DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

I can't see how this would "reduce the importance of the section", or how this would "seperate dmoz from the section", it is still under the same roof. Trying to create "a more family-friendly reputation" starting off by simply seperating Adult like you are suggesting, to me it looks hypocritical, like hoping with just giving the house a new paint, everything will be good and "family-friendly". The section would still exist! Why do you think nobody ever seriously considered having a poll, active editors deciding about Adult, it would get send to hell.

 

Next time that any member of this forum locates a site that you believe to be child porn listed in dmoz, please submit a report to dmoz via the "report abuse" link found on all dmoz directory webpages (or, if you are an editor, the editor-only link found on that page). Be sure to include all the details of the evidence that caused you to consider the URL to be child porn -- unless you provide this information, do not assume that the volunteer who is investigating your report (who probably abhors this garbaga as much as you do and does not actually want to look at it) will repeat the exact same investigation steps you went through.

Not only do I want to end certain digitalpoint forum members' obnoxious practice of publicly accusing innocent people of corruption (and worse crimes) for failing to find a needle in a haystack (this is not known to be a criminal offense in any jurisdiction)*, but when you post URLs here you are advertising those URLs. If you truly cared about stamping out child porn, you would not be posting those URLs in this public forum.

*Note that, contrary to dvduval's apparent assumption, listings in dmoz are not routinely reviewed by higher-level editors before being accepted. Thus, the presence of a bad URL in the directory does not necessarily indicate that a senior editor approved of the listing.​

 

Let me tell you why I think that's a bad idea. You and your cronies have had plenty of time to do the right thing, orlady, and nothing was done. It's happening now, regardless of what anyone says, because of negative publicity and in formation emanating from DigitalPoint, probably because of its policies against censorship and its large membership base. The very fact that you are here posting at all is pretty good evidence of that.

You are free to pursue the goals of this campaign any way you wish - and so are we. As long as it gets done, who cares? My opinion is that the types of sites that need to be purged are more likely to receive attention if their is loud public complaint here than via a DMOZ abuse report.

I would also point out that sites that aid and abet child sexual assault and child pornography are only part of the problem - phase 1. I highly doubt that anything will be done about those either unless and until there is a public outcry.

Let's face it: DMOZ does not have a reputation for thinking outside the box or acting outside the status quo.

 

Orlady, whilst editors (except one) and most former editors understand that once reported a site containing child pornography will be removed immediately there is a degree of scepticism amongst those with no direct DMOZ experience on this and other webmaster forums as regards the response DMOZ will take, partly due to the DMOZ policy of not revealing the results of abuse reports to anyone apart from meta editors.

I am extremely disappointed, as will every current editor be, that despite claims that I would have repeated that there are no child porn sites listed, one was found, apparently quite easily. Barring bait and switch, which is not uncommon in this area, this suggests a gap in the guidelines (see the other thread started by imocr that contains constructive suggestions) and/or the existence of a guilty person, guilty of sloppyness in not reviewing a site properly or in deliberately listing a prohibited site. Certainly whilst people can see that a site is removed (after a period of time for updating of servers) they are deliberately kept in the dark about how it happened and what has been done to prevent it recurring.

If I may suggest that if anyone is sceptical that a report will not be investigated and dealt with, that they report the URL via PM to an editor here, who can investigate and remove the site (or report it to another editor who can), and report back to confirm the actions taken. If it is not dealt with satisfactorily and promptly then they always have the embarrassment option.

 

I would go one step further and recommend starting with the embarrassment option as far more likely to get results. It's the only thing that has actually worked so far (as your own experience confirms, brizzie).

 

Surely you are not saying that you would rather have the URLs of sites containing (or believed to be containing) child porn posted so that more people can see them.

You want more pedophiles to visit here so they can continue to get their daily fix?

That tells me that it's more important to you that you embarrass the ODP, than it is to remove the listings.

 

Minstrel - I recall listing a surf club site - very convincing, photos of the facilities and everything. A short while later I noticed an update request for the site which claimed it was a porn site. Sure enough it had been hijacked and was a porn portal in the middle of a small town Regional category. Given the speed of the change it is a good bet it was a bait and switch and never a genuine surf club site in the first place. Of course the site was removed immediately. I would have been pretty pissed off had the kind person who noticed it instead published the listing here and accused me of being a corrupt porn peddler. I would probably have stopped editing at that point but instead carried on with my eye(s) wider open. Taking the more discrete option via an editor you at least partially trust ensures that innocent editors doing a good honest job are not pilloried for things outside their control. Slimeball corrupt editors deserve all the embarrassment you can heap on them, and you'll get support from most editors on that one but it would be nice to distinguish them from each other first.

