DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

This is one of the best, most sensible posts that I have seen in this thread so far. More has come of this thread than probably any other thread of this type before - and you guys are being kept more in the loop than you probably ever have before. Why doesn't that please some of you? Could it be that such actions by dmoz editors are completely contrary to your claims of massive abuse and corruption?

 

I will not disagree with you that we are being kept in the loop, but as Dmoz doesnt trust webmasters nor do we trust most Dmoz editors. Most of us have become jaded that anything which comes out of a Dmoz editors mouth is BS, so please excuse us for not being greatful.

Also it comes to mind that with what has been exposed Dmoz is trying to cover its ass. I am sure you can agree that with the exposure of this, it doesnt look good for Dmoz if it isnt addressed. I would also comment that with more knowledge or access to logs I am sure the issue of corruption would be exposed as well with hardcore facts to back these statements up we are making but we are not part of that inter circle so for now it will stay under wraps.

Dmoz just like any company who has had their hand caught in the cookie jar needs to walk a fine line here. They need to show that they are trying to address these issues before other federal agencies get involved, which as it has been stated is to late.

 

So by your own admittion, Las Vegas Homes, there is nothing that dmoz could do at this point to please you. If we leave the sites we are the devil and if we remove them we are only trying to hide the fact that we are the devil.

I respect your honesty in the matter.

In other words, you have no evidence to back up your claims that there is widespread corruption in the ODP. I have asked repeatedly for any evidence - my requests have been ignored. If there is no evidence, then what makes you think there is corruption. Better yet, if there is no evidence, then why should anyone believe you when you say there is corruption?

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure there is corruption in the ODP on some level. But it is not rampant and no where near the level being claimed (not even close).

The burden of proof lies on the people making accusations. Not on the defense. You have to prove that it does exist. This is common sense. "Can you prove to me that you didn't <insert almost any claim here>? No? Then it must be true!" - That's not how it works.

 

Sidjf is not acting on behalf of the ODP - he is acting on his own, as an individual. As all of us posting on this forum are. This has absolutely nothing to do with needing to walk any type of line. Editors don't need to post here to show that anything is, or is not, being done - there are internal forums after all. I'm not typing this because I don't like, or agree with, what sidjf is saying - I fully endorse (as an individual) everything that he's posted.

 

Definitely! Hopefully no one here has thought otherwise.

Everything I (or any other editor) say here should be prefaced with an imaginary, "IMO".

 

So, essentailay you are saying: it doesn't matter what DMOZ (or its editors) do it is always wrong.

 

I think this is just one of these cases:
"If I would be a DMOZ editor I would be corrupt, so every editor must be corrupt."
Luckely most of these people are already noticed at the entrancedoor (application) and the few that do get in are caught, removed and their wrongdoings corrected.

 

I think in this thread we have shown plenty of evidence for corruption. It looks like that there is 2 type of corruption. Those who have financial interest will earn money through deep links and being affiliate to porn sites and on other side there are people who are more interested in satisfying their other needs by organizing underground illegal sites such as pedophile chat rooms.
Those that are interested in money will have financial gratification and others that are interested in perverse sexual acts, get sexual gratification. It sounds like a perfect little family in DMOZ when both side are happy with their rewards.

 

I haven't seen any sign nor any evidence of corruption in this thread nor have I seen any while investigating these issues within DMOZ.

 

I am sure you never find it, it is very hard to find anything when you keep your eyes closed.

 

Still no proof of anything whatsoever. You can't even come close. You're accusations aren't even precise - just vague allusions. If it's as bad as you say than this should be a simple task.

 

NBC Dateline has a show on this issue on tonight, they are working with this organization, so everyone needs to consider this as it is open season on all internet porn that has to do with enticing children into relationships using the internet!

http://www.perverted-justice.com/

Watch the show on NBC tonight for the whole story folks.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032600/

 

Will you be watching that with your tinfoil hat on or off?

I am an ODP editor.. a fairly senior ODP editor. The ODP has it's problems, certainly, but the hysteria I see coming from this forum.. yet AGAIN is utterly ridiculous.

It's the same old ODP-bashers coming out with the same old tired lines.

First of all, somebody discovers that the ODP has an Adult section. It has done since 1998. Then in the next breath people complain that their children will find it. Well, if it's taken some members of DP 7 years to discover that the ODP has an Adult directory, then I'd say it was pretty well hidden. The internet is full of pornography.. the ODP does a better job that most at keeping it hidden.

