If legislation changes in a way that impacts what DMOZ can and can't list then it will adapt, the lawyers will make sure of that. It may worry a few editors who are in it for the money and haven't been proven to be corrupt and abusive yet. It will not worry the DMOZ organisation or 99.5% of editors who have no interest in Adult branch. Your gathering storm referred to child porn and pedophiles - sites which advocate either are banned from DMOZ. No-one in DMOZ should be alarmed by a gathering storm that clamps down further on these sorts of sites as they should not be listed according to DMOZ policy. The only people who should be concerned are the peddlars of child porn filth who have somehow infiltrated their sites or are trying to, and pedophiles, and in a random group of 70,000 it is probably inconceivable that DMOZ has been entirely free of such animals.
I suppose it is easier to write about international moral standards, free speech and talk about morality of middle age white, Christian people than deal with concrete examples of abuse and corruption. While in the arena of moral standards with thousands shades of gray, you can trap the others forever; when it comes to black and white arena of corruption and abuse, you will have to take stand, either admit to it and fight it or close your eye and pretend that it does not exit or even worse start making excuses.
You are just repeating the same accusations you have made time and time again in thread after thread - I have given my views multiple times, they do not need to be repeated again so you can try and find a way of twisting the answer yet again. Minstrel's points were, however, new material worthy of a response whether we agree or disagree. And just to prove a point you are misquoting again - I said nothing about middle age, it was middle class.
I agree that I have heard your EXCUSES many times over and over again but it does not change the fact that the abuse and corruption continues year after year after year after...... and this situation could not continue without a support of powerful core senior editors. It does not matter if their number is 0.5% of all editors as you mention it, what it matters is that this small group have the ability to abuse the directory with immunity.
The majority of what was listed in the first post are acts carried out by consenting adults and people should mind their own business if those adults wish to sell it and other adults wish to buy, view it or list and categorize them in a web directory. Who cares if there are videos of adults taking dumps on each other or some women prefer to make their money by being human toilets, being slapped about and nipple clamped or having baseball bats inserted in to unholy places. Each to their own, who cares what's listed in DMOZ? It's nothing that can't be found through a Google Search. Frankly if I want to see photos of dead children I will go to Google Images and type in 'Dead Child' as it's far more efficient. All of this bitterness comes directly from webmasters not being able to get listed in DMOZ and it's rather pathetic. Pete
Hundreds of listings for the affiliate pages from the same domain, multiple listings belonging to editors and listings of illegal site and generally don't care about DMOZ guideline are facts that have been shown over and over again. It seems you feel the need for switching from making up excuses to closing your eye to the corruption instead.
No, that is incorrect. I used "The Gathering Storm" to refer to increased scrutiny of the net and major players on the net from a variety of sources, including law enforcement and legislators. My article was specifically talking about Social Responsibility on the Net, and NOT just about pornography, legal or illegal. Indeed, I was not talking about legality at all but social responsibility and the fact that those who do not begin to take it seriously will soon discover that it is mandated. Normally, I wouldn't even bother to respond to this but I'll try - once. I am listed in DMOZ. That has nothing to do with any of the points I am making. Simply, you are completely wrong. I wonder if you've even read the thread past the first post.
Maybe you are single and have no family or children to look out for. Or maybe you just care about the directory in your signature and how to make money out of that. In that case that is fine. But for the people who cares its not. Sorry to dissappoint you. But I do.
Just because some pervert watches a woman being slapped about or doing strange things on a video it doesn't mean your family is at risk. What planet are you living on? Pete
Never mind, Buratssky. You probably haven't been around long enough to know but Gadood has a long history here at DigitalPoint of misunderstanding issues and people. At one time, he was deep in the red for reputation and it still amazes me that he ever got into the green. It's generally best to ignore whatever he says and eventually he goes back to General Chat or wherever he usually hangs out.
You don't know much then, Minstrel. I rarely post in General Chat. Why you're picking on DMOZ and not the search engines where far more of this sort of material is easily available I will never understand. The traffic any 'nasty' sites get from DMOZ just isn't comparible to that which the search engines bring them, so what's your beef with DMOZ specifically? And what's all this currupt editor nonsense people are banging on about.. who actually cares? No-one but webmasters have ever heard of DMOZ and no-one uses the thing unless by some miracle they happen on to it from the search engines. Oops, I just mentioned the search engines which allow DMOZ and all their nasty listings to be accessible to every surfer in the world. DMOZ and social responsibility? Quit pulling my leg. They're nothing but a blip on the Internet.. if that. Pete
This again reveals that you haven't read these threads. I have answered exactly those questions many times. Do your homework before you jump into a thread and start throwing venom around.
If DMOZ is useless then your directory must be even more useless and even less people have heard about it. Thank you for informing your clients that listing their site in your directory is useless and they have no real benefit by paying you to get listed.
There is little need to do any homework Minstrel. It's all bollocks. Who are you to want to sensor any part of the Internet except that little piece which is yours? Pete
I meant the directory in your signature, obviously this Aviva directory is quite useless according to your reasoning and it is just made up to collect fees from unsuspecting webmasters, if we are going to believe you.
Translation: Please don't try to fill up my head with facts or information. I suspect you mean "censor" not "sensor" but again it's obvious you are just shooting into the air without having read anything I or others have said on the issue. That pretty much invalidates anything you have to say on the matter. In view of that, I will not bother to respond to any further comments or questions from you. Maybe someone else wants the "challenge" but I'm not interested.
Just because I mentioned that DMOZ sends little traffic to 'extreme pornography' websites in comparison to search engines it hardly means there is no value to being listed in the Aviva Directory for webmasters, does it? Pete