DMOZ and Extreme Pornography

Let's see what these 0.5% of editors are capable of:

1) They can have multiple listings for the same web site.

2) They can list affiliate, doorway pages in contradiction of DMOZ guidelines.

3) They can keyword stuff the description and titles in contradiction of DMOZ guidelines.

4) They can list web sites with illegal content.

Can you explain, why is it that these o.5% of editors have so much power and can so openly abuse the directory and shit all over the guidelines?

Do you really believe with so much critic and clear proof of abuse, these actions could continue if it was not for the support of small group of senior editors that are powerful enough to stop any actions that aims at stopping the abuse because it is beneficial to them?

As long as these type of abuse continues, there will be no hope for implementing procedures that will increase the number of editors or improve the submission procedures and generally making DMOZ better since any and all such action will demise their power and can finally bring the end to the clear and ongoing abuse in the directory. The problem is not only the adult and 0.5% of editors, the problem is that these people are a hinder to future growth and improvement of the directory and as minstrel mentioned, this cancer will finally kill the directory if it is not dealt with.

 

I DO get it Minstrel. I just want answers to questions concerning your assertations. You seem to think they are beyond critisim. Your blog post is slanted and full of personal bias. That's just fine with me too, it's your blog. I understand completely what you're trying to say there. But don't expect us all here to take it as 'gospel'. Especially when any questions arising from it are dismissed out of hand.

Can I suggest in the future then that in order to save yourself from banging your head against the proverbial brick wall. That in each thread you post your opinion just the once and leave it at that ? That way :

Can do just that ?
If your opinion really is unswayable on Dmoz matters, then there is, as you said yourself, no need for you to keep repeating it till you feel as you are 'beating your head' ? State your opinion once and once only. That should alleviate the frustrations you feel towards posters like me who would want to question and debate with you on these matters.

A little over dramatic I feel. But isn't the demise of Dmoz exactly what you two want anyway ?

(ps I take the saying in my sig very seriously, aren't you the lucky ones ! )

 

No. You very obviously do not.

Seek them elsewhere. You won't get them from me. I don't accept the responsibility of trying to educate you.

As I have said repeatedly, I don't care how you take it and I am dismissing your questions because they have all been answered many times and because I no longer believe you will ever understand the answers.

Where on earth did you ever get the impression that this thread or any other thread was directed at or intended for you, shygirl? You are vastly inflating your importance to me or anyone else here.

 

If you yourself don't lead by example and won't even think about taking the time out or the personal responsibility of answering questions/educating others in a simple forum thread.

It's hypocritical of you to advocate 'social responisibility' to an entire directory mainly consisting of volunteers.

And the 'bland' played on. You said you were banging your head against a brick wall about posts here, not me.

 

Every question you are asking has been answered repeatedly, as others have also noted. You are either incapable of understanding or unwilling to understand the answers, or perhaps as someone else suggested you are simply trolling.

Either way, it is clearly pointless to keep answering questions when you won't listen to the answers or do not understand the answers.

This will be my last response to you, shygirl. I've told you repeatedly that I don't care whether or not you understand and I don't feel responsible for educating you. You seem to have trouble comprehending even that much and I don't know how to say it any simpler.

Have a nice day.

 

I asked my 18 year old niece to read some of the posts. Her answer was simple and its all about being responsible. Simple as that. Hope this helps.

 

Thank you, buratssky. My compliments to your 18 year old niece. She's exactly right.

 

Does this mean that in your opinion DMOZ is equal to corruption and listing illegal sites and anybody who is against such practices wants the demise of DMOZ?
It reminds me of another editor that once posted that stopping corruption is not an acceptable alternative for editors.

How about you try to answer this post?

 

Oh please, what editor ever posted that stopping corruption is not acceptable to editors?

Gworld, I think you're full of hot air.

