For those who don't have time to read the whole brizzie post above this, here is the summary: Things are complicated, nobody knows what is right or wrong, anyway is not that big of a problem and won't make any difference, so lets not do anything.
Try instead: Things are complicated, there is ambiguity, there is a possible answer, whether DMOZ wants to do anything about it is entirely up to DMOZ.
We already know that DMOZ doesn't want to do anything about it. Why should they? Those affiliate sites are profitable. That is the reason, the only possible solution is to force changes on editors from outside through public pressure.
Brizzie, you make some good points about how laws very, and how it is difficuly for people to understand DMOZ policies as a result of the many varying laws worldwide. Unfortunately, the resulting DMOZ policies still allow for sick stuff like bestiality. In this case, it is like DMOZ is deciding not to have an opinion, and just list the site, even though almost everyone agrees that it is very unethical and illegal. And DMOZ is supporting these sites that participate in cruelty to animals. DMOZ, in a sense, chooses to have zero ethics. Why? Because DMOZ is a directory of everything, and ethics and laws having nothing to do with this. So based on your long dialogue, can we all agree then that DMOZ as a "complete directory" chooses to have no ethics whatsoever? I think we can. There is a continous "spin" where if there is even the smallest possibility the site might be legal, we get into a situation where you say since this is legal on Mars where there are no laws, it really doesn't matter if it hurts people or animals.
I realize that brizzie's post was long and that you probably didn't read the whole thing, but that's not what he said at all. What brizzie said is that the legality of a site is a terrible way to judge whether it should be listed or not. You are the one that is promoting listing based on legality. Brizzie is pointing out the multitude of loopholes in such a system. A perfect example of why listing policies based on legality won't work is the pedophilia sites that were removed. They were listed because they were legal. So new guidelines were written that had nothing to do with the law - pedophilia listing policies are now based on where editors, after a lengthy debate, decided to draw the line (which is much more conservative than where the law draws the line).
Those pedophiles sites were illegal from beginning but DMOZ was insisting to list it until editors were forced by public pressure to remove it. There is nothing complicated about the law. AOL and DMOZ are American corporation and as such they must obey by American federal law and California state law when judging the legality of a site. You are just trying with your usual smoke screen about DMOZ being more conservative than the law. It does not matter if DMOZ states that they will not list sites with pictures of people under 18 since in reality, there is no way for DMOZ or editors to check and everything will be listed. There is legal requirement in the form of 2257 declaration to insure that porn models are over 18, the question is why DMOZ adult editors are fighting it, if they really are interested in stopping child porn?
If you're concerned about animal cruelty, why are you neglecting to target unethical breeders and puppy mills? Gworld, are you trying to rewrite history again? None of the removed pedophile sites were illegal. If they had been illegal we could have removed them without a change to guidelines. We both know brizzie's version is correct.
I would love to target them, but the current guidelines won't allow it. I can choose not to list them myself, but I can't delete any listings that are already there or any that may be added in the future.
I'm not aiming this at you, Annie, but that's the same thing we keep hearing about things that are wrong with and in DMOZ: "They are listable according to the guidelines". That's not an excuse or a justification. If the guidelines are allowing practices that are irresponsible and/or illegal (aren't puppy mills illegal in the states? they are in Canada), then the guidelines need to be changed. Personally, I don't know and I don't care what the guidelines are. I (and the rest of the non-DMOZ world) can only see the end product. And if the end product is just wrong from a social responsibility or legality standpoint, then the guidelines need to be changed. Part of what is killing DMOZ inch by inch is that the process for doing that is so cumbersome it doesn't happen except in extreme cases such as the pro-pedophilia sections.
minstrel, no clue if you speak any Italian, otherwise you could entertain yourself reading a very sad thread at resource zone that went on there from November 2004 to March 2006. http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26880 It is about a legal site listed at the ODP of a breeder of beagles. For years the company mentioned there is selling those beagles not only to the public, but also for vivisection purposes. Fact is, the site is legal, they do not mention anything there about selling animals for experiments etc. Arguments in this thread went forth and back, concluding that the ODP is not the police of the internet, as long as that site is legal...and explaining that the respective counterparts (animal-rights sites) are listed as well. Went nuts myself reading this thread, but obviously you can't do much about it.
