DMOZ and Extreme Pornography

It just seemed to me that all the illegal porn sites were getting listed by editors anyway and this would help those who could not get listing because their competition was an editor or just were not reviewed year after year because nobody bothered to look at their submission.

 

Well, the posts from DMOZ apologists in this thread once again confirm the suspicion that the Directory is doomed. For the sheer quantity of specious arguments, smokescreening, dragging in tangents, intentional misunderstanding, and out and out ostriching when it comes to anyhting that even remotely resembles social responsibility, DMOZ editors take the prize.

Unbelieveable.

There is no hope whatsoever for you people or your beloved directory. Just kjeep on defending its nonsensical policies while the walls come tumbling down around your feet.

 

From this thread I get the exact opposite conclusions. If the arguments are so weak that people who are known opponents of the Adult branch are totally unconvinced and are defending it then I would say it is binding editors together and strengthening the directory. Continual misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the concepts of quality management do not help. What it boils down to is (a) illegal sites, and I see little defence of those, and (b) legal sites where the arguments against are based on personal moral codes in opposition to consenting adults engaging in legal activities (no matter how disgusting they might be to you, me and 99% of the population).

That is it really isn't it? You want these sites banned because they disgust you, personally. They disgust me too but my personal disgust is not the basis for sensible and rational management of a diverse directory that wants to cover every conceivable subject on the Internet. Editors have the right under current guidelines (though not under those proposed by gworld) to decline to review or list sites that personally disgust them. Surfers have every right to decline to search for the sites or drill down to the categories concerned and also to decline to open sites the DMOZ description clearly tells them contains content that will disgust them. Because the list of topics to be banned is a personal and subjective one and no-one has actually said where the line should be drawn, the objective criteria by which one category would go and one survive, and who should make those decisions, there is actually nothing in terms of a workable proposal that anyone could support even if they wanted to.

 

That simply illustrates another reason DMOZ is doomed.

The arguments are only weak to DMOZ editors (and perhaps one or two others who wave the completely irrelevant "free speech" card, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the issues at hand).

"I am a DMOZ editor. I already have an opinion, handed to me by The Guidelines. Please do not try to confuse me with facts."

 

Brizzie, the statement that arguments are weak about bestiality needing to be removed is weak.
1) There are laws against it in the United States
2) Many editors also believe it should be removed
3) Many DP members here believe it should be removed
If you are going to participate in this thread as a DMOZ editor, it might be nice if you admitted when there is room for discussion, because there is in this case.

 

I didn't want to participate in this thread because I have nothing constructive to add and it seems like a non-issue, but that hasn't stopped anyone else and I don't want my absence to be taken as support for either side of this rant (I see no debate yet) so what the heck.

I think the categories listed by dvduval are disgusting and I'd love to see them removed. Problem is, I can't really argue for their removal because I think all of Adult is disgusting and I'd love to see it removed. So, like brizzie and others have asked, I too would like to hear exactly where you would draw the line? When it comes to Adult, I won't tolerate anything harmful to children. Beyond that I'm guided by this prayer:

"God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change,
courage to change the things we can,
and wisdom to know the difference."
​

 

Please be aware that I was not referring to bestiality which I understand to be illegal most places. I think the arguments about that one are indeed strong and I would support the removal of illegal sites. My reference to weak arguments concerned legal sexual practices where the arguments surround personal moral positions which are ... personal.

I'm not a DMOZ editor.

I don't think there is room for discussion (about the legal activities) unless you can put forward where the line should be drawn, the objective criteria by which one category would go and one survive, and who should make those decisions. No-one has except me - I said all legal porn sites or none at all.

Who are the only ones that count when it comes to making changes in which sites DMOZ lists.

 

Annie;

To draw a line is not that difficult, here are some simple suggestions:

AOL and DMOZ are American corporations and therefore for these entities the legality should be defined by USA criminal code. The same way that you as a person living in USA can not decide to obey by the laws of UK, these corporation can not make the legality an issue for jurisdiction of Timbuktu.
DMOZ clearly stated that as a matter of guideline, they will not list illegal sites and as long as DMOZ does not change that guideline then any site that is illegal according to US law must be deleted.

