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 Supports Child Porn?

Discussion in 'ODP / DMOZ' started by dvduval, Jan 26, 2006.

  1. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #1341
    Good. I see it is moved. Now let's look at this section:

    http://dmoz.org/Adult/Society/Sexuality/Activities_and_Practices/Pedophilia/Affirmative_Views/

    What is the first site listed under DMOZ "highly selective" policy?

    CLogo - The designers of the 'CLogo' explain the process they used to design the logo, and explain why they believe that the logo can be used by both boy lovers and girl lovers to express their solidarity for the cause of child love.

    What is in their home page under external links (resource)? You guessed it, the same chat rooms and forums. :rolleyes:

    The reason I think the "unreview" option is better is because it is much less controversial to move these sites from test to a new category than actually approving each site again. ;)

    Does any of DMOZ editors see anything wrong when there is need for so much external persuasion to convince Admins that sites used for child molestation should not be listed in DMOZ?
     
    gworld, Feb 18, 2006 IP
  2. vulcano

    vulcano Active Member

    Messages:
    418
    Likes Received:
    63
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    68
    #1342

    good catch, gworld, never checked this listing, good question how they ever got there, quiet some unique content:rolleyes:
     
    vulcano, Feb 18, 2006 IP
  3. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #1343
    I suppose it depends on what your definition of "Highly selective" and "unique content" are. ;)
     
    gworld, Feb 18, 2006 IP
  4. dvduval

    dvduval Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,369
    Likes Received:
    356
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #1344
    It's good to see some DMOZ editors taking action. :)
    I'm sincerely happy about this.
    Do you suppose I could be reinstated as an editor to help spot stuff like this?
    If you are interested, have someone PM me.
     
    dvduval, Feb 18, 2006 IP
    compostannie likes this.
  5. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #1345
    Another one of the questions I asked internally in December. There being image gallery categories for "teens". If I recall the answer correctly it is apparently a term used by the porn industry to refer to people aged 23. Like many things, DMOZ Adult branch editors have an entirely different dictionary to the rest of the world. Teen means someone in their 20's (to make sure no sites with 13-17 year olds accidentally get listed). Advert for phone sex line means quality gallery of porn images. A ruling that says don't list sites that associate children even vaguely with sex means pedophile forums and chat rooms are OK.

    The answer is zero. There is no connection between a site added in one category and a site rejected in another. There are no quotas and every editor does whatever edits they want to do wherever they want to do it.

    The background checks done are designed to prevent abuse from a commercial angle - people not declaring affiliated sites, that sort of thing. It wouldn't be possible to carry out personal background checks any more than you could do such checks on members registering here.

    I can see that being abuse but there would have to be a pattern that clearly illustrated an intention to deceive about the editor's motivation for editing. That is very different from not editing as a protest though. Regardless of an increasing tendency to dictatorship there is still a reliance on the goodwill of editors to keep things ticking along. And it is an increasing loss of goodwill that is behind the downward trend in editor numbers that is a crisis in the making. Hastening that decline via punative firings that would be followed by more resignations of principled editors is not in their interests.

    That's a good point Annie but once you have the editor names you can safely delete as the edits will be retained in the individual's personal editing log.

    Too many people watching now. If that trick were to be tried it would be uncovered very quickly and cause even more embarrassment. Gross stupidity.

    Misguided ones I hope, and nothing more sinister than that. I understand that most of the proponents for keeping the sites are arguing it from the free speech angle and that in the US in particular censorship and free speech issues are a lot more keenly fought on principle than in other countries where the subject is more important than abstract concepts of "freedom". But it is the wrong argument for DMOZ as sites are listed on their unique content and informational value to surfers and not to give every madman and pervert some web marketing for nothing on the grounds of free speech.

    It was an editor who first spotted these pedophile categories and raised it inside. This thread followed on, it didn't initiate it. But good work gworld.

    The Internet world works on links. I still have links on a website of mine to DMOZ which had links to those chat rooms. Links to Google and the 200+ clones as well - they will still have those sites listed until they update or manually remove. That is the next job - get those 200 odd aware and removing the categories as well. Wikipedia had the links and they are still there in the history of the pedophile subject page. The sentiments quoted above are despicable and I strongly object to any affirmative views sites being listed - those that excuse or promote instead of explaining objectively. That is why I would remove it though, not because of the links - that would be a bad precedent to set - editors would have to check every outgoing link from every site they review which is just not practical.

