DMOZ and Extreme Pornography

I see that there is still total avoidance of what "listing" and "endorsement" means in the context of a human-edited directory which by its own statements aims to include the best and cull out the rest.

I see that there is still a failure to understand the basic psychology of this issue - and to realize that just because DMOZ chooses to define things in an idiosyncratic way and to explain their definitions to its editors does not mean that non-editors who may view the directory will understand the difference between "quality" and "DMOZ quality".

I see that there is still a failure to understand that listing a site in a directory like DMOZ does in fact provide some promotion to that site in search engines.

I see, in fact, an almost universal refusal among DMOZ editors to acknowledge or understand these points.

 

In answer to your question about drawing a line, it seems there is no reveiw process for extreme sites. And when you dealing with possible illegal sites, as well sites of an extreme nature, it seems like you would want 3-5 editors checking them out first, and that is not happening. Instead, adult editors can add as many shit eating or tampon eating sites as they want. DMOZ needs to start taking the adult section more seriously if they are going have one.

 

eat shit

(verb) to be subervient or submissive.

Urban Dictionary

Editors will find nothing unusual or strange in that subject.

 

You will only find the DMOZ listed shit eating sites if that is what you are looking for in the first place. Either in DMOZ or in a search engine. If you are looking for those shit eating sites then isn't it nice that an editor has checked them out and they are indeed about shit eating and not sushi.

And the guidelines make it clear that "best" is relative to other sites on the same subject. Have you checked the sites and confirmed that they are not the best on their subject matter? And that they are not mirrors, affiliates, or the other types of site DMOZ doesn't list and which are the ones that are supposed to be culled.

There you go, it is a communication issue. DMOZ does explain sufficiently well that it is talking about relative quality and quality is itself such a subjective term. Maybe editors can take back a need to clarify "quality" as it is causing some non-editors problems in understanding.

I see a universal refusal amongst some to understand DMOZ is not the guardian of Internet morality nor ever likely to engage in banning sites because some people are squeamish about extreme sex. I'm squeamish myself but I don't care if DMOZ lists them because I am never going to go looking for them and am never going to open a site that DMOZ has guaranteed to me contains graphic evidence of shit and tampon eating. It turns my stomach. But there is a simple answer - don't look at them. As regards whether these sites are any more morally wrong than anal sex or hard core homosexual "action" is a personal moral position. IMO you allow all legal porn to be listed or none, you don't start deciding what is acceptable and what isn't for other people as long as it is legal.

There are normal review rules applicable. I doubt you would find more than one editor willing to look at shit eating sites. But how many have editor(s) actually added - 3 on shit eating. Taking all your categories together they amount to 0.00005% of listings. This is hardly a menace taking over DMOZ. Have you actually looked at any of the sites in question and determined that they are illegal? Any that are I would support instant removal of, no problem. For those that are not then what difference would it make if 3-5 editors reviewed them before listing rather than 1? They are legal, they are listable, they can be listed, they cannot be rejected because you lost your lunch in the review process.

That still does not answer where is the line to be drawn and who draws it? I have answered that one: IMO DMOZ may (not must) list all legal forms of sexual behaviour, or none. The law draws the line if porn is to be listed at all.

 

Actually, DMOZ does draw lines, mainly when there is a risk to being sued, but is takes an outsider to point out that risk, as we have all witnessed in the Child Pornography thread.

It appears you are saying that something being "legal" takes precedence over something being "quality", and this is not the vision stated on the DMOZ site. Moreover, it seems something is considered to be "legal" until someone presses DMOZ about it. As I was mentioning before, a more right-minded (politically) organization would surely have a desire to press the issue on what is legal, and what is not. Is this something you would invite?

Even if the material is not located in the state of the viewer of the material, it would not exempt DMOZ or the listed sites from being sued. And bestiality, for one, is definitely illegal in some states. So DMOZ and these sites are not protected from being sued using state laws. That means DMOZ could be sued for having this information on their site. And that means there is definitely an opening for a political organization to take action.

