DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

Just came of the Television in the News. There will be an investigation and a crackdown of Publishers Online of Child Pornoghraphy and those who promote them. I will be sending the sweet details to select persons.

 

The crackdown spreads - those DMOZ Adult editors better either get on board or start running...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-03-15-child-ring_x.htm

 

minstrel, I was thinking about this very subject and this very thread when news about last week's child porn busts, the conviction of the Canadian who decided to cooperate after being caught, and this coalition. I was also very impressed with the fact the Toronto Police singled out Microsft and Bill Gates for their help in defeating this ring.

But, notice who is absent from this list . . . Google, AOL, Time-Warner.

If those guys were truly committed to ensuring that their services on the internet are not misued my child molesters and pedophiles they would hjave been on that list. Then maybe this thread would have wound done 1500 posts ago.

 

Unfortunately I have been too tied up with other things to have logged on for the last three weeks but I am not sure whether to be encouraged or discouraged. Nice to see everyone has been getting along in the meantime!

The new category charter - like minstrel I am disappointed it still talks about legality rather than morality. But "in a manner that appeals to prurient interests" is a big plus as Annie points out - an editor can judge a site is designed to appeal to pedophiles and remove it. Also "sites that solicit or abet illegal activity" - I reckon affirmative views sites are doing just that. On the other hand, as far as I am concerned, there was already an AOL staff ruling that more or less said the same thing.

Two weeks ago Annie said "There will be no AFFIRMATIVE VIEWS." but the category is still there. How long before this goes?

I for one would be grateful if you could spell this out in more detail - what are the major changes on the cards.

That gives me some degree of confidence if this is just a start and you are sure that it is just a start and not something that will disappear off the radar as soon as the memory of this fades slightly. Nevertheless I am still disappointed at how long the Admin response took and that it looks like a compromise product of a committee rather than being clearly and decisively anti-pedophile.

 

I agree. And I confess that I still expect everything to be back to normal for the Adult editors and their pro-pedophilia buddies before too much longer

lmocr is already trying to re-write history over here...

 

To whom it may concern:

http://dmoz.org/Adult/Society/Sexuality/Activities_and_Practices/Pedophilia/Affirmative_Views/

Last update: 0:28 PT, Tuesday, March 21, 2006

 

It would have been nice, if it was true.

look at Google cache from "affirmative view" category here:

google(.)com/Top/Adult/Society/Sexuality/Activities_and_Practices/Pedophilia/Affirmative_Views/

You will notice that the 5th site listed is:

Pedaloog with p-loog(.)info/english.htm as url.

Now look at DMOZ adult in pedophilia category:

What do you find in the 11th position? Our old friend from "affirmative view" category Pedaloog. Check the cache of Google for pedophile category and this site was not there before.

Nice solution for having 0 sites listed in "affirmative view" category, moving the site one level up to pedophilia category, so it won't be so easily detected.

 

well, you are testimony of me discovering that the cat is empty (and my first euphoria), the continuum crap site looks gone, did not recognize at first glance that the remaining 2 sites were just moved up the ladder.

 

You just need more experience with DMOZ.

Soon "Affirmative view" category will be gone too. these type of listings will be mixed with other listings and "new domains" will be added.

 

Fair enough, I never expected the struggle being over with correcting some controversial listings.

Added: I am sure we can count on your experience.

 

You do a great job finding Unappropriate Sites. But you could do much better if you stop kissing Asses In and Outside DMOZ. The first thing you might want to consider is doing a favor for those Lazy Editors, let them do their thing. You are now an Editor for crying out loud. Unless you want a special road to that Top.

 

popotalk, watch your language, there might be as well some minors reading your posts. Bear with me that I am a newbie at DMOZ.
Be assured that I hate kissing those spots at least in this connection , I am also not aware of having done so.

I don't need a special road to nowhere and frankly I was already considering giving up on the whole issue and close myself in my tiny categories. Will see what happens.

 

Who gives a damn about them if they are doing their jobs Right.

Instead finding out Unappropriate Sites you can help me Find the Idiots, Lazy and Corrupt Editors.

I still have to find that out.

 

Am I the only one that noticed that popotalk doesn't give a damn about minors?

Oh well, I never thought I would register and post in this forum, but I made a post in the Resource-Zone that was deleted within minutes and then closed. I knew my post wouldn't last, so I copied it as soon as I posted. I thought the readers of this thread might find it interesting.

Of course the rest of the thread might be deleted before you get there, but if not you will find what's left of it under "Becoming an Editor" Titled: "Discrimination Issues and Help"

Not only does DMOZ support "child porn", it supports "porn for children". The bolding is mine in the following.


Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
#1 Add to loonzatic's Reputation Report Bad Post
Old April 17, 2006, 03:48 AM
loonzatic loonzatic is offline
Member

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1
loonzatic is on a distinguished road
Unhappy Discrimination Issues and Help
Will your age affect if you are chosen to be an editor
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
loonzatic
View Public Profile
Send a private message to loonzatic
Send email to loonzatic
Find all posts by loonzatic
Add loonzatic to Your Buddy List
#2 Add to jimnoble's Reputation Report Bad Post
Old April 17, 2006, 03:51 AM
jimnoble's Avatar
jimnoble jimnoble is offline
Moderator
Meta

Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Southern England
Posts: 4,204
jimnoble is on a distinguished road
No (unless you're a minor wanting to edit Adult categories). We've had editors as young as 12 and as old as 75, maybe older.
__________________

I prefer to answer questions in the forum and ignore uninvited PMs from non-editors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
jimnoble
View Public Profile
Send a private message to jimnoble
Find all posts by jimnoble
Add jimnoble to Your Buddy List
#3 Add to dogbows's Reputation
Old April 17, 2006, 10:03 AM
dogbows dogbows is online now
Member

Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,210
dogbows is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimnoble
No (unless you're a minor wanting to edit Adult categories).

Oh really, Jim? Are you saying that underaged editors no longer receive automatic permissions to the Adult section when granted editall+ status?

dogbows

 

So nice to see you, dogbows.

Anybody can access the dmoz Adult categories, if they know they exist and are not restricted by a firewall or nanny filter. That's life on the internet.

Dmoz editors with editall permissions can edit anywhere, but they are expected to use those privileges responsibly. "Responsibly" includes only editing in categories for languages that they can read and write, staying away from topics they don't understand, and (for kids) staying out of categories that they are not legally old enough to access. If an editor who was known to be underage (but it's hard to determine age or identity on the Internet -- for all we know, perhaps you really are a dog ) were to start editing in Adult, we'd take some sort of action.

Fortunately, this topic is almost completely hypothetical -- the handful of youthful editalls have been responsible kids.

 

http://dmoz.org/termsofuse.html

To use the ODP, you must be legally competent to enter a binding agreement.

Editor application instructions contain no reference to age and indeed the link to the T&C are missing from that page.

The application form itself again contains no reference to age, nor a link to the T&C, nor anything relating to parental consent.

Most forums have a requirement for parental consent for anyone registering, let alone a directory with Adult content including completely unrestricted access to the internal Adult forum.

So it requires legal competence to enter into a binding agreement - presumably excluding minors, but readily accepts editors as young as 12 without any form of declaration or parental consent. I guess the answer to your question is there has been no change as yet dogbows! They couldn't anyway - no-one knows how old the youngest editors are because there is nowhere for that information to be stored!

Another priority, IMO, apparently being ignored.

[Added: why on earth would they have deleted your post and closed the thread? As if removing an awkward question means it doesn't exist... the mind boggles. Unless you might put off a potential new editor I guess. But RZ is not an official mouthpiece of DMOZ and their censorship rules would make the PR China proud. Frankly it no longer serves any useful purpose.]

 

Orlady, where, anywhere, in the guidelines does it say that underage editors are expected not to access Adult categories? How difficult would it be to (a) add that to the guidelines, (b) make it clear in the application process that there is an Adult branch and an Adult forum that are unsuitable for underage editors, (c) provide an age declaration requiring informed parental consent for underage editors. True, an underage applicant could lie and omit parental consent, but then they would not be a responsible kid and not the sort of kid you could trust to keep out of the forbidden places.

These are not difficult changes, mainly text changes, but they would go a hell of a long way to addressing concerns about the protection of underage editors.

 

And just how would you know this? For all you know dozens of your editalls and metas could be underaged, since no declaration of age is required. And no one has access to edit Kids and Teens unless they make a separate application to edit there. There is no automatic permissions with promotion to Kids and Teens. Where oh Where is the logic in that? Automatic perms to Adult, but only special permission to the one safe place for Kids and Teens? Hmmmmmm!

Nice to see you again, orlady!

 

OMG !!! Not this as well ?

I am getting so disillusioned as a new editor I cant tell you.

Anyone no matter what age can access Adult sites ! Thats just awful... I thought they'd be restricted to Kids and Teens as a starting point at least ? There are Adult 'examples' of sites in the internal 'Adult' forums all over the place.

This really should be addressed and soon.

 

Don't. Please. DMOZ needs editors to push for change on these matters. My main regret in leaving was not following this particular issue through and continuing the pressure.