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.

DMOZ and Extreme Pornography

Discussion in 'ODP / DMOZ' started by dvduval, Jun 16, 2006.

  1. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #81
    Bingo!

    Intelligent rebuttals, anyone?

    Anyone recall my comments about implied endorsement? :rolleyes:
     
    minstrel, Jun 17, 2006 IP
  2. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #82
    Let us assume for one second that a DMOZ listing of a shit eating site with tampons as a side and a glass of pee to wash it down is an implied endorsement. Convince me and the other unconvinced that that implied endorsement would result in somebody deciding, on the basis of that endorsement, what they are going to have for supper that evening. It is patent nonsense to suggest anyone could ever be influenced even to the tiniest extreme in their extreme sexual activities by a DMOZ listing. Why did you do it? DMOZ said it was OK. Yeah right. I can see the argument with pro-anorexia sites and since there is an explicit disclaimer on the category obviously the argument about implied endorsement there has some support elsewhere. That concerns, as you say, vulnerable young people and "trigger" material and the sites are mixed up with support sites too. With these (legal) sites it is consenting adults engaging in extreme but legal sexual conduct. It is entirely different. The implied endorsement is that the site is what it says it is on the tin. You pay your subscription, open the tin and you find what DMOZ said was inside. If it says pay your AVS and inside you will find pictures of people eating shit and tampons then that is what you will find.

    When it comes to the illegal sites - well the Admin position on US law applying, whatever the wording of the statement actually was, was apparently related to child porn. I think it should extend to other universally illegal activities - bestiality, necrophilia, rape, but you need an Admin to confirm that and permit removal of the offending sites.

    As regards the remainder, the legal but somewhat disgusting activities some people indulge in, I find it incredible that you have managed to get a group of editors/former editors with reputations for being anti-Adult branch into a position of defending it. If you can't convince that group then you have zero chance with the liberals and don't knows. The hard core Adult supporters must be laughing their heads off. And if you believe that 0.00005% of listings in an obscure and difficult to find section of DMOZ will be its downfall then you are dreaming. The difference between the types of site is that some can be considered facilitating and triggering activity, where care should be taken, and others that are there to entertain people with fetishes and extreme but legal sexual preferences.
     
    brizzie, Jun 17, 2006 IP
  3. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #83
    You're missing the point again, brizzie. Your beloved DMOZ is endorsing sites that are the lowest of the low, not the quality sites which were the presumed goal of DMOZ when it was founded. Are you not worried about that?

    Yes, what's incredible is that they are defending those sites, presumably because that's what DMOZ apologists do, without even stopping to think about it. They certainly can't be defending them on the basis of quality.

    It's not the sites themselves. It's the attitude and the lack of responsibility in the practices that will be its downfall.

    There is no difference when it comes to the failure to uphold the goals and principles upon which DMOZ was supposedly founded.
     
    minstrel, Jun 17, 2006 IP
  4. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #84
    It was orlady who posted that. If she thinks that this was only my "interpretation" of her posting as you like to call it then she is free to say so. Even if she thinks that US laws only apply to child porn sites and for every other illegal site DMOZ should follows the laws of Timbuktu, she can post that too. ;)

    The only one that we see who is defending these sites is you but lately you are AGAIN defending anything that DMOZ does, are you missing being an editor? ;)
     
    gworld, Jun 17, 2006 IP
  5. shygirl

    shygirl Guest

    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    65
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #85
    Oh go on, I'll have a stab at it ! :)

    'Quality' Films go in Film cats, 'Quality' Handbag sites go in Handbag cats and 'Quality' Shit eating sites into Shit eating cats.

    I think you are deliberately ingnoring the fact that 'there is a place for everything and everything in its place' Dmoz way of doing things.You do know that, yet are muddying the waters with your posts talking about innocent sites being listed 'side by side' or on the 'same page' as these ones. Thats not true and never has been.
    You are confusing overall top quality sites throughout Dmoz as a whole, with what it means to have a 'quality' site in a less than savory category. It's misleading everyone.

    I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone here who would describe any of the categories you gave examples of in terms of 'normal', 'good clean fun', or 'classy' porn/practices. In fact they turn most of our stomachs.
    But is it this 'good, clean fun' thing what you mean by quality ? Please define ?

    Just what IS a top quality (porn) site and what is it supposed to contain ? This is the basis of your argument is it not ? I'm interested in what you'd consider ok practice wise for listing.

    If you were into eating shit then I guess looking for and finding sites focusing on it would, for you, be the 'best content'. Is there any particular reason that would come as a shock to you ?

    Do I think these sites should be listed, no.
    Do I think Dmoz should have an Adult section, no.
    Do I think you have a beef with Dmoz and only Dmoz for listing these sites, yes.

