DMOZ and Extreme Pornography

Who cares what I said? It's what I meant. Be pedantic with my spelling if you wish, you can't and won't win any argument against me on the issue of censorship or this rediculous notion of 'social responsibility' on the Internet and you know it, which is why you have give up.

See you in another thread Minstrel - hopefully ones less rediculous as this one as normally I find your posts have some value.

Pete

 

I am sorry because I am from the planet who cares about individuals. What I am pointing out is ask yourself how is it when one of your family members is on a video and being done strange things you say. What do you feel then ?

 

Not everyone "acting" in these sick, twisted videos are willing participants. Not only that, but the availabilty of these sites this tends to bring some legitamacy to this disgusting behavior.

In the past, when we were a much more moral society, this stuff, while it may have occured, was not out there in everyone's faces. Today, it seems that this behavior has become the norm, with normal, moral people being shunned and refered to as hate mongers and bible thumpers. Have a daughter molested by one of these pigs, and see what I mean.

I, for one, agree that this type of site should not be listed in the directory.

 

What? It's not random people plucked off the street, it's consenting adults who are being paid by a producer in most of this 'extreme pornography' folk are refering to.

Your children and wife are quite safe when I download the latest volume of Throat Bangers or Happy Slapping I assure you.

Pete

 

Barring removal of Adult as a whole, if there were to be a criteria, that would be the one I would choose - sites portraying sex acts or intended for sexual gratification where the participants are not willing or unable to give consent is where I would personally draw the line. Freedom of the individual not to be portrayed in a forced sex act overrides concerns about censorship.

Minstrel:
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 - some of these sites were the initial focus of the threads listed above, which led to the de-listing of several pro-pedophilia sites.

is a direct (and complete) quote from your blog you invited people to read.

Sorry, you didn't even if you meant to.

 

Sorry but in the same way child porn does not involve consenting adults and is on the Internet so there are other forms of extreme porn that do not involve consenting adults - the commission of crime to produce porn does not stop with children.

 

Oh, please, brizzie. Read it in the context of the whole article - or at least look at the title of the article if you don't have time to read the whole thing - and stop playing games.

I am referring throughout that article to social responsibility and increased public anger at the lack of it on the web. I think that's pretty obvious.

 

Then I should think 'on the web' Google, Yahoo and MSN may be somewhat of a priority in terms of 'social responsibilty' and the sheer numbers of people who use them for searches ?

'Increased Public Anger ' will without doubt be directed in their direction firstly AND foremost. You are kidding yourself completely otherwise. I fail to see why you want to keep harping about Dmoz in terms of this when when there are bigger fish out there who provide millions of results for the terms that the OP was so horrified about.

Dmoz most certainly won't be the first port of call in any sort of 'gathering storm. Google will. We'll see how that goes before writing off Dmoz in a hail of litigation shall we ? Common sense sheesh... Let's apply a little surely ?
As for Dmoz as a whole v's Dmoz Adult ? As someone who wasn't even aware of it's existence when I was accepted as an editor. And there are 100's like me.. most of whom neither edit there, have no wish to edit there and some like me who started off (and may be still), completely unaware of it's very exisitence.

I can absolutely assure you Annie that it IS something seen as seperate from the 'norm' in editing. I didn't sign up for it. And I won't be lumped in either with corruption, greed, affiliates or doorway pages. I edit in Kids and Teens and Health. As an editall it is VERY easy for you to talk about 'caring' because you have 'no choice'. You've edited far longer than me.
But I've been told here several times that if I don't do anything about it then I'm part of the problem. 100's of us all lumped in there as 'condoning' sites and listing practices we weren't aware of and reading stuff about 'Dmoz's decline due to lack of social responsibilty' when I've just spent the day listing kids history sites and childbirth stories.

It IS a seperate area for me and others like me. I signed up to do the 'normal' directory stuff. Most of the threads here DO concentrate on Adult concerns. I stand by 100% the fact there IS a distinction between the two, and that for most Dmoz editors, it IS a seperate area.

I guess it looks differently 'up the tree' a bit. But for rank and file 3 or 4 cats editors ? It's a whole different ball game and one most of us didn't even consider when applying. I think it's very unfair of you to say that all of Dmoz is 'one and the same' and that you personally have no choice 'but to care' ? You're in a privildged and long term editor position to do so.
I appauld your efforts in Adult. But don't try to tell someone who didn't know of the very exsitence of Adult that 'it's all one and the same and there is no difference' ? It may seem so to you, but perhaps you've been there too long to see things from newbie and recent editing perspectives ?