A more simpler solution would be to just remove the extreme material. You claim is is only 0.000005% of DMOZ, then it must serve a similar size audience. If that is the case, why are you wasting your time serving 0.0000005% of the users when 99 point something percent of the users are going to find the material to be indecent and unacceptable?

And surely some percent of users, larger than the viewers of this content, would have an interest in taking legal action.

 

No, quality of a site is judged relative to similar sites on the same subject. Anyone who has ever studied quality as a concept knows that it means fitness for purpose. Is it a website, does it contain information of relevance to the category, is the content original and not plagiarised. Legality comes into play as one of the quality criteria. To be fit for purpose a site must be legal in its content. If yes then the site meets the basic quality criteria and is fit for purpose. Now compare to other sites of the same type and determine whether it adds to the topic or covers the same ground. If it adds to the topic then list, otherwise reject. This is where relative quality comes into play. At no point does the subject matter itself enter into a quality equation nor does the selection of controversial or minority interest subject matters contradict anything in the DMOZ vision or guidelines. In fact the DMOZ concept positively encourages diversity of subject matter covered.

Is eating shit and tampons illegal? You tell me... Last I heard DMOZ isn't answerable to right wing political organisations and I hope it never is.

Child porn or pro-pedophile? I don't recall the decision to remove pro-pedophile sites being related to the threat of litigation since no-one threatened to litigate - it seemed to be on the basis that the sites were facilitating illegal behaviour and the removal was supported by an existing staff ruling that had not been enforced. Child porn has always been banned from DMOZ and any found listed should be immediately removed. Again the basis is law not morality though the law is of course based on morality in that case. But this thread is not about minors.

 

What laws are you talking about? Is this just another smoke screen? Bestiality sites and sites without 2257 declaration are illegal in USA but that has not stopped DMOZ from listing those sites and in fact a Meta instructs the editors to break the law.

Are you talking about the laws in Timbuktu again?

 

Great point. In reality, DMOZ lists many sites that are illegal. It just depends which laws DMOZ is deciding to follow at the time. As I mentioned earlier, state laws can be enforced across state lines.

Bestiality is often cited as being illegal because of the cruelty to animals. It's really sad that you are defending a person's right to molest animals for their personal pleasure.

Eating shit and tampons is an unsanitary practice, and is far from quality content. The categories should be removed. It wouldn't surpise me if this was illegal as well under FDA laws. It's really sad that you are promoting a person's right to eat shit and tampons and display it to others. This is the sort of thing that is going to cause public outrage eventually, and lead to a stronger action that further limits the rights of much less extreme sites. If you are worried about right-wing organizations throwing their weight around, this is the sort of stuff they will feast on.

 

I think beastiality is illegal in most places. I would not argue those should go and that removal was justified under DMOZ guidelines as they stand.

Quality is about fitness for purpose or compliance with a specification. If the sites claim to be about entertaining people with a predeliction for turds and tampons and that is what they actually are then they are fit for purpose. The purpose of DMOZ is to cull/reject sites that are not what they claim to be, e.g. a site that is a mirror or an affiliate is not a quality site since it purports to be original but can be shown not to be.

I would imagine if you were retailing it in a food outlet, or put it on a restaurant menu then it might well breach some sanitation laws.

I have already said I would view beastiality sites as being illegal in most places. I am not getting into the 2257 debate with you again - it has been done to death. Child porn is illegal in virtually every country and is rightly banned from DMOZ though laws differ about what a child is, hence a need IMO to set a global DMOZ age of 18 and IMO take no risks by refusing sites where a model looks under 21. Show me the law that says shit and tampon eating is illegal in most places and I'll review my stance.

 

Let's work toward removing the Bestiality sites, since we all agree, though maybe for different reasons.

 

Except none of us here have the editing rights to do anything about that. Except gworld. Perhaps he could go in and remove them straight away. Gworld?

 

It seems you really don't know that much about DMOZ. Typical discussion with DMOZ about illegal sites:

Critic: These sites are illegal.

DMOZ: We are not lawyers, we don't know about laws.

Critic: Here is the reference to the legal documents and criminal codes that clearly states these sites are illegal.

DMOZ: Yes but the owner of the site is in Timbuktu and the law does not apply there.