    Google " Dont Be Evil " Shit Eating" Results 1 - 10 of about 13,200,000

    MSN " Where do you want to go today? " Page 1 of 4,087,047 results containing shit eating (0.35 seconds) (with SafeSearch : Moderate )

    Yahoo 1 - 10 of about 7,460,000 for 'shit eating' Yahoo.

    DMOZ Open Directory Sites (1-20 of 49) 'Shit' ( 3 for 'shit eating' ).

    Oh and look what came up number one when you type in How to Get Listed In Dmoz ?

    Gworlds Post

    Far, far more dangerous potentially and morally wrong in my opinion. Advice to the world and his mother on how to get listings by any means nessecary. Adult sites could potentially be listed in Kids and Teens or in innocent areas children could be searching. Complete two-facedness and double standards from a self confessed corrupt editor with unashamedly no moral standards of his own. Then preaching and laying down morals to the rest of us. I'd be far more worried about these sort of 'practices' than some of the categories highlighted here.
     
    shygirl, Jun 18, 2006 IP
  6. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #86
    You're mistaken. There were pro-pedophilia and pro-anorexia and pro-self-injury sites nestled cozily in among "innocent" informational sites. That was part of the objection - it gives the "unsavory" sites greater credibility.

    And therein lies a big part of the problem. If you or any other DMOZ editor think that's more dangerous than pro-pedophilia sites, pro-anorexia sites, pro-self-injury sites, pro-suicide sites, and the like, that is a huge part of the problem.
     
    minstrel, Jun 18, 2006 IP
  7. shygirl

    shygirl Guest

    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    65
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #87
    You're in the wrong thread babe !

    We were discussing unsavory sexual practices being listed side by side with innocent ones. There's another thread discussing what you're talking about a few threads down..

    And sorry but I think Gworld's post IS a problem in that the sites you mentioned and keep mentioning could potentially be listed anywhere in the directory under another sitename or redirected on to one. I see you don't agree that this may be the case ? You're a bit of a buffoon if you can't see that or admit the potential dangers there.
     
    shygirl, Jun 18, 2006 IP
  8. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #88
    Are you getting a taste for promotion and practicing to become a meta or an admin? ;)

    Your total lack of acknowledging the clear differences between a search engine and a directory and trying to muddy the waters by comparing DMOZ with Google has convinced me that your actions are not because of the lack of the knowledge but more about being dumb by design.

    I must congratulate you since you are becoming almost as good an admin that posts here in ignoring the most basic and indisputable facts. :rolleyes:

    My post as previously mentioned was about stopping DMOZ editors from buying people or forcing them to silence by giving out links or threatening not to list if they criticize which succeeded at that time. Obviously they can still buy loyalty among editors by giving out promotions.
     
    gworld, Jun 18, 2006 IP
  9. dvduval

    dvduval Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,369
    Likes Received:
    356
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #89
    How does one define a "quality shit eating site"?

    From http://dmoz.org/about.html
    It almost seems like you would rather cull out the criticism, and keep the "shit". Am I right?
     
    dvduval, Jun 18, 2006 IP
  10. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #90
    At the risk of flogging a dead horse, does that not qualify as a pretty good definition of "endorsement" of the sites DMOZ chooses to list?
     
    minstrel, Jun 18, 2006 IP
  11. nebuchadrezzar

    nebuchadrezzar Peon

    Messages:
    645
    Likes Received:
    59
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #91
    http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html
    Criticism can be a good thing. Smear campaigns like the one you have mounted since you became an ex-editor are not.
     
    nebuchadrezzar, Jun 18, 2006 IP
  12. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #92
    http://www.google.com/search?source...,GGLJ:2006-21,GGLJ:en&q=define:smear+campaign

    I don't see a "smear campaign". I see legitimate criticisms. Interestingly, I don't see you doing much to disprove those criticisms. What I see you doing instead is trying to malign dvduval's reputation and motives by implying (but of course not disclosing any evidence to support your statements) that he was engaged in corruption as an editor.

    Please read the definition of "smear campaign" above. Now... who is conducting the smear campaign here? From where I sit, I'd say you are guilty of that. I don't see any evidence (yet at least) that dvduval is.
     
    minstrel, Jun 18, 2006 IP
  13. shygirl

    shygirl Guest

    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    65
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #93
    No I have neither the time nor the motivation. You should know that Gworld, read my edits ? Hardly meta material lol. Oh and you'll notice the distinct lack of other editors, especially regulars here ( apart from a few) who will actually come in and back me up in any thread I post in here. They disappear like ships in the night as soon as I post. Miss 'Popularity' Dmoz wise I certainly am not. You haven't noticed yet ?

    However, I like editing a few small categories when I can, suits me and my offline life just fine thanks.