    And a lot of internal persuasion as I understand it - and that is what the Admins should be listening to. The Admin system does not lend itself to decisive and immediate corrective action - it is a committee working on consensus and as such fatally flawed. For all we, or anyone without access to the private Admin forum knows or will ever know it may have been a single Admin blocking immediate action.

    The only thing I am surprised about is a lack of a statement saying "How do you know we were not about to remove that category and were already working on revised guidelines before this matter was raised?", which is a well tried response to every major issue raised that is in some way critical of the Admin system and has some validity. And it usually works because no-one does know what they talk about - it is totally secret unless and until they release a snippet usually after someone has raised a point and got a level of support. And if you ask why they didn't say something earlier it is the old why do you need to know? You can't win.

    .
    If you want reinstatement then go to the DMOZ site, find the link, and request it. You have to ask - no-one is going to invite.
     
    brizzie, Feb 18, 2006 IP
  6. pagode

    pagode Guest

    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    47
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #1346
    :D

    Editors that left on their own free will or timedout might get reinstated.
    Editors that were removed by the meta's or admins as far as I know don't have a change to join again.
     
    pagode, Feb 18, 2006 IP
  7. dvduval

    dvduval Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,369
    Likes Received:
    356
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #1347
    So I am stating that I will be happy to help in cleaning up the porn section. I will only do this by invitation.

    It sure would be nice if we could at least have an easier way for people like us to Report this Listing. If there is a way to do this, it is not apparent.

    Maybe I should start a DMOZ clone site, where people can do this, and then do a mass submission to DMOZ every so often, or just put it in the public record and let DMOZ do as they wish?
     
    dvduval, Feb 18, 2006 IP
  8. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #1348
    It seems the pedophile sites and advocacy of child molestation is still fine with editors, they just remove the most controversial to make people quite. The deep links is just the old issue of corruption and we can't have a DMOZ that is not corrupt, can we? :rolleyes:

    How the hell do they stop abuse from commercial angle when there is so many proof for corruption inside DMOZ? :rolleyes:

    There is no editors background check and there is no way in hell that they can check anything about affiliation or commercial angle. If you are a present editor, I can tell you that you have nothing to worry about unless your are a complete moron and idiot. If you are a previous editor who was caught for corruption, my suggestion to you is just to give up on life since your intelligence level is so low that you can not function in society anyway.

    This is the reason that as I have mentioned many times before, there is a need for real organization and procedures that stops corruption, otherwise we have to accept that there was corruption before, there is corruption now and there will be corruption in future.

    It is interesting that none of editors even try to answer my previous questions about what they know about other editors.


    You can hope but can you be sure? What happens if you are wrong? It seems since the "Free speech" BS defense has not worked, there is all kind of defense, from it is not DMOZ duty to protect users to only admins can decide this or even mentioning cigarettes are more dangerous for kids than pedophiles. May be I am just too suspicious by nature and I hope I am wrong and it is all simple mistake but you have to ask yourself, do you really want such strong supporter for pedophilia as DMOZ editors and do they have access to kids sections?

    These are real and difficult questions. What will be the worst effect of being cynical about this subject? Removal of pro child molestation web sites and limiting some editors activity in DMOZ because of their pro pedophilia views but if we are right and decide to ignore and not take any actions, not only DMOZ endanger the safety of under-aged editors but can also endanger the safety of others by giving these editors access to kids sections. Will you as DMOZ editor accept the responsibility of putting the children in a dangerous situation? If you are a DMOZ editor who is a parent, will you take such risk with your own children and leave them with someone who has a strong pro pedophilia views just because you like to assume the highest motives for anyone?

    This is a real life and we can never be sure that we always make a right decision but decisions has to be made and doing nothing is also a decision; therefore, it is my personal opinion that I rather err on the side which protects the children from the harm, what do you think?
     
    gworld, Feb 18, 2006 IP
  9. pagode

    pagode Guest

    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    47
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #1349
    As an ex-editor you should know that there are several ways you can report listings that need attention.