 

The pedophile chat rooms were removed (eventually) after they were pointed out. The existence of a pro-pedophile category was identified by an editor. Child porn - personally I believe DMOZ has a responsible attitude towards child porn sites - they are banned regardless of whether they might be legal where they are owned or hosted. And always have been. Personally I would go further and have an "if models look under 21 don't take the chance" policy as promoted by retailers of alcohol in the UK. I looked at the anorexia sites - I found nothing I did not know already from newspapers. I looked at the self-harm sites - I found a single site that looked like a spoof and needed removing and the rest educated me and dealt with the issue sensitively and responsibly.

Now there is a new “Gathering Storm” to worry DMOZ and it comes in the form of legislators concerned for the moment with internet child pornography and “chat rooms” in which child predators gather to locate new victims

Why would DMOZ be worried? It has a policy on child porn - banned and always has been. It has a policy on pedophile chat rooms - banned and the instructions clarified - no sites appealing to the prurient interests of pedophiles.

The general “free speech” argument worries me because it is the sort of argument that raises the flag of defense of democracy but ignores the principle of responsibility and the limits to free speech that are inherent in any democracy. Free speech is not a license for inciting hatred or promoting activities that are criminal or harmful to children and other vulnerable members of the community.

The responsibility for limiting free speech lies with government and the judiciary not with private citizens and organisations. Within DMOZ editors are permitted to exercise their personal judgement and conscience when it comes to listing sites they feel goes beyond what is socially acceptable. The range of opinion as to what is socially acceptable is no wider than in society as a whole - DMOZ reflects society and does not seek to influence or manipulate it. Free speech is not an argument that holds any more water inside DMOZ than outside when it comes to promoting activities such as child porn or pedophilia. However, where activities are legal, even those abhorrent to normal respectable citizens, DMOZ does not tell editors they "must" list them, nor does it forbid them to list them. As in the rest of society the decisions are ones of personal conscience. If anyone has a problem with that then there are a variety of options - lobby legislators, lobby DMOZ users, and most importantly use your God given right not to use DMOZ yourself. Inciting hatred? Where in DMOZ are there sites inciting hatred?

Social responsibility can be an extremely subjective concept, particularly in a truly international and multicultural organisation such as DMOZ. It is not a community of exclusively white, Christian, middle class North American citizens with white, Christian, middle class North American attitudes and morality. If it was then it might well reflect those attitudes. Instead it reflects the attitudes and moralities of people from every country, religion, and culture and requires tolerance up to but not beyond a line that requires that sites that appeal to the prurient interests of pedophiles are forbidden.

Anyone who wants a directory that reflects social responsibility as defined by typical white, Christian, middle class North American attitudes and morality is at all times free, in a free society, to start up and run a project with this as its basis. Instead what they want to do is to change something, by force if necessary, that never claimed to be a moral campaign vehicle, into their definition of a socially responsible medium. And insult and belittle anyone who dares to challenge them. That is social manipulation to a personal set of moralities under cover of a claim to social responsibility. I have a personal moral objection to abortion, which is legal and acceptable in most Western democracies. But imposing my morals on others is not something I think is acceptable - in itself that would be immoral as far as I am concerned. If it were clear that my morals on a subject matched the overwhelming consensus of society as a whole, e.g. as it does on pedophilia, then I do think it is reasonable to both legislate to protect innocent victims and as regards DMOZ to have a policy banning such sites - that would not be imposing my own personal morals on others. Instead it is reflecting the morals of society as a whole as confirmed by legislation banning it.

Anyone would think I was an ardent supporter of the Adult branch. Nothing could be further from the truth - if it disappeared tomorrow I wouldn't weep a single tear. But my reasoning is based on inconsistent application of guidelines compared to other branches of DMOZ, quality control issues, and the existence of listings clearly the legacy of past abuse. It is a sleazy industry on the edge of legality and the removal of editors within that branch indicates that it was, in the past, a hotbed of editor abuse and corruption. Those removals also indicate that there has been a willingness to root out and remove the abusive and corrupt editors where evidence (beyond circumstantial) existed. But their listings, their reward for abusing the system, remain, and IMO that is wrong and sends the wrong message - don't worry about being caught as the proceeds of your abuse will keep on coming long after you are kicked out. Fix it if you can, or if you can't then remove the whole lot as it is not worth the trouble. But nevertheless, even unfixed, it is not a killer for DMOZ since it represents too small a part of DMOZ and of editor activity - most editors simply do not care about the Adult branch, it is too far removed from their daily editor tasks.