    No, Gworld you're the one causing potential and dangerous problems. And as for this this laughable crock of shit :

    Is about telling anyone, ANYONE at all how to get listing in Dmoz whatever their site and whatever their genure. You fail to mention not to do this if you peddle child porn, horse sex or want to promote suicide. You also fail to mention the Usa 2257 law (or whatever it is) that you're so fond of, discouraging those who haven't got one.
    You simply state how to get listed in 2 days. Anyone who doubts this, just click on the link. Somone is living in la-la land if they think this post ( no1 in Google for 'How to get Listed in Dmoz' ). Somehow differentiates between a travel site and a lolita site, with possible 14 year olds participating, in how to hijack expired domains and redirect them for the backlink value.

    I'd actually like you to answer direct questions posed to you. That's what I'd like. You've ignored them all. Why does that not surprise me ? Just do us all the same courtesy as we do in trying to answer yours and answer the questions posed. Are you too scared to ? Afraid your post here will be seen for what it is ( Dmoz bashing ) ?

    I'll ask you again :

    I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone here who would describe any of the categories you gave examples of in terms of 'normal', 'good clean fun', or 'classy' porn/practices. In fact they turn most of our stomachs.
    But is it this 'good, clean fun' thing what you mean by quality ? Please define ?

    Just what IS a top quality (porn) site and what is it supposed to contain ? This is the basis of your argument is it not ? I'm interested in what you'd consider ok practice wise for listing.

    I look forward to your views David. But I bet they won't be forthcoming. But if you could just let us all know what you deem to be acceptable practices it'd be good. You're still going on about 'quality' sites without defining what they are and that's tough for anyone to have opinions on. No-one as yet actually knows what you want to see or not. Are Orgies ok ? Lesbian ? Gay ? Watersports ? Over 60's ? Balloon fetishes ? foot fetishes ? Rubber ? BBW ? MMF ? What ?

    Tell us what you think ? You started this post it's only fair you define 'quality', and what should be acceptable.

    Finally, (sigh, he's always there isn't he ? )..At the risk of flogging a dead Minstrel post (from the same somewhat out of context text quoted from the front Dmoz pages ):

    Got that ?
     
    shygirl, Jun 18, 2006 IP
  14. lmocr

    lmocr Peon

    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    85
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #94
    Shygirl, you really don't need to wait for minstrel to own up to what he thinks is quality - he's already "answered" that question by his postings.

    Quality, according to the Minstrel Dictionary (soon to replace Websters - or so I've heard), is limited to anything that minstrel approves of. If it doesn't pass the Minstrel sniff test - then it shouldn't be allowed. :rolleyes:

    For some strange reason Websters has the same definition under Censorship. :confused:
     
    lmocr, Jun 18, 2006 IP
  15. shygirl

    shygirl Guest

    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    65
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #95
    No they've all read what I said, Minstrel, Gworld and DvDucal (sp?).. All 'viewing' the post for at least 15 mins each while I was off to Digital Spy to catch up on my nightly dose of UK Big Brother.

    But no reply as yet. They all logged off after a while. Still waiting...

    You other editors are too nice here in general. I know it's made me unpopular me being so outspoken. But, the critics never actually answer anything ever directly, it confuses them too much, or shows their flawed reasoning. Gworld just lied through his teeth in this thread, out and out bullshitted everyone.
    Minstrel as well, has no idea what he's talking about and is blinded to basic logic now, he's too established in his 'role' here as 'Witchfinder General' to question or more importantly 'listen' anymore. Sad.

    David, I'm still waiting on his version of 'extreme porn' v's 'normal'. And what should or should not be listed according to his gripes in the first post in this thread.
     
    shygirl, Jun 18, 2006 IP
    sarahk likes this.
  16. dvduval

    dvduval Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,369
    Likes Received:
    356
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #96
    Shygirl, I don't subscribe to the notion that since it is difficult to decide what is good, clean fun, and what is not, that we then cannot decide whether or not eating tampons and shit would fit into building a quality directory.

    I dare you to run a survey of 100 or 1000 people and see if they think these sites (eating shit and eating tampons)
    A. Make DMOZ a more complete directory
    B. Have a negative impact on the quality of the directory.
    Choose the best answer.

    Feel free to start a poll right here on DP.

    I have answered your question directly.

    To expound a little more on this, DP from what I have observed tends to have a lot of progressive thinkers.
    Imagine if someone posted a reference to this thread in a more right-wing forum related to politics or religion.
    Many people would be flat out stunned and wanting action. By comparison, DP is pretty tame.
    There is a huge difference between deciding if something is "controversial" (yet informative) versus something being "extreme" (and flat out sick!).