Then there were complaints about the number of deeplinks to certain sites in the Adult section. Yes, they do look to be anomalous, but in fact Adult is categorised differently from the rest of the directory in that it has several specialist categories that deeplink directly to content.

In particular, you mention cherryboys.com and come up with a grand conspiracy theory that it's a huge money-making scheme for the dozens of ODP editors who have added a deeplink. Yet the Alexa traffic graph for that particular site is pretty low.. a RPM of 0.25 indicates substantially less than 100 visitors a day. You can see that despite all of these listings, there's no significant traffic boost for that site. And yet you continue to think that there's some grand plot going on.

As for potentially illegal sites - if you see something that's illegal, report it. The ODP abuse reporting is good for this. However, not listing a legal site because it holds a point of view that most of us would find abhorrent is basically censorship. Who gets to decide what gets removed? There are plenty of sites that I find morally objectionable that contain views on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, physical ability and personal beliefs that I find objectionable. Should they be listed? Well, I have a real problem with some of the sites mentioned, but ultimately if they meet the guidelines then the ODP's mission is to be comprehensive.

But you know, most of you aren't interested in the issues here. You've been pushing your agendas on DP for years, and you know for all the moaning you've accomplished exactly nothing. And when an editor does come along for some meaningful debate, you just revert to type.

A special mention has to go to Minstrel though. You have a real problem with people who have a different point of view from your own. Your arguments are utterly without merit, and your accusations are essentially just some wild fantasy that you've come up with in your head. Here's a phrase that you might want to consider - physician heal thyself.

Buried under all the noise, there are some good points. But there's too much noise and too many paranoid delusions for DP to be taken seriously on any ODP topic. If you want a proper, constructive conversation then I'd advise you to take it elsewhere.

 

Why don't you ask AOL executives the same question

By the way, questioning the integrity of this forum is idiotic on your part since the forum's threads are the reason all of you editors have joined here!

We are happy you joined, but your insults show that you have little credibility since we want DMOZ to become a better resource, not a worse one!

Your attack on Minstrel is complete nonsense!

 

And the same old canned party-line Resourceless Zone bullshit and bafflegab responses coming from most of the DMOZ editors. Are we forcing you to read any of this?

Thank you! I'll take that as evidence that some of my posts have hit home enough to bother the defenders of DMOZ Adult...

 

I think DMOZ editors view on this question is that the AOL staff has told them to support pedophiles, so I suppose according to that logic AOL corporation and executives also support pedophilia.

deobfuscator;

I agree with minstrel that you seem very upset about this. If by some miracle things change in adult section, may I ask what is it that will bother you, losing financial or sexual gratification?

 

Funny that this forum gets more attention on DMOZ than any other independent forum in the world, now we have a ton of editors here too!

We are happy about this, so I would not come in and start insulting everyone here, we really are trying to help, maybe we want to force change, but we do want change!

 

I think I will post the same answer that I posted for DustyG. Just replace his name with yours. After all it convinced brizzie who was as delusional as any other editor.

"Let me give you an example. A man is seen going to a store, people hear a shoot, the man runs out of store with bloody clothes, a gun in his hand and the money from the store in his pockets. The store owner is found dead in the store and no one else is in the store. The man gets arrested and anyone can connect the dots that the man is guilty of murder.

Here enters DustyG, the great lawyer. He argues while there is witness for the man entering the store, exiting the store and no one else was in the store, it is possible that it was someone else since no one actually seen the man shoot the store owner, it is also possible that even if the man shoot the store owner, the store owner died of heart attack a second before bullet entering his body or maybe the store owner decided to borrow the gun from a stranger and commit suicide. Like you said, we can not simply connect the dots, right?"

There is more that enough evidence and the best one is the question:
why you do not want to stop a practice that encourage corruption and low content quality for end user and replace it with the one that provides higher quality and stops corruption?

 

Ah another tinfoil hat conspiracist. Some classic ones there - now you've managed to construct a fantasy involving AOL, the ODP and child porn. Maybe I should ask you what YOUR problem is?

 

Why come in here and insult everyone

You would think as a leader that you would take a conservative approach, but you really are not as smart as some of the other editors that should take your position IMO.