DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

This is blank nonsense >jump to, select forum, can't be easier to find if you are not drunk, stoned and still able to hold your mouse and scroll down a bit. It is positioned before World is showing up. Critic as I am myself, I did not expect to find Adult as first listing there.

 

Why not send an email? May be for you is not a big deal to be associated with these sites but it can be objectionable for many others. Do you mean if some one is thinking that they are volunteering for a worthy cause and instead they are helping pedophile sites, they have only themselves to blame for being fooled by DMOZ?

 

Again - this is where a press release helps out.

How many people reading this thread even knew there was an adult section in DMOZ?

I don't get it. There's a Kids section and an Adult section? And a pedophile section? Who is the dumbass who can't see what is wrong with that?

And why has no action been taken to report the listing editors to the FBI? Because there's an argument about whether or not those sites should exist? WTF?!? There are no valid points to be made. There's no issue about how to word the "new" policy.

I can't believe people are actually having semantical arguments while children are being abused.

If I had an actual webmaster site, I'd have a press release out today. The more I come back to this thread the more disgusted I become.

Has this thread been dugg yet?

 

If a move has been scheduled, that might take several days (it's a tricky technical process for all sorts of reasons).

The wheels move pretty slowly - discussions can take some time. If it has already been established that the sites are not illegal, then it's a matter for senior editors to discuss. The due process is to find a concensus - no editor should make a change like that without the authority to do so. So, the correct process would be to move the category to Test if that editor though there was a serious and immediate problem, and then seek a concensus.

Regardless of how distasteful the listings are, it is not up to individuals to censor the directory according to their own beliefs, so deleting the entries would be the wrong approach.

Just on a technical note - "Test" is a bit misleading. There are several hundred thousand sites listed in Test for a variety of reasons. It does partly serve as a trashcan, but it's basically a part of the internal filing system of the ODP that isn't visible from outside. Except for the one time it accidentally got published in the RDF dump, that is.

 

And your point is what, exactly?

Perhaps you should re-read the thread to understand what's being discussed here.

I know there are a thousand post, but honestly, go back and read them. This is old ground. It's been discussed to death.

Who do you think is abusing them? The ODP-AOL pedophile cabal?

So you're not a webmaster? You're here for the buzz then?

This is where it all falls apart - several people have submitted this to Digg and I guess other online news sites. Hardly anyone is interested. It doesn't mean that it's not important, but other people don't seem to thing that it's a problem.

 

Wheels should not move slowly where criminal activity is concerned. Most especially where child molestation, pedophelia, and child pornography are concerned.

How's this for a press release heading and tagline:
An Unsuccessful Vendetta Against Child Pornography
An Industry Giant has been promoting and assisting pedophiles and despite internal and public outrage corrective actions are slow to non-existant. AOL and Google are involved, but the real culprit is DMOZ. A boycott of services is being pushed for.

I think a top listing in PRWeb would be enough to get the word out to the public in general - and hopefully phone calls from the press, the FBI, and the public at large would help out.

$500 to help stamp out support for pedophelia is a small price to pay. Better than a donation to the Red Cross IMO.

 

PR Wed offers free press releases too, nevetS. Why not submit one?

 

I will. I'm going to re-read this thread in it's entirety. I've missed about 30 or so pages.

I'll write a press release and if someone has either a kid's site or a webmaster site that would be a good place to click through to for more information about the problem I'll send traffic in that direction and give them keyword targetted links as well. I don't see any reason why not to pay for a top listing. The point of the release is to ensure high public exposure. And with Oprah's upcoming show, it'll be a topic a lot of the press will want to talk about. It's a worthy cause.

If anyone can come up with a reason not to do a press release, say so now.

I'm concerned about libel, but I think careful wording and a factual presentation will be enough to keep me safe. And of course I'll post it for public review here at DP before it goes out to the world.

 

Well sure, that's a good press release IF you want to end up on the wrong end of the TW legal department AND you want to be laughed at, especially the "a boycott of services is being pushed for" line. Pushed for by WHOM?

Seriously, you need to learn something about press releases. Check the link to Minstrel's blog, that's not exactly a press release but it gets the point across that he's trying to make, explains the background and gives some depth to it. (I don't agree with what he's saying, but at least he's making a point well in his blog entry).

Added: we crossposted. You're right, I'm sure there are people at DP who could help you put together a killer press release.

Added again: sorry I was so blunt. There's a lot to read. It's like those Google Update threads at webmasterworld in here.

 

Send over a note to the boys at h**p://www.theregister.co.uk - it's huge and they usually pick up on such things. Great way to get the ball rolling.

Here's the direct e-mail for sending press releases:



They would eat this story up if it was presented right. Don't try and promote your blog or any website - just stick to the facts of what DMOZ are actually doing here and I have no doubt it will be published on this particular site.