There is a huge difference to me and others like me in 'normal' editing land. And it is a seperate entity from what I signed up for as a volunteer. I won't be the first and I won't be the last to have my 'eyes opened'. But I won't lay down and accept that fact that I should read Gworld's and Minstrel's posts here trying to taint the WHOLE directory and ALL of it's editors ( all of them !) with titles like 'All of Dmoz's demise because of bad social responsibilty etc' and 'All of Dmoz is evil because it lists... "insert questionable site". "You're part of the problem if you don't do anything about 2257 laws type thing".

It's Adult stuff being brought up here, Adult websites and Adult legalities, and Adult concerns repeatedly.

The last few months here that's all it has been. It's not what I do as an editor and I won't be told I'm a problem thanks, I do my editing thing just fine where I can.
It may well be different for those who CAN edit in Adult areas probably. You can safely post here of your progress.
But if you can't see that ALL of Dmoz, Kids n Teens, Health, Cancer sites, homework help, dinosaur listings, fan sites, history sites,...the VERY concept overall of 'quality sites' being listed in Dmoz wherever they are, are being questioned and insulted. The word 'quality' is banded about directory wide here very loosely...and more fool you if you can't see it. If you want to point out to everyone and accept that 'quailty' listings in Kids and Teens is comaprable to 'quality' listings in Adult areas and that they are one and the same thing then go ahead. I don't think it is frankly.

There is a difference, and they are seperate.

( Monstrel don't bother, your opinion of me has been stated many, many times already this thread so don't feel the need to say once again you don't want the responsibilty of re-educating me or that I need a reading lesson... no need to re-iterate again).

 

double post AGAIN (!!!)

 

My post went in 3 times ??? huh ??

 

I read the whole article and elsewhere you are talking in general terms about "social responsibility". The section relating to The Gathering Storm is its own paragraph and is highly specific about what it relates to and they are two items on which DMOZ should not have anything to be worried about. If you meant something different then the "examples" you gave of things DMOZ should be worried about were poor ones but if it was designed to draw attention by using the most emotive (but inaccurate) examples then I'm not the one playing games. But assuming you did indeed mean something different then perhaps you should expand on this gathering storm. In what way are legislators planning on forcing a concept of social responsibility on website operators, references would be useful, whose definitions of social responsibility would be used? That sort of thing. What are we talking about? Speeches, manifestos, party policies, proposed Bills, Bills, Acts currently passing through, etc?

 

What are you trying to say? DMOZ is so great and you are such a good person because you list couple of homework help and dinosaur sites and who cares that as the result of marketing the sites that are listed in DMOZ, minors are involved in porn or some children get raped?

You are as an editor; part of DMOZ organization and can not have only the applauds for listing history sites without sharing the responsibility for child molestation sites.

 

Gee, more venom and lies from shygirl. What a surprise.

Maybe you should check my editing log before you accuse me of not knowing what it's like in "real editor land". I've spent the last couple of weeks listing mostly schools and libraries in my home state. Never even touched Adult before the pedophile issue was raised. I'm quite familiar with real editor land. I'm also familiar with the concept of taking responsibility for the things you're involved with. I don't believe burying your head in the sand does a bit of good.

It is a fact that Adult is part of DMOZ, not an opinion. It's not open for debate. Adult is a top level category. It's called reality.

I can't figure out if you're a simple troll or just tragically clueless. Either way, I'm done with you too.

 

The difference between MSN, Yahoo, Gooogle and DMOZ. All 3 are search engines while ODP-Open Directory Project. We as editors should list quality sites that is for the benefit of the general public.

Caring is not only in terms of editing. We can support them in taking these illegal sites by either participating in open discussions or giving our 10 cent opinion.

Annie has been indeed instrumental in abolishing these sites in question.

As for the other part of the directory Kids and Teens. Health. Regional etc. They are Ok and looks perfectly fine.

 

Not quite. It's not all about pro-pedophilia and extreme pronography sites.

See DMOZ and web sites promoting anorexia and self-injury, DMOZ still promoting pro-anorexia, pro-self-injury sites, DMOZ cleanup: Next phase (pro-anorexia, pro-self-injury).

 

Minstrel, if you believe in compostannie and her contributions to these matters she is doing the best she can. I have seen and read the internal forum threads, both compostannie and sidjf are doing their best.

 

I fully respect Annie and her efforts, buratssky. None of my comments are directed toward her.

 

Then trust is the only way. Like I said, I have read the internal forums both of them are trying their best. You might not like sidjf because of his postings here but he is doing OK.

 

See my post above, though. It is NOT just about the Adult section. There are other issues that need to be addressed.

 

One day at a time Sir. At least there was progress.