The sites that encourage a person to self injure him/herself or injure others, especially when is directed toward young people should not be listed. Let's not get in meaningless discussion about right wing politics and left wing politics. We all know certain areas that serve no positive purpose. To encourage people to cut and hurt themselves have no positive aspect. To encourage some one to rape has no positive aspect,..... If there is any subject that is open to interpretation by different groups of editors a proper warning sign should be included in that page.

Then there is matter of quality of categories and what categories should or should not be included. DMOZ is not and never has been a directory that has stated that they want to list everything. Child porn, warz, Amazon affiliates, some real estate agents,...... are not included, why? Because it is decided so that it is not compatible with DMOZ goals. Let's editors who are actually the body of DMOZ to decide on controversial subjects such as shit eating by a vote, if such categories serve any purpose in improving DMOZ quality. That is the democratic way and then every editor can stand by that decision, instead of a staff or admin decision that is shoved down editors throat.

 

And that is precisely why I made the comments I posted earlier. DMOZ is doomed.

 

And how did you come to this conclusion?

I have been an editor for a long time and I can honestly say that editors (The majority) influence on making policies is next to zero. They can suggest some cosmetic changes here and there but everything else is shoved down their throat.

In your opinion, What percent of editors support the inclusion of rape, bestiality, incest and shit eating categories in DMOZ?

 

I think you will find that the vast majority would support the removal of sites that are illegal or portray illegal acts whatever the jurisdiction. I think you will get a lot of stomachs turning at the legal forms of extreme sex, disgust, but not a consensus to ban unless you have some clear and reasonable set of objective criteria upon which you can determine what stays and what goes. Otherwise you have precedent for banning anything offensive - scientologist editors might be offended by psychologists and have their sites all removed. Green activists might be offended by automobile related sites and have all those removed. Homosexuality related sites gone. Abortion sites gone. Etc. If you are going to start banning classes of sites beyond the legal bar then you have to have your criteria laid down and watertight before you launch into it. You are right of course that Admins and AOL can and may well override anything editors collectively decide they want to change. But if feeling were that high then it might persuade them. Before you try and persuade them though you need to get the proposal right in the first place so you can convince the rank and file that what you want is reasonable and workable. Without that in place you are on a loser because a coach and horses can be driven through a woolly it offends me so ban it approach.

 

I think Annie said it perfectly.

 

But independent of that, illegal sites keep getting listed. Why? Because editors have nothing to say in decision making process and all decisions are shoved down their throats by a small band of staff and senior editors.

 

Well, it is certainly not up to me to draw the line either. It is up to the ownership or administration of DMOZ. All I can do is point out what is disgusting, degrading to people or animals, possibly illegal, pretending to be illegal, grossly negligent, etc. Those within DMOZ (or others with a common interest) can be left to judge the reputation DMOZ chooses to build, and also the legal or ethical dilemnas that result.

Regardless of your religion or philosphy, I do believe that sharing ideas, and discussing things that might be harmful to others, helps us all to grow and improve. If I were doing something that was a illegal or harmful to other people or animals, I would expect people to let me know, and keep letting me know in different ways until I understood more clearly. It seems that more discussion is needed so that we might all understand one another more clearly. This may take a long time.

 

Well said David, and it is very true indeed of what you state in your post.

Deffinently a true statement and should be taken seriously, even for those in DMOZ staff.

 

Very well said Ms.Compostannie.

And also Mr.David.

 

Dmoz has already drawn a line in Adult. If it is illegal (in the US) or involves children, it should not be listed.

If you want that line moved, then you need to be able to explain where the line should be moved to.

I do agree (and have always thought) that the beastiality listings need to be examined. Beastiality (the act of) is illegal in most states in the US. I don't know what the law is on pictures of it.

 

That's a nice sentiment.

Does it mean that you are giving up trying to make changes within DMOZ? That would be sad - you may be one of the very few remaining editors left who were still making an effort.