I pointed out to the illegality of those sites from the beginning. How was the new guideline different from the old guideline, except adding the part about prurient interest which was more or less a direct copy from a Supreme court ruling that was quoted in my posting? DMOZ version from March-April: "The ODP does not list child pornography websites in accordance with its commitment not to list material designed to appeal to the prurient interests of pedophiles." "sites that include material involving children intended to appeal to the prurient interests of pedophiles" Quote by me in Jan.-Feb in this post, this post, and this post:
Man I come here to talk web site stuff, adsense stuff and all that. Why bring all this psuedo moral mumbo jumbo into it ? Really. The internet is just another outlet for this stuff. There's some other technologies you may have heard of that also exhibits extreme pornography. One is called photography. The other is called drawing. Google it. They've been around for a while. I don't think abusing animals is right. But if someone wants to put their head in the toilet and get crapped on or whatever, more power to you. Just because I don't understand it doesn't make it wrong. Consenting adults will do what consenting adults will do, even if it's painful and stupid. Man, I mean - really. Speak for yourself, don't go on speaking for everyone here. Maybe you looked at porn when you didn't understand your sexuality very well or something but jesus, really - how are you going to go on saying this about other people you don't even know ? And please, explain for me and the rest of us what it's like to "understand" your sexuality completely. As someone who reads a good bit of psychology, science and philosophy I'm dying to hear from you on this one. Back to some other points you make : Go to google image search, turn off safe search then do a little lookup for fisting. Does this bother you ? Doesn't really bother me much. Nor does it make me dislike google. People are into shit I'm not into - no big deal. I don't look at the images, I don't browse their directory catagories and I don't go making sweeping assumptions about them, their sexuality and how confused they must be about it. There's a few things you should think about : Exteme Pain - gagging, torture and domination Forced Sex Rape Video Secret Cameras Painful Kidnap-style bondage Extreme Tortures Sucking Blood Pictures of Necrophilia Shit Eating Toliet Slave Humiliation How do you know any of this is real ? I'm not saying it's all fake but come on now, how do you really know it's real ? Give me $1000 dollars or whatever and I can take some killer pics of all sorts of stuff that may *really look real*. But when lights camera action is over we'll all have a spot of tea and laugh, or whatever. On the rape / forced sex videos in specific. More women than would admit it have this type of fantasy. NOT ALL WOMEN before everyone and their mother goes to flame me on this one, but more than would admit it openly. Nor do I expect them to, it's a sensitive subject. I've had women ask me to fake a forced entry into their home at night and so on and so forth. I didn't do it , I'm not comfortable with it. A good friend of mine has had several similair experiences. Point being, rape videos ? Maybe some of them have that fantasy. Back to my BIG point - how do you know it's real ? Bottom line : You don't. Once again, before everyone and their mother flames me - I'm not saying it's all fake On to DMOZ. I don't like their directory but they can do what they want with it, it's their directory. If it sucks they'll pay the price. I think DMOZ including non-illegal type stuff makes them a better directory by definition. Think phone book. Which is a better phone book , the one without the sex stuff or the ones with the sex stuff ? The ones with the sex stuff serves more people, includes more content and what not. Once again - by definition, a better phone book - a more inclusive phone book. I think if DMOZ removes this stuff it makes them a worse directory. Unless this stuff violates their TOS I think they should keep it. There's obviously a market for it. Do the majority of people agree with my opinion ? I don't know and I don't really care. People rarely agree with my opinion and guess what, that's ok. I wish they would agree with me but they don't , I try not to loose too much sleep over it. Which of the above would I recommend to my friends ?? Bottle Insertions Kidnap Fantasy Fantasy Abduction Stories Sucking Blood Toliet Slave Humiliation They all sound kind of funny to me. If I had the links in front of me right now I'd click them. If I didn't like them I'd close the window. It's not that big of a deal, really. If you want to get mad about something I've heard there this little thing called WAR which is perpetuated by misinformation by the mass media on the unwashed masses. I hear people die from that. Sound serious huh ? That's because it is. Maybe we can have a thread on that eh ? Instead of one about mainly consenting adults doing consenting adult type of stuff. I know I know, it's crazy. But anyhow,let's all get back to pretending to be philosophy majors with a minor in human sexuality shall we?
Yes it is a big deal man, those sick descriptions can cause people with obsessive thought problems real danger if they are exposed to such sickness, you don't really know how weak some people are and how quick some fall into such evil.
What descriptions ? What people ? What obsessive thoughts ? What danger ? I'd love to play along but I have no idea what you're talking about. Evil ? What evil ? We don't all believe in "evil". I believe in "wrong" which I generally described as "harmful to non-consenting adults, minors or animals". edit : web master / web advertising forums should never be turned into moral debate / human sexuality / pseudo philosophy forums. this will end badly.
If you look at the top, you will see that DP is categorized in the different sections, this section is about DMOZ. You will find adsense and adword section under Google category. You can also find thread about war in the general category.
LOL ya I know, I'm just saying. I really try to stay out of these things but every now and then I see something that I can't ignore.
We love you man, but use common sense and jump in and present your case, but to say that the minds of those who read those descriptions are not damaged is outright wrong and a lie! I think you are much better than that and would not want the kids in your family reading such things, or adults for that matter!
Dude seriously, I have no idea what you're talking about. And don't go on accusing me of lying, it's not polite. Let's try this again what descriptions ? Once I know what you're talking about maybe we can move forward. ps. I'm not married, have no kids, no family and I really don't care if other adults want to watch someone get their head poo'd on.