DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

Imcor what makes you think that most of us havent already done all the things you mention. None of this is going to happen overnight. The clock is ticking and Dmoz along with its editorship is running out of time.

Dont believe for one second I do not fight this issue every way possible when time permits. I have a business to run but every opportunity I get, I set a ball in motion to make sure Dmoz faces what it has coming to it in relation to promoting child porn. This is the least I can do for my 7 year old child.

 

Tell you what then - why don't we make a "date" to come back here in 6 months or so (say the fourth Thursday in November) and update the world on the status of whatever you think the ODP has coming to it. That should be more than long enough for something as serious as what you think is going on to be investigated by anyone.

However, you cannot use the decrease in the number of Adult listings as a measure of "success" - they are scheduled to decrease due to a recent guidelines change.

 

Minstrel - I'm glad to see that you agree with me that we should not be arguing about the legality of these sites (as gworld, LVH, and dvduval are trying to do), but instead concentrate on the morality of them - as I said a couple of pages before you. It's good to know that we're on the same page here!

 

Isn't amazing how poor DMOZ apologists and defenders of DMOZ Adult are at actually reading what the people you mention have to say?

My knowledge of the subject comes from a combination of working for many years with both offenders and victims, combined with some knowledge of the internet. Where does your knowledge on the subject come from, orlady?

 

I was posting when I saw minstrel post about the same thing. How come you are so much concerned with porn and defending those listings in DMOZ?
It is funny the person who is defending the listings of porn sites in DMOZ is accusing others of being involved in porn industry.

If porn is so wrong then why a meta is involved in porn? Anything that you like to confess?

 

We're not even close to being on the same page, sid. You apparently want to use your usual distraction and smokescreen techniques to drag threads in irrelevant directions by engaging in pointless debates about nothing at all meaningful. I don't know what you said a couple of pages ago and I don't care. What I do know is that you've posted mindless arguments about legality in several DP threads on the subject and for you now to claim your entire point was that legality isn't relevant is laughable.

Annie has tried repeatedly to characterize you as "one of the good guys", working behind the scenes to rid DMOZ of these sites. I can't verify or disprove that directly. All I have to go on is what I see here and what I see here is a blatant DMOZ sycophant and apologist and defender of the cesspool that is DMOZ Adult.

If you are indeed what Annie believes you to be, do all of us a favor and stop playing a total ass in these forums.

 

How many investigations have you ever been a part of Imcor? I can tell you from experience that 6 months is a small amount of time for a major investigation against a major corporation. All this now falls on politicians and other groups to help push this issue. As we know in the US nothing is every done in a timely manner to effect change, but rest assured that with the number of people pushing this issue something will happen.

When you look at other underlying factors such as congress looking at the internet and how to prevent child porn, groups against child porn lobbying their representives for change, major news TV shows exposing child porn and the upcoming elections, only a fool would think that this issue with Dmoz will go un-noticed by federal and state authorities.

 

To: Orlady and your Army

It does'nt matter anymore who is right and who is wrong this thread has been reported to the proper authorities. If they try to contact AOL or decides to send someone inside DMOZ it is their judgement. They decide not you or anybody else. If they see fit to close the whole Adult Section then so be it.

 

With all due respect minstrel, you need to go back a couple of pages and read from where you left off if you want to retain your credibility. I think you'll be shocked to find that you, me, sid and most editors in general are in fact on the same page as shown over that past few pages. Your friends are the ones using unscrupulous methods to do what you are accusing sid of doing. Your friends here are hiding behind loaded questions and have shown a pattern of avioding logical discussion by using circular arguments to drag these threads into irrelevant directions. It's all counterproductive to the goals we share and they should just stop it.

He did get serious and he continues to plead for your friends to take this seriously, just like you and I do. Please go back and read what you missed, you need to make an informed decision about the side you're putting yourself on.

 

With all due respect, I know on what page minstrel, Sid, lmocr,LVH, orlady, I and everybody else is but it seems to me that you like to be on every page of the book.

This is not about being one big happy family and try to keep everybody happy. The question is if questionable sites, both morally and legally should be listed in DMOZ and possibly endanger minors during production of such porn or should DMOZ take the moral stand and try to minimize the danger for minors by not listing sites that do not even care about minimal legal requirements.
There is 2 possible answer:

1) we don't care about minors and like to list these sites independent of the risk as Sid, lmocr and orlady advocate or

2) these sites should not be listed as minstrel and everybody else advocates.

Your alternative stating that you care about minors but you really don't know if it should be listed or it should not be listed but let's not talk about it right now, isn't really an answer.

If you really haven't made up your mind about this question, that is quite understandable and you can take your time and think about it but in the mean time the rest of us who know where we stand can continue the discussions.

 

Nope, I am most certainly not on every page of the book. I'll refer you again to minstrels post #1817 so you can see the page I'm on. From that post it appears he's on the same page as well. Don't you think it would be better if we let minstrel catch up on the reading he missed? I'm sure he can speak for himself.

