Application of 2257 to the ODP

Which is fine as long as they are shown to work. When simple and straightforward means ambiguous because the detail wasn't there then it is a problem. Personally I think the suggestions I made are very simple, very clear, very straightforward. But if you think otherwise comments are welcome.

Personally I don't see that as a DMOZ function. The aim is to prevent models under 18 being on sites listed by DMOZ and thereby prevent the listing of sites deemed child pornography. Frankly as long as that is achieved in a verifiable manner then the rest is up to the authorities and courts in whatever jurisdiction the site comes under. The location of hosting and owners might be a factor in deciding whether the declarations etc. are credible but not in the initial decision.

 

That is interesting. We tell them that they should obey the laws of their jurisdiction but we don't mention how we define a jurisdiction for a site.

Typical discussion resulting from this guideline:

Public: This site has been listed in contradiction of DMOZ own guideline regarding the need to obey local laws since both owner and server are in USA.

DMOZ: Let us ask the editor

Editor: This site is in "dreamland" and obeys the laws there. can you show me, why do you think is an American site?

DMOZ to public: You are wrong, this is not an abuse since website is in compliance with dreamland laws.

A guideline that nobody can be held responsible or accountable according to it, is as useless as having no guideline.

 

I think brizzie's point is that, since the majority of DMOZ editors have no concept of the law (and evidently in many cases little concept of the internet), you're not going to get very far trying to base the guidelines on a strict legal interpretation. Instead, what you have to do is use the issue of common sense combined with social and moral responsibility. Instead of looking for reasons to list a dubious porn site, look for reasons NOT to list it -- i.e., as brizzie as said several times, look to see if there is any hint that the models might be underage or if there is a failure to address that issue at all on the site, regradless of location and regardless of 2257, and err on the side of caution. This should be clearly an issue of it is better to err in a way which might not list or de-list a site which is not child pornography or pro-pedophilia and protect potential victims than it is to list a site which does contain child pornography or pro-pedophilia material.

That way you put the onus on the webmaster: If you believe you are in compliance and that your site is not potentially injurious, then alter the site to make that crystal clear and re-submit - bingo! you're in smut paradise.

 

The problem is that I have seen so much from DMOZ editors that I know "to err on the side of caution" will be the farthest thing from their mind when listing sites.
They are Houdini of guidelines, even with handcuff of strong guideline, they will try to free themselves, let alone if you try to tie their hand with a weak thread.

 

I understand. But what I see brizzie arguing for is broader, less restrictive guidelines rather than tying them to 2257 - because if you try to do it based on 2257 alone you are just serving up loopholes for them on a platter.

 

I am not talking about 2257 right now. I am saying that there should be a definition on how to determine what jurisdiction a site belongs to. What is the point to write that all sites should obey by their local laws, if we can not determine what laws should they obey by?
It is as well to remover everything about that they should obey by their local laws which in practice means that they do not need to obey by any jurisdiction laws.

 

What minstrel says.

There are basics and there are contentious interpretations. Your fictional conversation could take place. Where there are contentious interpretations it is for courts and judges to decide. You circumvent this possibility via clarity of guidelines - do not list sites with models under 18 years of age.

Depends on the objective of the guideline. The objective is not to list sites with models under 18 years of age. Do not list sites with models under 18 years of age is a pretty unambiguous rule to follow and negates all debate over the location of owners and hosts, all of which becomes irrelevant.

Unless you have another agenda, which I suspect is the case. You are not looking for guidelines that clearly prohibit the listing of sites with underage models and give editors no room for manoever on that; you are looking for a way of hammering editors who do not share your concept of the applicability of 2257. You mentioned ownership - what about a Dutch company with a minority Bermudan corporate shareholder owned by a US domiciled company with only Canadian shareholders? What about asking Auntie Maud in Switzerland to be the registrant, hosting in Swaziland, but administering it from Oklahoma? Trying to legislate for ownership and hosting permutations (all of which you have to cover given what you say about editors sliding through loopholes) is impossible so not worth attempting. "I phoned the contact number in Arizona, it was the owner's lawyer, he said the owner lives in Fiji". The only important thing is whether or not the site is child pornography or not - any other compliance issues are down to the FBI not DMOZ.

.
What difference does it make where the webmaster or the hosting is located if the site contains models under 18 years old - it is banned. What difference does it make where the webmaster or hosting is located if the site contains models over 60 - it is listable. That is the objective of the DMOZ guideline, to reject child pornography sites, not to enforce every law in every country relating to other matters surrounding being a sleazy porn merchant - police and judges do that, editors cannot and should not.

 

OK. Let's have another conversation. One which has already happened.

DMOZ: DMOZ doesn't list sites with models under 18.

Public: look at these sites, they look under 18

DMOZ to editor: What do you say about this site.

Editor: They are really 50 years old and are just made to look like young girls.

DMOZ: No abuse because it is difficult to judge the age of the girls and a girl that looks like 15 to you, in fact can be 30, case closed.

 

It is a weak aspect of the guidelines proposed because it is in practical terms unenforceable. Unless the breach of law is obvious and the editor could be expected to know about it, e.g. a site wholly contained within the US in all respects might require a 2257 declaration and the guideline would give an editor a valid reason for rejecting it. It is also something that at a later date could be used to remove a site proven beyond doubt to be illegal. Not all guidelines are there to control editor behaviour, some are there to confer an option or right on the editor, a method of valid rejection, etc.

