Are you suggesting that DMOZ has no editorial guideline as long as it is better than competing web site? Should DMOZ list some of the child porn sites because those sites have better quality than other child porn sites? silly me, I forgot, DMOZ was listing child porn sites until under pressure from outside had to delete those sites.
the site that was pressured into being removed from dmoz from digitalpoint was not child pornography. as stated clearly on the front page of their site:
It was not only one site, there were many that were removed. I have already predicted the circular defense of the laws in Timbuktu and have answered it in my previous post. This is a simple fact that AOL and DMOZ are an American Corporations and as such have to obey by the laws of U.S. If DMOZ editors and management don't like that and prefer the laws of Timbuktu, there is nothing that stops them from moving there. You can not choose and pick which laws you like to obey by.
that was the one I continually saw referenced, and no one ever pointed out (that I saw) that it wasn't child pornography. my hunch is that all of these other "child pornography" sites that were supposedely in dmoz were the same thing: misguided knee-jerk reactions. a site being illegal does not mean linking to it is illegal. in fact, that's rarely, if ever the case. not listing all "potentially illegal" sites would mean a huge portion of what's on DMOZ would disappear. everything from major gaming sites like IGN (what's fair use and what's isn't is hardly a clear line) to sites expressing dissatisfaction with corporations or companies (paypalsucks, googlewatch) to any site which the majority would find offensive could suddenly be dropped from the index. it shouldn't be hard to see how ridiculous this is.
I really hope that this is an act, because if you are actually this dense...god save us all... Once again, when gworld's arguements fall apart he goes back to the old standby of twisting words, misquoting, and putting words into other peoples mouths - always a sure sign that he has run out of arguement and is in his last ditch effort to save face. It's quite obvious to any person with an ounce of common sense that I was referring ONLY to the quality arguement. This is so obvious because I started my post with "The 'quality' arguement being presented here...". See how easy it is? I was not talking about any other listing guidelines - just the quality one. Of course, instead of actually addresssing the points that I made and replying to my post, gworld went on his usual joyride of deception and lies. Are his arguements so full of holes that he can't have an outright debate with them? Is making up stories about what other people said the only way he can even appear to have any validity. I would be more than willing to have a discussion about the listability of the sites that dvduval brought up - but first you have to cut through all of the bullshit. Why is it so hard for people to answer simple questions like what is "ok" normal porn and what is not? Dvduval has been asked this question many times, and has yet to give a meaningful answer. Dvduval - you made a list of categories that you consider to be innapropriate for listing in the ODP. I think it is a reasonable request that you be able to define exactly why these sites are not listable, why the sites you didn't include are listable, and where at in between these two groups you would draw the line.
Forget the word "sites" then. "Shit eating" is also not a quality category, and I believe you will find most people agree with this premise. You are in minority if you believe having a "shit eating" category is not detrimental to the quality of DMOZ.
If you read the DMOZ guideline, you will see that DMOZ has a policy of not listing illegal sites. Illegal sites: Sites with unlawful content should not be listed in the directory, particularly those intent and substantially focused on making available and distributing illegal materials. Examples of content that is illegal in most jurisdictions include child pornography; material that infringes on intellectual property rights; material that advocates, solicits or abets illegal activity (such as fraud or violence) in specific instances; and material that is libelous. Factual and how-to information is generally NOT abetting illegal conduct unless its intent is to facilitate the immediate commission of a crime in a specific situation. http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html May be you should start reading DMOZ guidelines before start defending the listing of illegal sites?
The problems that were referenced multiple times in the other thread were related to language that made it seem as if child pornography would be found on those sites. Multiple corrections were made. Unfortunately, there is no way for us to know if any actions were taken against the editors for using misleading language that would make it seem that child pornography would be found on those sites. Anyways, let's avoid hijacking this thread please. Feel free to activate the other thread if you feel you have more to say on the topic.
#1 DMOZ has a list of quality criteria a site must meet to be considered listable and eligible for consideration. The DMOZ term is listing criteria but in quality management terms these are known as quality criteria. Once a site has met the basic quality criteria then the next stage is comparative quality - by how far it exceeds the basic criteria compared to other sites of a similar nature. #2 Child pornography has always been banned by DMOZ. If some have crept through quality controls then it is unfortunate and embarrassing but it does not create any legitimacy for any of the listings. Porn sites under US jurisdiction are the only ones subject to 2257 disclaimers and records. Does US law prohibit a US owned site linking to a site that does not have a 2257 disclaimer? No, no more than you have breached the law in publishing links to offending sites here. Therefore AOL and DMOZ are not in contravention of US law. If you believe they are then it is your duty to report them to the FBI and the authorities will no doubt take care of them. But if the act of linking is not illegal yet DMOZ chooses to impose a minimum standard that models must be 18 or over and that exceeds the laws of the host country where the site is actually within the law, then they are going beyond their strict legal responsibility in the US.
I didn't say dmoz didn't have such a policy. I said that deleting all illegal sites would be detrimental to dmoz, not beneficial. if dmoz (or google, or wikipedia, or anything else) deleted everything illegal or potentially illegal, they'd become nigh-useless. pick any large site and you can find something illegal, be it google itself, ebay, or digitalpoint's forums. anything that would offend the majority in the US is technically illegal under obscenity statutes. how much of the internet do you think would remain if everything offensive was deleted? free speech is about allowing people to to speak their mind even if you disagree with it. I feel this is on topic because it's part of the sensationalistic attempt to demonize DMOZ. people weren't reasonable about the supposed "child pornography" sites and they're not being reasonable about "extreme pornography" on DMOZ. people were looking at what they want to then, and they're doing it now. you interpreting text on a website to something that may suggest that child pornography may be there is not the same as DMOZ listing child pornography, nor endorsing it. it's common in both gay communities and kink communities to have adults roleplay children's roles. hell, even the "schoolgirl" kink is pretty mainstream. just because something suggests to an outside that child pornography may be there doesn't mean it does; usually this is just a misunderstanding.