There is still a great deal that could be done to save DMOZ from self-destruction. But it will take some heart to continue to struggle against all of that sycophantic deadwood in the inner sanctum.

 

Nice words but as I previously mentioned, illegal sites will get listed and even a Meta encourages the editors to list the illegal sites.
It is strange that the type of illegal sites that get listed in DMOZ by editors, usually will not be touched by a normal porn company.

 

The issue of legality is a very complex one, especially for non-lawyers, and even your average lawyer is going to struggle with all the permutations within an International directory of links where the listing of a link may not in itself be illegal. It is not surprising that neither editors nor non-editors can understand the issues or the positions taken.

Take the case of child pornography. Regardless of the rights and wrongs it is fact that different countries have different age limits on what constitutes a "child". Under 14 up to under 21. And of course in some countries porn of all sorts is banned entirely. In the US and UK it is under 18. A site based in the US with models under 18 is breaking one law. If it does not have a 2257 declaration it is breaking another law I understand regardless of whether the models are in fact under 18. A site based in the UK need not have a 2257 declaration. That site is not illegal in the UK and since US jurisdiction does not extend to the UK it is not illegal in the US or anywhere. A Portuguese site featuring 14 year old models is not illegal in Portugal, in the UK or in the US. Then you get into the "nationality" of the site. Hosted, owned, hosted and owned, etc. All these factors combine into a legal minefield. What do you do about the Portuguese owned and hosted site with the 14 year olds? It is not illegal anywhere but most people in most countries would say it is clearly child porn. There are no US laws that say a US site such as DMOZ must not list a legal Portuguese site. So DMOZ is not acting illegally should it list that site.

Therefore, any statements about not listing illegal sites are, frankly, worthless. DMOZ has recognised this with child porn and set its own age limit - under 18 is child porn, matching US law. In addition it has a policy of not listing sites that appeal to the prurient interests of pedophiles, which recognises the legal difficulties in this area and therefore sets a standard that exceeds whatever the law might say. Regrettably both policies are not clearly and unambiguously stated in DMOZ guidelines but in category charters and internal FAQs. This is easily corrected and should be.

Move onto other types of site that might be illegal. Take necrophilia and beastiality. It is likely that both activities are illegal in most jurisdictions. There may be a question of whether photos, real and simulated, of such activities are also illegal. There are likely to be insufficient published cases of successful prosecution of such site owners to gauge whether illegality is widespread and enforceable. DMOZ should therefore take a corporate view as to whether it considers such sites to fall into the illegal class or not. If it considers them illegal then they can be banned. If not illegal then it must take an alternative view of whether or not to ban them on the same basis as the sites that appeal to pedophiles - whilst not clear about the legalities of the sites they are not the type of site that DMOZ editors want within the project.

There is an argument that legality should be based on the US law. What US law? Federal law? State law? Of what state? And to what classes of site should that legality stance apply? For example, if US sites are covered by US law then you are back to the Portuguese example of porn being allowed. State law? What about states where say beastiality is not illegal? Can sites from those states be listed and not others? OK, so say US Federal law, and if there is no federal law then California State Law. This may ban many porn sites but allow through others such as shit eating. And if this legality clause is universal throughout the directory what consequences does this have. For example let's say there is an applicable law that says a real estate site must have a real estate license number on it. Yet in the UK real estate agencies and agents are not licensed. But the DMOZ rule is universal - what applies to porn in terms of legal judgement applies to real estate. So now you start backtracking and unwind the rule for real estate agents and other geographically licensed professions and businesses. Then what about consumer sites - stores - where laws will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. All of a sudden you have abandoned the US law applies rule and got a mesh of complex and inconsistent positions again. And you are into a position of saying DMOZ bans porn sites illegal in the US but not illegal non-porn sites. What kind of a rational or defensible policy is that? It would certainly provide ammo to DMOZ detractors.