    Available for anyone
    - use the update listing possiibility available on each category within DMOZ
    - report the listing on Resource Zone
     
    pagode, Feb 19, 2006 IP
  10. pagode

    pagode Guest

    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    47
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #1350
    No it is not. Every site listed in these categories will be looked at very closely by several editors.

    As has been told many times before. The deeplinks have nothing to do with corruption. They are all within current DMOZ guidelines. But for your information these guidelines are being discussed internal DMOZ.

    Although you keep mentioning this you have never given us any proof of this so called corruption. You have only shown us that you are not interested in answers that don't fit your opinion.

    As an editor I know there was corruption. And I have no reason to believe that there won't be corruption in the future or that there is any ongoing at this moment.

    As DMOZ is a worldwide organization it is impossible for me to know all ediors personally. But in several regions reallife meatings are held once or more times a year. We have had a European meeting where editors form several countries met.

    I would like to know who your source of DMOZ inernal discussions is. As he or she is giving you only part of the discussions. Or you just write about the things that fit your opinion.
     
    pagode, Feb 19, 2006 IP
  11. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #1351
    Yes, I know how much power editors have, specially when even you had to leave and now you are back because you think that Admins have decided to do the right thing; but don't fool yourself since without these type of discussions the pedophile listings would have still been in DMOZ.
    As you know, the majority of editors were ready to keep their mouth shut as soon as the free speech defense was launched.


    I think we are arguing about a word here. what you call "Adult Guideline" and "Norm", most people call corruption. I can not show you corruption because independent of what I show you, you see it as "adult guideline" and "norm". Your defense of corruption is like a bank manger that states in our bank, the fact that tellers take money from the safe in "Norm" and according to "Bank Guideline"; therefore we have no stealing in our bank since stealing is the norm. :rolleyes:
    At least you are realistic and you know that with this attitude, there will always be corruption. ;)


    That is exactly the problem, you have no idea who the people are, there is no background check and DMOZ so called "abuse detection" system, doesn't even deserve to be called laughable since it is more or less nonexistent. I classify it as bogeyman that can only scare very very very young children or an adult below IQ level of 40.

    I am sure you like to know my sources but they will not be a source for long if you knew their identity, would they? Instead of worrying about my sources identity, would you like to tell us what part of what I posted was wrong?

    I have always find it quite intriguing that DMOZ is much more interested to fight people who fight pedophiles or corruption than actually fighting the corruption and corrupt editors. :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Feb 19, 2006 IP
  12. drhfinegifts

    drhfinegifts Peon

    Messages:
    368
    Likes Received:
    12
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #1352
    No wonder I can't get my website www.drhfinegifts.com listed in DMOZ. Maybe I should throw a few pics of naked young boys on it and maybe I'll have a chance!

    They rejected me as an editor also - so yeah, I'm kinda peaved!
     
    drhfinegifts, Feb 19, 2006 IP
  13. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #1353
    More gems from DMOZ listing:

    Under the affirmative views category there is a listing under title: "why pedophilia isn't bad", if you click on the link, it takes to a page with couple of paragraph such as this:


    "To share a game of chess with a child is not harmful, but share sex with a child is socially considered an evil. I hold the following opinion: that conscious beings - be they male or female, white or black, human or non-human, YOUNG or OLD - may interact with each other in any way they desire so long as they do not cause suffering to each other or to others. In this sense, I can find it highly suspicious to claim that a child is harmed by sexual activity. The image of a prowler luring a child into excruciating pain through sexual abuse is not the image that is produced in my mind: I am talking about sexual affairs where none are harmed. That is to say, both individuals enjoy such activity.
    There are various "practical arguments." Some will claim that it is damaging to the psychology of a child to have sexual activity - however, not only do I find these claims to be rather thrown when nothing else is better available, I find it highly doubtful that a child's psychology will be damaged from sexual activity."

    Does this "enlightening" article offers anything in form of research and studies to support such "interesting" conclusions? NO. Not even a mention of anything remotely scientific to support such wild claims and in fact the whole page could be summarized as "I THINK IT IS GOOD TO HAVE SEX WITH A CHILD, SO LET ME DO IT".

