DMOZ cleanup: Next phase

Ivan Bajlo
I strongly suggest that you please refrain from answering topics in which you have no idea as this might lead to misconceptions about the ODP. It might be your own opinion but as an editor it would be helpful to stay on topic. Sidjf is one of our Senior Editors.

 

They are both illnesses. And your previous comments imply that you believe people who "allow themselves" to become ill are stupid and should just be abandoned to Darwinian natural selection.

 

Heads up for editors: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20060727USPassesMisleadingHyperlinkLaw.html

It may be worth raising this internally as it seems there is now legislation that could potentially expose an editor or DMOZ to legal action for the action of linking to a site. There may not be any actual examples of listings that are impacted now but is probably important that editors are aware for the future and have an official line to follow in respect of titles. I would personally recommend a formal amendment to the guidelines on titles to incorporate reference to this law and that categories are systematically reviewed to ensure compliance.

 

If you still sincerely believe that, brizzie, you have your head in the sand.

"The Gathering Storm", remember?

 

I don't know minstrel, there may, there may not. I haven't checked and don't intend to - I only raise the fact that there is a risk to be addressed. Seems that misleading URLs and misleading hyperlinks (DMOZ titles) are what is covered by this new law, and it does not impact on the content of the sites. Given there is jail time involved it seems reasonable to take precautions.

 

Yes. Really.

 

I do not think that the new law will have any effect on some of the DMOZ editors. They seem quite used to operating illegal sites and ignoring both state and federal laws.

 

This new law appears highly specific - porn sites with misleading domain names or hyperlinks (DMOZ title) so if any DMOZ listings exist that contravene it they are likely to be few in number. Nevertheless with jail time attached ignoring it could be foolish. Do you have any evidence of serving DMOZ editors operating illegal sites? If so, have you reported them to the authorities? Who else is ignoring the law? How about the US authorities themselves - apparently no 2257 records have been checked to date.

That link I gave earlier has a reference to an older law relating to misleading domain names, in force since 2003. It may give the false impression that it does not apply to linking. The text of the new provision, which has the effect of covering linking, is as follows:

Sec. 2252C. Misleading words or digital images on the Internet

`(a) In General- Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 10 years.

`(b) Minors- Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 20 years.

`(c) Construction- For the purposes of this section, a word or digital image that clearly indicates the sexual content of the site, such as `sex' or `porn', is not misleading.

`(d) Definitions- As used in this section--

`(1) the terms `material that is harmful to minors' and `sex' have the meaning given such terms in section 2252B; and

`(2) the term `source code' means the combination of text and other characters comprising the content, both viewable and nonviewable, of a web page, including any website publishing language, programming language, protocol or functional content, as well as any successor languages or protocols.'.

 

Aaaaahhhhhh that new law, the admins can be hollywood stars by appearing in a new movie Twister (can twist guidelines just like that ) while chewing on tootsie rolls.

 

Anybody can read the Meta's post advising the editors to ignore the federal law regarding the 2257 declaration ( yes, that also has a jail time), I wonder how long will it be before "senior" editors advise the editors to ignore the new law too?

 

The 2257 declaration requirement does not involve the potential for editors committing an offence. 2252C has the potential to put an editor (or DMOZ) adding a misleading hyperlink (by using a site title that itself is misleading) in the dock themselves. Since the site is reviewed before being added, "knowingly" goes without saying. I don't see what the motivation would be for instructing editors to ignore this law, and any editor that obeyed a meta's instruction over a law threatening up to 10 years in jail has got to be pretty stupid. It is extremely simple to solve - simple amendment to the guidelines on site titles and to those covering illegal sites to include this provision, plus a review of listed sites to ensure there are no existing culprits listed.

Where this differs from 2257 is that the wording of 2252C is concerned with who does the link not where the site is. So it doesn't matter where the site is owned or hosted. If "whoever" could be a corporate body then DMOZ, as a US entity, is covered as are US based editors. In addition the US is not above seeking extradition of foreign nationals for computer related offences undertaken remotely from their home country - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4721183.stm . It is up to editors to assess the risks to themselves - 99.5% of editors don't list Adult sites so will not be affected, though they should be aware.

It took me 15 seconds to identify a title / hyperlink that could be deemed misleading actually listed. The domain name was not misleading so the webmaster is in the clear but the DMOZ title was, and the description did nothing to clarify it was a porn site. It may be that the lawyers might argue that being as the link is in a category within Adult that it is not necessary for the hyperlink itself to comply. But that ain't what 2252C actually says; it isn't concerned about the context of the link, only that the link itself is not misleading. I wouldn't be taking the risk when in this particular example the only thing necessary would appear to be changing the title to prevent it being misleading, i.e. it is the DMOZ guidelines on titles that are the problem.

 

For those who still believe I'm exaggerating the issue of pro-anorexia listings and similar listings in DMOZ:

Pro-anorexia websites worsen symptoms

 

Exactly. That is why the rule is "pssssst pass it on." Simple right now its between Female Senior Editor X, Admin X, Meta X and 2 Male Senior Editor X with newbie adult Editor X. So passing it on to foreign Admins, Metas, Senior Editor and Editor would just be flipping the tide of that law. EASY.

As my disgruntled colleagues says " They could not even decide if HooknHookers belongs to Business or Adult and took days to decide. You can call that SIMPLE.

 

Admin X+ Meta X + 3 Senior editor X + New adult editor X = XXXXXX

No wonder the type of underground and illegal porn sites that get listed in DMOZ, can not be found in any "normal" porn sites.

 

http://dmoz.org/newsletter/2006Spring/adult_spring_2006.html - interesting version of events. Note the absence of any hint of an apology or regret and Admins to the rescue with a "great new charter and policy that addressed everyone's concerns".

 

Yeah brizzie. It is not unusual anymore especially when it comes from a Senior Editor who posted a lot in this forum getting ideas and how the community viewed it.

A simple Thank you to the participating forum community would be nice too.

 

The pedophile sites were removed because of the external pressure, otherwise it would continue to be listed to this day. The whole part about cleaning up links in image gallery is nothing more than smoke screen, specially coming from Sid.

 

It has a strong smell of someone other than sid having the final edit on the wording. I would be interested in seeing the original draft.

I don't think that is true at all. The existence of the pedophile sites was identified internally before it came here and had they not been removed then the number of editors would have declined significantly more than they have. The fact that it was leaked by editors means they were not about to let it be swept under the carpet. This was editor power and they used this forum to ensure some backup. Presumably because it is common knowledge that Admins will shoot messengers rather than accept responsibility for faults in the directory and act decisively. I am sure members of this forum can assume thanks on behalf of a large number of editors of all levels for biting on the bait but no thanks from those who had swept it under the carpet for so long and were trying to keep it there.

 

Just let me know where to send the boxes of deodorants.

Oh I see. He/They were afraid to be booted out and needs the DP boys for backup. But was there some form of gratitude ? Me, my cohones still intact no need for back up. I experience to be booted out and be banned. Simple. Easy.

Oh. That is why they shot me. They Shot the Sheriff by Eric Clapton.

What do you say DP member participants ?

 

I suspect you were shot, electrocuted, gassed, and fed to the dogs. Whether it was for being a messenger or abusive editing only you and DMOZ metas know for sure.