 

Well then brizzie, we obviously have different visions of the outcome of increasing legislative scrutiny of the net and the issue of social responsibility.

I cannot for the life of me understand how someone could look at the history of DMOZ and label it a responsible organization. You see to feel differently. So be it.

You also don't seem alarmed by what I dubbed "The Gathering Storm" (apologies to Winston Churchill). So be it.

We shall see.

I have addressed this previously. You are mistaken.

They should be. That's the point.

 

That is a problem then. I only see compostannie and sidjf that cares and get the job done right. Other than them well....

 

Brizzie, I applaud you.

Thank you for taking the time to actually address and try to debate honestly the issues raised. But I feel you as well as I are hitting our heads against more proverbial 'brick walls' trying to explain our own viewpoints.

So be it.

Note : There IS a difference between Dmoz, and Dmoz Adult in terms of overall 'social responsibilty'.

There are some here who almost exclusively fail to make any distinction between to two. That always annoys me. Gworlds posts and most of Minstrel's concentrate on Adult areas and Adult concerns ONLY. Some of us see the bigger picture.

They just don't 'get it' I guess ?

 

With respect Mam, the title of this thread is Dmoz and Extreme Pornography and the social responsibility lies in the publication of the text "Extreme Pornography." A responsibility that ensures it never goes to the extreme. Yes, there is a difference between DMOZ and DMOZ Adult and the difference is being socially and morally responsible to the general public with regards to the latter.

 

It is one directory. DMOZ.

There is no difference whatsoever. If editors in Adult act differently from editors everyone else, it is the responsibility of DMOZ as an organization to change that.

Do you really think the general public (or at least those who have ever heard of DMOZ) distinguishes between DMOZ and what the apologists keep calling "DMOZ Adult" as if it were some alien organization not associated in any way with DMOZ?

 

And even when the government places such restrictions, DMOZ editors shit on the federal law and list illegal sites, the same way that they shit all over DMOZ own guidelines and list their own sites in pursue of few bucks.
This is the reason that I don't argue about moral and social responsibility with DMOZ editors since how can you expect people who will not even stop in listing illegal sites to consider morality. To have such expectation is the same as to have expectation from Mafia members to always be truthful.

You still haven't answered my question about how can 0.5% of editors have so much power to openly abuse the directory with immunity. How can it be any movement for improvement when this powerful corrupt core, needs to keep the statue Quo in order to be able to continue with abuse?

 

This should be indisputable. I do see the bigger picture, but there's no getting around the fact that adult is not separate, it is a small part of that bigger picture. It's true that most editors don't care about Adult but IMO as long as it exists we would be foolish to pretend it's not a part of the real DMOZ.

Inconsistent application of the guidelines is bad for all editors. Adult definitely has quality control issues that need to be corrected. For those corrections to happen more editors have to open their eyes and start caring. Especially the ones who don't like the category, the ones who want change, we have no choice but to care.

 

Thank you, Annie. Finally someone who understands.

 

The question is; why abuse is tolerated year after year after year....
Why is nothing done about the abuse and corruption? Is it possible or even imaginable that these type of abuses could continue for so long and still be going on without the support of senior editors and the powerful core that is benefiting from it?

It seems the choice is becoming very simple for other editors, either close your eye to corruption and abuse and pretend that it does not exist, so you can advance and list your sites or protest against what is happening and be removed by made up excuses.

 

Thanks Mam. You have explained it very well.