 

You really have great difficulty thinking at all, let alone outside the box, don't you, lmocr?

That was bogus when orlady said it and it's still bogus. The majority of people identifying specific sites are astute enough to identify the sites as www[dot]pornsite[dot]com or some similar format for disabling it as a live link.

It's really not rocket science, though I do understand that it's probably difficult for you.

 

I could buy that as something that happens, brizzie, because years ago it happened to one of my domains that I indavertently allowed to expire.

That said, we're not talking about one or two sites here. We are talking about policies. You make a DMOZ abuse report and perhaps, perhaps that one site will be expunged. I'm happy with that result but it isn't enough. Like you, I want systemic change, change to the rules of procedure, the infrastructure of the directory, and abuse reports aren't going to do that. Maybe nothing can do that except razing DMOZ but if it is going to happen it's going to happen because the status quo becomes a public embarrassment to AOL, Google, or DMOZ itself.

 

Couldn't agree with you more. I know DMOZ tends to be very secretive, but it would be nice if they had a way to publicly humiliate those that take bribes, sell editorships, sabotage competition, peddle kiddie porn, etc. Of course, I'm sure I'm about to get the standard party line, "There are no corrupt DMOZ editors."

 

I can understand that. It would be good if you could debate and prove the case for systematic change without publishing evidence but then proof of claims is always demanded, inside and outside. An abuse report on a single site is unlikely to result in an editor debate on cause and resolution, it will just be fixed. I am afraid I don't know the answer, I don't think there is a perfect one. But I would prefer that prior to publishing evidence out here in open forum that the information is checked first, so that arguments about wrongdoing are actually based on evidence of wrongdoing and are therefore credible examples on which to base change.

 

If there were no corrupt editors there wouldn't be a public abuse reporting system and publicly available guidelines to meta editors on how to deal with corrupt editors.

 

Also, if there were no corrupt editors, dmoz would not reject nearly so many editor applications, nor remove nearly so many editors.

Dmoz cannot prevent the presence of corrupt editors, but once detected, we do not tolerate their continued presence.

 

I guess that means you're keeping track of all the guests that are reading this 2000 post thread - the ones that are waiting for someone to post a link with the www[dot]pornsite[dot]com or www . pornsite . com. It's not hard for anyone to make those into actual addresses.

Think about it - how many links have been posted in this thread already? Don't you think enough have been posted - along with all the blogs about the thread - and the articles at digg.com - to entice the bottom dwellers here to "read all about it"?

Nope it's not rocket science at all.

 

You're sinking fast, lmocr. That post was pathetic, even for you.

 

Why should they go through so much trouble to find 1 or 2 links when they can simply go to DMOZ and find hundreds of such sites nicely categorized?
While they are there they can also find many other illegal porns that we have not even discussed in DP yet.

 

you people are still awake? aghhhhhh

 

I didn't check the site you are talking about but do you know the definition of pornography? Pornography is not forbidden, same thing with child nudity. If the site contains images with kids having interactive sex with others then this is forbidden.
I didn't read all posts in this topic but if all you saw was naked boys then why would it be deleted from the DMOZ?
I have no interest in that subject and I am sure sick people have pleasure watching them but others have the same sex attraction with dogs or goats. Is it a reason to dress your pets before to take a picture of them and display them on a website? Are you going to cover the face of kids like muslam women so people don't get excited watching those innocent faces?
Most of you seem to be from the States and your puritanism is getting as dangerous as what happens in dictated countries.
Not only that you are also stupid enough to avertise those websites in a public forum sending links to pages that link to them giving them a chance to be found by search engines.
Of course if the people in the websites are under age and having sex then your puritanism can be understood but instead of advertising them here call the cops or the FBI to report them and shut your mouth here.
If the websites have multiple listings, so what? hundreds of other websites with general public topics have multiple listings too. If you think DMOZ is doing something wrong why would you do the same thing here? Why does the admin keep this topic open? Maybe some of you will be stupid enough to start a new topic to complain about this one and give another chance to advertise something you hate and help pedophiles.

 

Please read at least half of the thread before posting again, you'll probably understand better why we are against those sites.

 

I really don't care why you are against it, I am too but if the sites are legal its not your business to complain about DMOZ listing them, if they are illegal you are doing more damage than DMOZ by not reporting them to the authorities and advertising for them.
Legal or not if I was a moderator I would have locked this topic a long time ago.