 

The guideline is clear - do not list sites with models under 18. What you are moving into is how do you verify the credibility of the claims - no-one said that one would be easy.

 

What a genius idea, a guideline that sounds good but it is unenforceable. I am sure the adult editors will love this. If we are anyway going to make a guideline that is not enforceable (like the majority of so called guideline at present time) then let us not waste words or thoughts about it. My suggestion will be:

Editors should not list bad sites. We can implement it for the whole DMOZ. We just don't define what bad is, so it is not enforceable and fits the purpose perfectly.

 

Gworld, the biggest problem I see to your approach is that you start out assuming all editors are corrupt. We aren't. If I can only work in an adult cleanup under the assumption that I'm corrupt, then I won't bother with it. Unless enough editors are willing work under suspision the status quo will be maintained because of the lack of volunteers.

Corrupt editors should be removed. Editors who aren't corrupt should be trusted unless they do something to violate the trust. It doesn't make sense to write guidelines to tell corrupt editors how to edit.

 

You have a knack of taking things out of context. Unenforceable in terms of the basis of an editor abuse accusation. But as I said, not all guidelines are there to govern editor behaviour, some exist to confer rights on editors. The remaining guidelines I suggested, based on your own, lock things up pretty tightly in terms of prohibiting child porn, i.e. in DMOZ terms sites with models under 18. All rejections and delistings must have a legitimate valid reason attached to them. Inclusion of a guideline requiring sites to comply with local laws means that if the editor is confident that the site does not comply then they can reject. Rejecting or delisting without valid reason is abuse that can be punishable by removal.

Actually I think the biggest problem of gworld's approach is that if he can't get his way he throws his toys in the corner - if he can't include some clause on webmaster jurisdiction then every editor will be listing child porn sites tomorrow. He still has not explained how "do not list sites with models under 18" is ambiguous in any way, and as a policy doesn't ban all child porn sites.

Of course, if you do some digging such a policy already exists. Except there is no clear and prominent guideline. A fleeting mention in Illegal Sites on general guidelines, without a definition. Nothing whatever in the Adult guidelines. There is a tiny bit at http://dmoz.org/Adult/faq.html#43. And in http://www.dmoz.org/Adult/Image_Galleries/Teens/desc.html "This category features images of individuals who are at least 18 years old ...". Just leaving it as "do not list sites with models under 18" is a big improvement. What is there now actually boils down to nothing.

 

Am I wrong to think that honest editors will not have anything against clear and enforceable guideline that helps them in their desire to avoid listing of an abusive site?

I believe you are honest, why should you then be against a law that helps to clean the porn sites from under aged models? You wouldn't, neither any other typical grand mother that wants to protect the children.

Why should any editor care about inclusion of laws in the guideline that will not permit the listing of illegal sites, if that is not what they are planning to do?

Let us be clear, an exact and enforceable guideline is no problem for honest editors, it is just an effective tool to help them while listing the sites. This type of guideline is only problem for those who are planning to abuse their editing privileges.

 

No. Just don't try to base it on premises that make it easy for those who choose to do so to find loopholes large enough to drive a whole truckload of questionable sites through.

 

Oh, perfect... I see lmocr is back reading this thread, ready no doubt to offer yet another "informed" opinion on the subject

I can hardly wait...

 

I won't. I am trying to close the loopholes but I think a guideline that is admittedly unenforceable, not only qualifies as loophole but also a black hole that any legal or moral concern can disappear for ever.

 

Once again with the nasty insinuations. It is likely that all right minded citizens of most countries would agree that 2257 is a positive law. That does not mean it is translateable into a DMOZ context or guideline. Rather than try and fit a square peg into a round hole you take the intention of 2257 and turn it into a guideline DMOZ editors can easily understand, can't pick holes in, and which apply universally. You have already identified one problem with using laws - where and to whom 2257 applies - and people disagree with your view. If you include 2257 then you have to include all legislation of all countries. It is simply impractical. So you replace them all with one guideline DMOZ editors can easily understand, can't pick holes in, and which apply universally.

And for all its laudable goals and intentions, 2257 is not clear, exact, or enforceable in a DMOZ context. So you replace it with one guideline DMOZ editors can easily understand, can't pick holes in, and which apply universally.

 

Let's imagine for a minute that your so called guideline is accepted by DMOZ and we don't know anything about the child porn site that was discovered here and removed.

Public: lolitasex is child porn site.

editor: it isn't.

public: the girls look young.

editor: they just look young but they are old.

What are you going to do now? Your guideline is implemented and a child porn site will continue to be listed.

Very effective, exactly the kind adult editors love to obey by. The reason they can't pick a hole in is that it is just one big hole by itself.

 

Gworld, you are looking at it from a what should be listed point of view. This is what should be avoided IMO. I'd love to see guidlines that give editors broader descretion to delete sites, something that gives us the ability to delete sites if we think the models don't look old enough, even if they are compliant with the law and have their 2257 information and everything look in order. I'd like guidelines with a what can be deleted point of view, with the freedom to delete based on my opinion. I don't think anyone who would distribute child porn would have a problem with falsifying 2257 info to go along with it, so I don't want to have to rely strictly on what's legal. I'd like to be able to go well beyond legal, to leave no doubt at all, even if it means rejecting legal sites with young looking models.

The trick is to find a set of guidelines that will make both of us happy, and it isn't easy. You aren't even considering those with my point of view. Find a way to satisfy everyone and you'll find widespread support.