The conclusion is that you cannot have a policy that is simple and practical to operate, and consistent, based on legality. Because of the nature of DMOZ. In effect it means that the current DMOZ policies, as published, are worthless and unenforceable. Equally, arguments that DMOZ is listing illegal sites are worthless for the same reason except where you can nail something down very specifically, e.g. a US owned, hosted, operated porn site with models clearly under 18. Thus the DMOZ practice has developed that leaves the decision on legality to the authorities - if the appropriate authorities take action and remove the site then DMOZ will remove the listing. Of course it will, it is a dead link and all dead links are removed. Only in certain highly specific classes of site such as child porn and pro-pedophile ones are the sites removed without the authorities taking the action first. Though such action is not legally necessary for DMOZ and AOL. Or DMOZ would have been prosecuted for the examples found.

Is there an answer to this complex and very difficult situation? So far the answer appears to be not. Hence you will find sites listed that appear to be illegal in contravention of what appears to be a stated DMOZ policy. But because the answer is difficult it is no reason not to try and clarify things. For example, you could change the guidelines to reflect how DMOZ deals with illegal sites in practice - leaving it to the authorities to declare the site illegal and thereby precipitate removal of the listing. Add to that specific statements concerning those types of site, such as child porn and pro-pedophile ones, where DMOZ is actually pro-active in not taking chances. Then, whilst it might be difficult, painful, and long drawn out, take each controversial topic individually and consider whether or not it should be given the pro-active treatment. Starting with beastiality and necrophilia. Where a decision is taken not to be pro-active then the reason for not doing so should be given. For example, BDSM may be considered and a decision taken not to remove a BDSM site unless ruled by a court or the appropriate authorities to be illegal on the grounds that BDSM is not, in general, illegal and involves consenting Adults. Sites featuring rape or simulated rape may be considered and ruled for pro-active treatment on the grounds that rape is illegal in virtually every jurisdiction and there is no way to be certain that claims to be simulated are genuine. Etc.

This presumes you can arrive at some general consensus on what would constitute a valid reason for being passive or pro-active. The sort of factors that might be involved could include the consent or otherwise of the participants, the degree to which various jurisdictions have ruled the activity illegal, whether the sites contain verifiable declarations as to the ages of models used, and so on. And you could extend this to other classes of sites outside porn. For example, DMOZ currently says explicitely that how to sites without encouragement to commit a specific offence are OK. But is it really OK to list a site that describes how to build a bomb using household products if it doesn't then tell you to build one and plant it in the nearest shopping mall. In many countries now the how to type site for this type of activity is actually illegal. What about how to rape a woman using date rape drugs and get away with it? Is that really OK to publish a link to such information? What about a site with contact cell/mobile phone numbers for heroin dealers? Each such class of site must be considered and a rule arrived at embedded into guidelines - it isn't sufficient to have woolly guidelines on legality nor woolly arguments about banning a class of site based on the it offends me personally principle.

I don't see a satisfactory alternative other than a type by type examination but as I said the exercise would be lengthy if general DMOZ rules of engagement are involved. The question then arises as to whether the small number of sites likely to be involved, and the current list on the table comprises 0.00005% of listings constitutes a pressing problem for DMOZ, and whether the resouces are available to undertake the exercise when there are other issues and improvements being worked upon - this is work extra to whatever is currently planned and prioritised so something else will have to be shelved or delayed. DMOZ's purpose is to list sites - however such an exercise could be streamlined and managed the result is a diversion of resources from listing sites to debate and decide and write guidelines, etc. What if they do nothing, what is the consequence? Apart from irritating threads in DP? Is it affecting recruitment and retention? Probably not in any significant numbers. Will 0.00005% of listings bring down destruction on the directory. Highly unlikely. Would implementing it turn detractors into supporters and result in universal love - probably not, detractors will revert to other things such as alleged corruption. Cost-benefit analysis, does it add up? It could - if DMOZ could generate positive publicity from such an initiative but DMOZ does not pursue positive publicity for any initiatives and improvements it makes, it sometimes mentions them in passing in the monthly report and that is that. It misses a lot of tricks in that respect - the truly fantastic achievements in parts of the Health branch for example.

There you go, long-winded as usual... hope it was worth it.