Good luck.

Pete

 

I love it. I get Red Repped for taking a stand against child pornography. What's next?!?

 

The final decline and fall of DMOZ if they don't smarten up in a hurry

 

Don't feel so bad - it's just like getting red repped for explaining how forums work - neither one make sense.

 

Who is pushing for a boycott.
Which services.

I´m not going to list all other errors in your so called `pressrelease` as there ar just to many in only these few lines of text.

 

I'll push for a boycott of services myself.

The point is this:

There are literally thousands of people who support DMOZ on a daily basis. Large amounts of corporate resources contribute to DMOZ - both through Google and AOL. DMOZ has long been promoting pedophelia. DMOZ is reluctant to resolve the problem of promoting pedophelia. The thousands of supporters and the corporate dollars were not intended to aid in the promotion of pedophelia. Raising public awareness of the problem would make a push in the right direction. AOL and Google could potentially stop funding and supporting DMOZ because of their pedophelic affilliation or they could threaten to pull funding if the affiliation is not succintly put to an end. The thousands of supporters of DMOZ who do not already know about the problem can push to get it resolved, or remove their support.

Many people think that one man cannot make a difference. I'm of the mindset that one man can make a difference. And even if that is not so, it would be terrible to not make a legitmate effort.

This thread itself has 18,000+ views, compared to the next highest viewed thread on the DMOZ section with about 2500 views. This is a topic that is of concern to the general public. A press release would get over 100,000 views and summarize the problem. If a media outlet picks it up, and it's a decent possibility with the trend of reporting on this kind of subject lately, then the word can get out to a significantly larger base of people.

The larger the base of people who are aware of the problem, the more people who potentially will take action to resolve it.

I'm sure there are people who may take offense - that might say I'm doing harm to the DMOZ project or that I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, or those that would prefer to argue semantics over what is a "good pedophelia site" versus a bad one. Making the public aware would be helpful to DMOZ, assuming they resolve the issue with expedience. Why anyone would minimize the problems associated with supporting pedophelia or chld pornography is beyond me. Any effort to stop the spread of pedophelia is a good one.

 

nevetS I understand your outrage but with all due respect, you've already stated that you haven't even read half of this thread. For the sake of your own reputation, I urge you to read it all before you decide exactly what the facts are.

There is a difference between promoting pedophelia (which dmoz does not do) and banning the topic altogether. Many editors, myself included, wish to have the topic banned from the directory. Proper steps are being taken toward that end but we aren't there yet.

I wonder how many participants in this discussion have actually read the forums that are at the center of this outrage? My guess would be not many. I spent 2 whole days reading those forums, desperately looking for anything illegal that would give me an excuse to delete them under current guidelines and could find nothing. These "people" are very good at what they do, they know how to barely maintain the appearance of legality. Sure, they're sleazy and we all know the real reason they're there, but without actual illegal content, under the current guidelines, it would be abusive editing to delete the sites.

The reason we need internal debate about the issue is that guidelines must be changed. Guidelines that affect much more than just the pedophilia categories, so it's a bit more complex than it appears on the surface.

 

I respect you as a person, your integrity, Annie, but if DMOZ lists pro-pedophilia sites, DMOZ is indeed by implication promoting and endorsing those sites. Anyone who doesn't understand that point doesn't understand the psychology of the internet.

That's an issue for DMOZ to decide, but the issue is not whether to delete the sites in question but how to ensure that others like them do not reappear. In the meantime, they should be deleted. The DMOZ editors and admins should worry a lot less about the perception by editors of "abusive editing via deletion" and a lot more about the impact of leaving those sites in public categories.

I agree to an extent. Delete the listings. THEN have the discussions about how to ensure that Adult editors comply with the same guidelines as editors in the rest of the categories.

 

Thank you minstrel, of course I agree with everything you just posted but I stand by what I posted as well. Confusing, eh? Obviously my post wasn't clear enough.

The problem is, if I were to edit those sites with emotion rather than with careful consideration of the content taken at face value, I would be fired as an editor and wouldn't be able to participate in the discussions aimed at changing the guidelines to ensure that others like them do not reappear.

As much as I hate those sites, I can't find anything illegal and believe me I want to find something/anything on each one so I can delete them all. Personally, I think our laws don't go far enough when dealing with pedophilia and pedophiles. And yes, we all know those sites aren't innocent. Only a fool would believe otherwise.

As editors, we have to stay within the guidelines like it or not. Personally I'd love to delete the listings before the debate is over.

 

I do fully understand that, Annie. My comments (and my outrage) are aimed at the admins and adult editors who created this problem or allowed it to be created in the first place - and their unwillingness to show sufficient courage and integrity to do what is right now and ensure the guidelines are rewritten later.

 

Are you a lawyer? What laws or criminal codes did you want to use against these sites?