200 sets of national laws in all their extents. And in your latest reincarnation they would also have to judge which of multiple jurisdictions are stronger. For that reason the chances of getting jurisdiction matters into a guideline are zero. And DMOZ guidelines must have (a) Admin support, and (b) editor consensus. It would get neither.

    Inclusion of a clause referring to compliance with local laws means an editor who is absolutely certain of their legal basis may reject the site on the grounds of non-compliance. But as you will know a site that fails on one count usually fails on numerous counts and you take your pick. If a child porn site fails on local law compliance but the editor doesn't pick that up then it will not matter because they will pick up on non-verifiable contact details or models appearing under 18. This is not about rejecting sites on legal technicalities but rejecting sites that use models under age 18.

    As I indicated before, 2257 declaration compliance might be useful as one of a series of tests in assessing the credibility of age claims. Per the first para above making jurisdictional judgements is impractical but since it is just one test a webmaster being deceptive to deliberately avoid 2257 or its home country laws will trip themselves up elsewhere, e.g. by not providing verifiable contact details. My personal view would be to take the owner's location as the jurisdiction but would I then go research Ghana's child porn laws? Unlikely. And unproductive. Why would I even be digging that deeply - probably because the models looked under 18. So why go to those lengths - err on the site of caution and don't list. Editors do not routinely go to the lengths of checking whois records unless they are suspicious in the first place.
     
    brizzie, May 15, 2006 IP
  17. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #97
    I don't think whois records are completely reliable and they're often private or held in another name.
     
    compostannie, May 15, 2006 IP
  18. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #98
    As I mentioned before then what is the point to make it sound like that we care about laws and rules, when you know that we have no way of defining what law or hold any editor responsible for listing a site that breaks it? :confused:

    Why does DMOZ in general talks about illegal sites in guidelines? Illegal according to what law? As I mentioned before some drugs are legal in Holland and other places in the world while those are illegal in USA, why don't we list drug related sites and enforce American laws on European countries?

    Is it because DMOZ hates drug dealers but loves porn handlers? ;)
     
    gworld, May 15, 2006 IP
  19. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #99
    You are right Annie, they are just an indicator and not to be taken as definitive. If you were going to try and do a jurisdiction test though, you are going to have to use something like that. Gworld knows how to leave false IP address trails too so that isn't reliable either. In fact it's a can of worms.
     
    brizzie, May 15, 2006 IP
  20. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #100
    I'm sick of saying the same thing over and over gworld. I've already given you the answer to this several times. If I repeat it again it won't change so just look up a previous post. Then tell us all how you expect editors to know 200 sets of penal codes in their entirety.

    Yeah, whatever you say. :rolleyes:
     
    brizzie, May 15, 2006 IP