DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

"Several" is an understatement. But of course you know that. And you reported post after post after post because they were critical of DMOZ, it's editors, and you. But of course, you know that too.

 

I beg to differ, minstrel. I don't know how many posts I reported, nor do I recall which ones they were. I did not keep a log of the posts I reported. You apparently have far more details of my forum activity than I do.

 

So why don't you use your moderator privileges to clean up the mess in resourcelessZone?
It seems you have no problem with DMOZ editors personal attacks against others and your keen interest in censor only awakens when the other side has the possibility to answer the personal attacks without the answers being deleted or users being banned.

 

And evidently you cannot see the inherent contradiction in those statements. If you "don't recall", how can you "beg to differ"?

Of course, there were so many I can't really blame you for not remembering most of them...

 

Not so fast, minstrel!

The statements I differ with you on are "But of course you know that" and "But of course, you know that too."

I stand by my statement that I do not recall these reports. Frankly, the reports weren't particularly interesting (the individual posts I complained about were pretty similar to one another), so I have no particular reason to recall the specifics.

 

Most importantly, there were far too many of them for you to possibly remember them all.

 

Please don't forget that you're the one who said the category had changed - even when it hadn't. I told you it hadn't. So how can you say that anyone is hiding or moving sites or being deceptive?

 

Please don't forget that I told you I'm tired of and have no more patience for your pointless childish games, lmocr. Go find something useful to do.

 

gboisseau;

Since the other thread is locked and it seem you didn't have time to answer the question before, would you like to answer now, the reason why a meta advises the editors to break American federal law and list illegal sites?

In case you have forgotten that post, here is the link again.

 

Please don't forget that I don't mind being on your bad list - you play more childish games than anyone on this board.

 

Is this your forum, no. So stop telling people what they can do here. Are you not the one who keeps saying this is not The Resource Zone, and there is no censorship here?

I'm getting tired of your repeated off-topic bullying posts.

 

lmocr was addressing me and playing games, just as you are. Therefore I told her to buzz off, just as I'm telling you now to buzz off. Who the hell are YOU anyway?

Fine with me. Stop reading them.

 

Ok, so somehow you can say we have "teen boys" on this site, just because there is a qualifying message also saying you do not? It is one thing for this site to exist, and another for DMOZ to list it. Somehow there is this culture at DMOZ that you can list anything that is legal. It does not matter if it is a quality site, or makes hints about child pornography. In a way, DMOZ is helping this site to rank for child pornography related keywords. You really can't deny this.

 

I must say I don't like the "teens" categories as they do have a whiff of pedo about them. Nevertheless, playing devils advocate here, is it not wholly 100% better that when the pedo uses those search terms the sites he/she is provided with are perfectly legal models of 18/19 (still teens but adults) and material with underage models is knocked backwards in the rankings?

Again you are making comments about "quality" without really understanding its usage in commercial and in DMOZ terms - fit for purpose or complies with specifications not subjectively superior. Is it a website, is it legal, is it original, is it about "teens"? It meets the quality criteria and is listable. Whether or not the category is appropriate for a directory such as DMOZ is an entirely different question or debate but appropriate and quality are two entirely different concepts.

 

*sigh*

I don't know how many other ways I can say this, brizzie.

DMOZ, whether anyone likes it or not, has a "presence" on the net. There is an air of authority about it (that I think is highly undeserved but there it is anyway). And there are numerous public statements that say DMOZ lists good sites, high quality sites, and weeds out the trash.

There is going to be a public perception, especially among people who aren't very familiar with the net, that if it's in DMOZ, it's a high qualioty site, with the term "quality' defined as most of the world understand the word, not according to whatever restricted defintition DMOZ chooses to give the word.

If it's in DMOZ, the assumption will be that it's endorsed by DMOZ.

There is no way to escape that fact, brizzie. You and DMOZ are stuck with it.

 

DMOZ does not give its own definition to quality. Study the concepts of quality management and you will find that the DMOZ usage is entirely normal. Against its own quality criteria, which is the basis on which it should be judged, it is indeed a very high quality product. If people want to assign to it quality criteria to which it does not subscribe then it is their business and their disappointment if it does not match up to those criteria is of their own doing not that of DMOZ. DMOZ does not claim that the main directory is family friendly - don't expect it to be. DMOZ does not claim that the Adult directory is free of stomach-wrenching and close to the knuckle sites - don't expect it to be.

The only endorsement DMOZ claims to give through a listing is that the site is what it says it is, is original, is legal, and the contents are as described. There are certain subject matters where actually being specific and saying that is a good idea. If people want to believe something else then nothing in the world will stop them doing so and DMOZ would not be sensible to start banning sites because there are stupid people out there in the world.

DMOZ should be judged on what it says it is, not on other people's concepts of what it should be.

I am not in the least bothered and I doubt DMOZ collectively is on this subject. If there are misunderstandings about DMOZ then I am all for clarifying them and communicating them. But not in favour of modifying DMOZ itself to match the misunderstanding.

 

The words you are allowing are misleading to the user and supportive of child pornography. And the logic you are using also is very weak. Here are some examples that use the same logic:
1) Come see young boys raped - then there is a qualifying message saying they are not really young boys, and they are consenting to forced sex.
2) Young teens posing nude - then there is a qualifying message saying young teens are actually "old teens" that are at least 18.

You are allowing adult editors to redefine words, which means you are misleading the user, and decreasing the ethics of the directory, and also allowing these sites to rank for pedofile related terms.

Let's pose this question:
Does allowing adult listings to use known pedophile related terms do more to support child pornography or protect against child pornography?

I think we all know the answer.

 

You and other editors or ex-editors may choose to take that position but I can assure you that it demonstrates poor reality testing on several levels. You are dealing with basic consumer psychology here.

For example, I think you'll find that in cases that have been adjudicated by the courts, the principle has generally been that if you know or should reasonably have known that a statement will be interpreted by the average person a certain way you will be presumed to bear some responsibility for that interpretation. Posting a statement on the DMOZ site that says we are not responsible does not remove the responsibility.

If you do NOT believe that to be the case, why did you support the removal of the pro-pedophilia sites?

 

The better question will be, how do you know what DMOZ says? DMOZ guidelines are a large collection of ambiguous and contradictory statements that makes any kind of listing possible or impossible depending on senior editors wishes.
The guideline about not listings illegal sites results in listing illegal sites. Guideline about not listings affiliate and doorway pages results in listing of affiliate doorway pages. Are these actions against guidelines, any reasonable person would say YES but the editors will always have a new excuse around the corner because of all the inbuilt ambiguity and contradiction in the guideline to give some kind of nonsense justification to ANYTHING that editors chose to do.

 

This link to news in slashdot was sent to me by another user in DP and it is about how several media companies banding together to create a database of child pornography to help law enforcement.

ISP's to Create Database to Combat Child Porn

"The participating companies are Time Warner Inc.'s AOL, Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp., EarthLink Inc. and United Online Inc., the company behind NetZero and Juno."

Here is a free tips for AOL and Times-Warner if they are really serious about this: CLEAN UP DMOZ ADULT AND GET RID OF ILLEGAL SITES.