    Why someone in DMOZ thinks that such page deserves and have merits to be one of the "highly selective" pages that should be listed in DMOZ? Any of the DMOZ editors know, why?
     
    gworld, Feb 19, 2006 IP
  14. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #1354
    I'd like to see the "justification" for this, too.
     
    minstrel, Feb 19, 2006 IP
  15. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #1355
    You are a professional active in the field of mental health, what is your opinion when someone claims:

    "I find it highly doubtful that a child's psychology will be damaged from sexual activity." or child molestation is not worse than playing chess with a child?
     
    gworld, Feb 19, 2006 IP
  16. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #1356
    See my previous post on Techniques of Neutralization, gworld. This is how a pedophile rapes a child and then engages in some reality reconstruction to avoid feeling guilty... or how a pedophile plans to rape a child and engages in reality reconstruction in advance to enable him to commit the act without feeling guilty.

    To those editors who are still examining some of these listings and trying to keep them on the basis of free speech, please bear in mind that each time one of them is talking about another "puppy" or "little friend" or whatever the euphemism-du-jour is that what is really being discussed is another future or current victim of child sex abuse who will struggle to recover from the destructive effects of such victimization for the rest of his or her life.
     
    minstrel, Feb 19, 2006 IP
  17. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #1357
    drhfinegifts, these perverts aren't using naked children, they use pictures that will arouse a pedophile but not a normal person. The more I look into it the more disgusted (and scared) I get. :mad:

    Your website would be a Shopping site, not an Adult site. I'm not aware of any editors who work in both of those branchs so a problem in Adult would (almost) never affect suggestions or listings in the Shopping branch. I'm mainly a Shopping editor and I can tell you the problem we have in the Shopping branch is with spam, mirrors, dropshippers and affiliate site submissions burying the decent site suggestions. In Shopping, we have a very low listing rate when going through suggestions and there is a huge backlog of mostly crap. Your problem is caused by those who bury the Shopping category in crap submissions.

    I don't know where you submitted your site, but can tell you it hasn't been looked at by an editor yet. Shopping editors spend a lot of time deleting spam but we do look at the suggested sites as well. If you submitted to the correct category, wrote a good, guideline compliant description and don't fit into one of the above categories we will eventually dig you out of the litter box that shopping spammers have created.

    I'm only speaking for myself, but I almost never look outside of the site submissions when listing sites in Shopping. Editing shopping has its own unique problems.

    If you think you'd make a good editor, then please try again. It's not unusual to have your first application turned down. Choose a small category and take your time with the application. Make it perfect just like you would any other job application. :)

    That said, this horrible Adult issue has taken up a lot of time from editors who normally would be busy editing in other categories. Since this was brought to our attention I haven't hardly touched Shopping. But, I will go back to working in Shopping as soon as this issue is resolved...we gotta have priorities, ya know. ;)
     
    compostannie, Feb 19, 2006 IP
  18. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #1358
    Wow, lots of posts while I was writing my reply to drhfinegifts. :eek:

    Minstrel, I'd be very interested to know more about this from your professional point of view as well. Is this a topic you cover in your psych forum?

    I think this is it something the world needs to be made much more aware of. Parents and society need to be made aware of the methods they use so we can be better prepared to protect our children. I'd really like to see some forums where normal people can discuss this topic, indepth, without flaming and without trying to normalize it. This is much bigger than dmoz.
     
    compostannie, Feb 19, 2006 IP
  19. Lordo

    Lordo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,082
    Likes Received:
    58
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    190
    #1359
    Interesting thread :)
    Sixty thousand and something editors are way much to monitor I guess!
     
    Lordo, Feb 19, 2006 IP
  20. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #1360
    I suppose if DMOZ editors ever need to face past, present and future victims of child molestation, they can always defend their passivity by stating that they bravely defended every pedophiles right to free speech and networking to find their victims. :rolleyes:


    can you please tell us what is the issue? I think the "issue" about "free speech" and "legality" has been resolved, what are they waiting for now? A serious discussion about what is worse, "pedophiles and child molestation or smoking and cigarette web sites". :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Feb 19, 2006 IP