    And a note to Shygirl: I feel like you have given logical responses, and made solid arguments, and I would not be one to cast votes about your reputation. You seem alright to me. I just disagree, and feel positive action is possible.
     
    dvduval, Jun 18, 2006 IP
  17. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #97
    :confused:

    Have you learned the difference between a search engine and a directory yet? ;)

    Search engine:

    A search engine or search service is a program designed to help find information stored on a computer system such as the World Wide Web, inside a corporate or proprietary network or a personal computer.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine

    Program:

    The terms computer program, software program, applications program, system software, or just program are used to refer to a collection of source code and libraries which have been compiled into an executable or otherwise interpreted to "run" in (active) computer memory, where it can perform both automatic and interactive tasks with data.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_program

    Web directory

    A web directory is a directory on the World Wide Web. It specializes in linking to other web sites and categorizing those links. Web directories often allow site owners to submit their site for inclusion, and have human editors review submissions for fitness.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_directories

    Human:

    Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "knowing man") under the family Hominidae (the great apes).[1] Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language and introspection. This, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make greater use of tools than any other species.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human


    I hope this has cleared up the difference between a search engine and a directory for you and why Google and DMOZ are not the same thing but if you prefer, you can still continue with the execution of your, dumb by design program. ;)
     
    gworld, Jun 18, 2006 IP
  18. shygirl

    shygirl Guest

    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    65
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #98
    Personally I have no need to as I would like to see the back of the Adult section altogether.

    Since it's there however, and your references and title of this thread are questioning 'Extreme Pornography', then it might be useful if you could draw a definite line as what consitutes extreme, and what is termed 'normal'.
    It's that defining 'ok it's a bit weird but that can go in' v's 'no, it's too extreme for this directory' moment I'm trying to grasp. Where are the lines drawn, who decides weird v's extreme, and how much will personal viewpoints affect bias ?

    You've highlighted at lot of VERY extreme practices here, practices dare I say that the very mention of has anyone reading this thread agreeing right off the bat that these sites shouldn't be anywhere near a 'quality' directory ? Thats what your saying, and thats the reaction you provoked by listing them for us.

    But, where do we draw the line while Adult is still part of Dmoz ? Because I think you're standing on very shaky ground with this argument.
    Do you stay with the 'if it's legal' route ? Personal 'preference' on what you consider yourself to be extreme ? Instantly barr all bodily waste type sites ? Or perhaps BBW because they could be seen as exploiting the larger women..How far do you go ?

    You're asking editors to make personal judgement calls on sexual practices between consenting adults and also tell the world what kind of sex is acceptable and what isn't. Culling some 'practices' yet leaving others intact despite the fact these practices are perfectly legal goes from Minstrel's 'implied endorsement' to Dmoz censoring ( Not the nicest areas to view I agree) but censoring, telling others how to live their lives and passing moral judgement on what is after all, perfectly legal sex.

    Anyway, that aside, as I said, it's the fine line getting drawn between weird and extreme I think you'll have problems with. I'd like to hear your solutions because that would be the first hurdle in any sort of positive action.

    Gworld, yes I do know the difference between a directory and a search engine. But I also know that there is universal similarity across the whole internet in what a 'search box' does, (either in a directory or a search engine). You type in what you a looking for and hopefully a relevant site or 100 pops up. It wasn't the differences I was referring to, it was their similarities so if you could drop trying to make me look stupid ? It was you who missed my point.
     
    shygirl, Jun 19, 2006 IP
  19. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #99
    No, I'm afraid it was you who again missed the point, shygirl. You clearly do NOT understand the difference between a directory and a search engine. Having a search box on a website does not make that site a search engine. Having a search box on the DMOZ site does not make DMOZ the same as a search engine.

    One more time: The stated goals of a search engine are to index as much as possible of the pages (and other information) on the internet, without editorializing or evaluating content beyond the obvious duplicate content issues, keyword spamming issues, and the like. Google, for example, has an understandable (given their objectives) aversion to manual/human intervention unless absolutely necessary, preferring to screen out spammers programmatically via their algorithms. Pages are indexed according to objective criteria without regard to content and therefore do not imply endorsement.

    The stated goals of DMOZ are to SELECTIVELY EVALUATE SITES FOR CONTENT and list only those the editors consider to be especially worthy and of high quality. That's the part that implies endorsement and specific approval of content.

    Anything else you have to say is irrelevant to the discussion if you cannot comprehend that part.
     
    minstrel, Jun 19, 2006 IP
  20. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #100
    "Quality" in DMOZ terms is relative to other sites on the same subject. It's written into the guidelines quite clearly. A listing means that the site is what it claims to be on the wrapper, something a search engine cannot do as effectively. It does not mean that DMOZ is encouraging the consumption of shit and tampons. I see there is still total avoidance of where the line is supposed to be drawn and who decides.
     
    brizzie, Jun 19, 2006 IP