I never said that or anything close to it. You just made it up from nothing. I reject your imaginary explanation of what I think.

 

I think he has already spoken but you either missed it or didn't like what he posted.

is there anything that sounds ambiguous for you in the above sentence?

 

Yes, there is. The ambiguity comes from you cutting out the part where he also says "I don't know what you said a couple of pages ago and I don't care."

I asked him to read what he missed and make an informed decision. Is there a reason you have a problem with that? Why would you rather he not read it?

 

Annie as much as I respect some of your post IMHO you are starting to sound more like the standard BS responses we are use to getting from Dmoz editors.

How can you even say we are not taking this seriously. Why would I personally take the time that I have to not only post my opinions but also contact one of our state representatives to have this issue looked at as well as send an email to Dateline and Fox about this thread. Why have others chosen to dig about this thread and Dmoz promoting child porn, why has minstrel blogged about this issue on his site, why do other forums other than DP post on this same subject matter as it relates to Dmoz,Why have several people posted issues as the relate again to Dmoz on Matt Cutts blog, why have others taken time out of their schedules to fight this moral and legal issue against Dmoz with other means of which I havent mentioned.

I have better things to do as I am sure most others here who object to Dmoz promoting child porn do as well. Editors are so use to stating an opinion on RZ and everyone bow to those opinions that when most of them hit the REAL WORLD they dont know how to deal with adversity because they are use to living in fantasy land on RZ or in the internal ODP forums.

Dmoz has had a history of abuse of power and therefore when Dmoz feels it is losing control of an issue the minions come out in force to try and throw as many smoke screens up as possible. If you look back, who has had more issues with abuse of power, Dmoz or DP members? If you can answer that question honestly this might open your eyes as to whom has a motive to be deceptive here.

For the record though I will say that I find your comments about not taking this serious to be offensive and insulting. I would personally call for anyone who is an editor with Dmoz and has children or grand children to resign their editorship because of Dmoz moral stance on this issue. The only ones this will affect in the long run are our children.

 

I think as you know, I am the one who always encourage people not to only read these forums but also read the applicable laws and court decisions.
More informed everybody is the better it will be in my opinion and harder for some editors to hide behind smoke screens.

 

And isn't it amazing that DMOZ is continuing to list sites that may contain child pornography, and promote and fund illegal activities?

I does make me wonder what motivation exists to list questionable sites that even contain words like "young teens" and "lolitas". As has been mentioned repeatedly, there are young persons being exploited while we are typing in this thread, yet DMOZ is continuing to help people find "lolitas" and "young teens". By using these words, DMOZ is promoting illegal behavior.

As seen in the other thread about the Google Coop, Google may be starting their own directory. We also see that google is getting pressure about child porn sites themselves. I believe our efforts here on DP are playing a small, but productive role is stopping the promotion of child pornography on the internet. And I also believe that DMOZ is quickly reaching a point where there will be no turning back (ex. Google drops them).

 

What minstrel said above...

But DMOZ is doing nothing illegal itself in listing links to sites. Any more than links, even broken ones, to the same sites on this forum are illegal. What DMOZ has is a policy of not listing illegal sites that goes beyond its legal responsibilities. That policy is not a legal provision and is what sid is saying - it prohibits the listing of a US site that breaches US law, a Canadian site that breaches Canadian law, etc. Who is the judge of whether a US site breaches US law? A judge not an editor. You cannot use legal arguments relating to this issue because DMOZ, whatever it lists, wherever it is incorporated, is not breaking the law itself. It is simply a waste of forum space to keep on about it. If you believe the law goes further then it is for the relevant authorities to take DMOZ to court and get a judge to resolve it - a load of laymen in a webmaster forum are not the legal judges. Not even you.

Your point about

is well taken - I think I said exactly the same in December in the internal forum without the illustration. Risks should not be taken - forget the 2257 provisions which you can drive a coach and horses through and are open to falsification, and for the most part unverifyable despite "records". And sites which feature certified over-18 models who nevertheless appear very young and aimed at pedophiles - under your arguments, no problem with these. The point is 2257, no 2257, you can't tell the age of the models on many sites. It isn't solved by trying to relate it to some law that might or might not apply to a site that might or might not be covered being reviewed by an editor who may or may not be a lawyer and who may or may not be a US citizen.

The answer is to have a tougher and clearer policy that relates back to the change made relating to other sites designed to appeal to the prurient interests of pedophiles - that is what child porn sites are there for. That means no "barely legal teens", no "teens", no sites with models that appear to be under 18 regardless of declarations to the contrary made in accordance with whatever the site's jurisdiction demands or doesn't demand. In other words no sites designed to appeal to the prurient interests of pedophiles - consistency throughout the different type of material that do appeal to these monsters. You do not need 2257 debate for such a policy, it just muddies the water and distracts from what should be done.

 

Thank you, brizzie.

Why does it sometimes appear that DMOZ editors have to resign from active editing to regain a voice of reason?

 

Yes, brizzie you are correct as usual. This is the point we're trying to get across.

 

I was saying exactly the same inside before I resigned.