Well, it seems as if a lawyer would be needed. Editors acknowledge there are laws that may be broken, yet fail to act. That is itself could be deemed to be negligence. What more do we need here? Do we need to talk to some people who specialize in pornography law or animal rights? I'm sure they would be glad to play a role in helping you decide. Even if we don't go that far, why in the HECK are they protecting a person's right to molest an innocent animal and display it on the internet? Please answer this question!!!
The contents in sites that do not have 2257 declaration are illegal content according to US law and the web sites are breaking the law. DMOZ own guideline prohibits listing of such sites as mentioned in my previous post. The question is, why DMOZ chooses to go against it's own guideline and list illegal sites? LOL, so according to you, DMOZ should list even more illegal sites in order to make it a better directory. Do you have any special niche of illegal sites in mind?
http://research.dmoz.org/~gti96/ddp/07004/ provides more information on the DMOZ policies on legality of sites. It starts with The question of whether or not a site is legal, is one that crops up regularly. Unfortunately, the answer is anything but clear-cut. The most important point to bear in mind is that we, as ODP editors, are not the police of the Internet. That is to say, it's not our job to enforce the copyright/intellectual property rights of others. Thus we err on the side of inclusion. It then goes on to say Certain content is always illegal. The most obvious example is child pornography -- it is strictly prohibited from the directory. Unfortunately it omits to say that the definition of child pornography varies from sites containing models under 14 to sites containing models under 21 depending on the jurisdiction. Thus the need to clarify for DMOZ purposes what constitutes child pornography - models under 18. I would say that this is a reasonable, responsible, and defendable approach in the light of potential ambiguity in deciding what is and is not legal and listable and also avoids the Timbuktu scenario.
The absence of a 2257 declaration may make a site under US jurisdiction illegal. But an editor is not the correct authority to decide whether the site is indeed under US jurisdiction. The correct authorities can remove the site if they have the power and they decide it is illegal, and the listing goes too. You have suddenly moved the goalposts too - a few posts back you were arguing AOL and DMOZ were breaking US law. Now they aren't, they are breaking their own guidelines instead, quite a movement. But who decides the correct interpretation of DMOZ guidelines and how it will be enforced? You? Or the management of DMOZ? What I will say is that if those guidelines are capable of complete opposite interpretations then they should be amended and clarified.
The way you are going, soon you will join disgust in claiming that listings of illegal sites will actually improve DMOZ as directory.
There is an FAQ, accessible only for editors, that specifically clarifies that the age guideline is 18.
Thanks lmocr - I thought it was implied in a category description somewhere too and that was publicly available. I think it is probably important for that sort of information to be clearly published for all to see in a prominent position.
Amen to that and I for one count myself damn lucky I am even discussing this now in a free society. It's a luxury those living under censorship will never see in their lifetimes. I think most of us here see the difference between 'eyebrow raising' practices and not something many of us would ever personally indulge in.. and plain censorship of basic human rights on the internet to search freely and view sites freely (and legally) should they wish to. I understand Gworlds obession in pointing out that legallity is something to be discussed. But, showed no such compuction himself in his 'How to get listed in Dmoz' thread. A thread open to any child porn peddling or or bestiality webmaster who wishes a bit of advice on obtaining a listing, to push up their backlinks in order to shunt illegal sites up the search rankings. I see no mention of legality in the US or otherwise there Gworld. Did the 2257 declaration slip your mind when you decided to let anyone know indiscrimanately how to achieve this ? You may just have opened the door for a lot of illegal, redirected listings in the last year. You must be very proud of that. I'm appaulled. 'Implied Endorsement' I think Minstrel termed it ? Here But anyway, we aren't discussing child porn or US legalities here. Just what does or does not make a 'quality' directory in terms of extreme pornography. I really wish you'd stop hijacking threads and putting your own agenda's on them. It's really hard to keep a good honest discussion going. Over to everyone else for a bit, I've tried to be logical, sensible and understood in this thread till I'm blue in the face but it sadly keeps veering off topic, and nothing ever seems to be answered directly by those who ask and derise in the first place.
The speed at which you are shifting your ground as your arguments dry up, it wouldn't suprise me if you were advocating the listing of illegal sites yourself in a few more posts. Have you reported the offending sites to the FBI to have them taken down completely? Have you reported AOL and DMOZ to the FBI since you claim they are breaking the law too. If not why not?
At this rate I think you are going to have to more formally defend shit eating, tampon eating, and bestiality. Probably a better course than making reports to the FBI would be to contact political advocacy groups who specialize in either stopping these sites, or more likely, exposing the parties involved to the extent that they take action before legal proceedings begin. The bestiality sites are certainly material that could be cited in making a case or press release, and the shit eating and tampon eating are not far behind those. Whether you support my argument or not, I think it is quite valid to say that many people would support the idea that listing shit eating, tampon eating and are a detriment to the quality of DMOZ (supposedly listing only the best sites....simply not true).