Critic: How about this site, the domain owner is in U.S.

DMOZ: Yes, but in this case the server is in Timbuktu and the law does not apply there.

Critic: How about this site, both the server and the owner are in US.

DMOZ: Yes, but DMOZ is international and may be such sites are not illegal in Timbuktu and DMOZ guidelines does not explain illegal according to what jurisdiction.

Critic: Why don't you clarify in the guideline what jurisdiction you mean?

DMOZ: We are not lawyers, we don't know about laws.

 

That's not true, brizzie. Without going back to check, several other editors have been seen reading this thread and at least two others, lmocr and shygirl, have posted in it.

Of course, DMOZ editors and "retired" editors as a rule seem to be more interested in shooting the messenger than dealing with the message.

 

I think it's equally sad that you want society and Dmoz censored to conform to your own personal tastes and whatever you deem to be 'quality'.

Hasn't that sort of thing already been done in China with Google ? Selectively filtering out items and sites that may be 'deemed' not in the public interest ? Or if you like 'quailty' sites for Chinese people ?

You sometimes sound more than a little right wing yourself. If I can say that . All these posts all boil down to wanting to censor and dictate the sites people wish to view should they perform a search for it (whatever it is floats their particular boat). Telling people what they can and cannot view in effect? And making Dmoz instumental in enforcing this ?

Thank god for Brizzie, says it all here :

No Minstrel, I simply don't have permissions to edit there if that clears things up for you.

 

I don't have permissions to edit there either. So you're left with gworld.

 

Are you also suggesting that removal of child porn sites was censoring the rights of pedophiles?

There is no freedom without a limit, child porn, bestiality and sites without 2257 are against the laws and as long as any individual or corporation exists inside the national boundary of a country, they are obliged to obey by it, independent of their personal desires.

 

Thank you for the confirmation, lmocr and shygirl.

As I said:

 

I think your post neglects to take into account the fact that the current editors and retired editors who have posted in this thread have disagreed (to one extent or another) with the messengers' messages.

I can't speak for shygirl - but I was simply offering the information to support Brizzie's statement that:

Since you seemed to think that we did have those rights:

 

The "quality" arguement being presented here ("sites about shit eating are not 'quality' so DMOZ shouldn't list them") is ABSURD and IDIOTIC.

The failure for the ODP nay sayers to acknowledge the fallaciousness of this arguements means that they are truely blind to reality or that they don't care about the truth, they just care about doing whatever they can to fulfill their own personal vendetta against the ODP.

As brizzie has pointed out about a half dozen times, QUALITY refers only to the comparison of other sites with similar content or in the same category.

To determine if a site about eating shit is "quality", you compare it to other shit eating websites. This is common sense!

You do not compare a shit eating site to a site about, for example, PHP coding and say, "well, this site about PHP coding is a lot more usefull and is designed better as well, so it has more quality. I will delete the shit eating site!".

I hope that everyone can see the stupidity of that...because it's quite obvious. If this were the system used to list sites - comparing each site to every other site in the directory to determine quality - then there would only be one site listed in the ODP. It would be the highest quality site on the internet and all other sites would have to be deleted as they couldn't compare to the awesome quality of this one site.

Sounds pretty silly right? Yet this is what people are suggesting...

 

and I think it's really sad that you expect a directory to be the morality police.

I'm sorry if you find BDSM and sexuality in general offensive, but you should really realize that not everyone does. if you don't like some of these categories, why not, you know... not look at them?

I'd even go so far as to say that DMOZ deleting "illegal" sites is a dangerous road to go down; what's illegal in one country isn't in another. not to mention whether or not a site is illegal can also be strictly opinion if it hasn't been challenged by a court. should sites like paypalsucks and googlewatch be deleted because some individuals consider them libel?

when I first saw this thread, I thought maybe I'd be alone in thinking that people deleting sites / categories from dmoz just because they're "offensive" was an absolutely horrible idea. I'm glad to see I'm not alone in thinking such. I personally find the idea of DMOZ deleting sites because they're offensive much worse than listing sites about consensual sexual activity.