DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

You're wrong about that. Child pornography is in fact illegal in most places in the world, even in France.

Why not read the thread before telling us we're wrong?

That argument is so ludicorus it really doesn't merit a response. Among other things, it clearly reveals a total lack of knowledge about child sexual assault, both about the perpetrators and about the victims.

Uh, hello? We're talking about DMOZ here. Do you think the search engines weren't aware of DMOZ before this thread?

Good advice coming from someone who hasn't read the thread and obviously doesn't even understand what we're discussing.

No, I don't think we'll bother doing that. As for this thread helping pedophiles, all I can say is wow! you really didn't read ANY of this thread, did you?

Let me guess: DMOZ editor? or hoping to apply to be an editor?

That's what the Resource Zone is for, Thierry.

You may go back to whatever you were doing, now. Thanks for sharing.

 

I rather like the idea of asking people to read at least half the thread before posting, since this reduces the likelihood that anyone will bump the thread again.

However, given the many meanderings that occurred in this thread, I hesitate to predict just what a person would understand from reading the thread.

In a nutshell, the reason that dmoz does not list child porn, broadly defined (for example, as including images or other depictions of children in a lewd/sexual/sensual/provocative context), is to avoid listing sites that victimize children by portraying them as sexual objects.

Caveat: Others who have posted in this thread may have other ideas about what child porn is and why it should not be listed.

 

Did I say child porn was legal? I said child nudity is legal and pornography with adults is legal too.

You didnt get my point Ministrel. I don't have to read all posts in this topic to say you are wrong. The first 2 pages were enough for me.
I am not a specialist or a juge to say if the sites are illegal but this topic is not bringing anything positive. There is 2 solutions.
1. The sites are legal. If they are don't complain about DMOZ a directory created to give the best informations available, even stuff you don't like.
2. The sites are illegal, you are talking about it and giving illegal informations to anybody visiting this forum to find information about search engines. If you were witness of a rape or a murder you would be in jail for not reporting to the police.
I did check the site since my first post instead of reading half of the stupid messages here and apparently they may have childporn as it is now offline.
Next time something happens like that, stop talking and complain and do something.

 

OK, Thierry. Now go back and read the whole thread, please. You have missed just about every important point that has been made here. While you're at it, please check the dates of those posts on the first two pages. Since this thread began, there have in fact been changes at DMOZ and some of the sites in question have indeed been deleted. Whatever DMOZ editors have to say and whatever spin they choose to put on it, this thread had a lot to do with the fact that they were removed, which addresses your point about "stop talking and complain and do something".

Until then, I am not going to bother to respond any further to your obviously ill-informed comments. That would obviously be utterly pointless.

 

Congratulations if you helped to delete the listings or the websites. In the first 2 pages you were all waiting for a DMOZ editor to join the topic. If I witness a murder, I will just sit in the street with a sign beside me with informations about the crime. Way to go!

 

Yes. That's because if I make a thread saying anything negative about DMOZ, within minutes that thread will be crawling with editors, like flies on sh*t. I noticed that no editor wanted to step up and comment on this thread for quite some time.

 

I can see Ministrel is also complaining about the pro-anorexia, pro-self-injury websites in DMOZ. Are those websites illegal too?

 

Sorry, I am french and I dont really get what you are saying. Do you mean the freedom of speach is not offered in this forum?

 

Obsiously not. If some wants to starve themselves, it's not a crime. If someone wants to commit suicide, it's not a crime. Is building a website promoting such activity a crime, again it's not. BUT, is it morally responsible to promote such websites? You are a human being, Thierry. What do you honestly think?

 

To promote them in this forum it's certainly not the place but DMOZ is. There is a lot of stuff I don't like in life but it's not a reason to censore it. DMOZ as I already said is a directory with the purpose to give you informations about anything you are looking for just like Wikipedia. If the content is legal why not list it?

 

This kind of statement really says alot about a person.

 

Yes, it does. The guy obviously doesn't get it at all.... it's clearly a waste of breath trying to educate him, PP.

 

Yes you are right. When someone's mind is closed you can't change his ideas. Many people live in countries where they don't have the freedom of speach. This is not due to the country's culture or religion but to governments with closed minds like ministrel, trying to change the world to their ideal.
I am not talking about childporn anymore (this subject in the forum was off topic anyway) but pro-anorexia and pro-self-injury websites are needed. You have to think outside of yourself and parents or doctors can use the informations found there to help kids victim of that.
One day I have found a site called the American Nazi Party. I don't like their ideal and won't advertise them here like you do but I won't try to shut down their website. Other people need to know about them and what they think so we can fight it before it evolves as it did in Germany.
I think I explained my point and I am done with this topic. I am for the freedom of speach but to talk about what you want in the right place. This website is about search engine and website marketing not childporn.
I will now take a look at what I came here for: How to promote my website.
Thank you.

 

Read this and other threads here, Thierry. This is not an issue of protection of free speech. That is a red herring thrown out by people who are either too ill-informed to know the difference between free speech and protection of the vulnerable from exploitation, or by people who have a financial or other interest in keeping sich sites listed and ignoring the risk to vulerable potential victims.

I don't know which of those groups you fall into and frankly I really don't care. But the "free speech" rationalization for listing those sites is totally bogus on any level.

 

OK you left your opinion and I left mine but this is not the place to talk about it or for indirect promotion of childporn.

 

No. Evidently, based on your posts, you believe that DMOZ is the place for indirect (or direct) promotion of child porn. That worries me, frankly. It should worry you as well.

 

The issue of censorship is a difficult one in terms of where the line is drawn. Everyone has their own line. Child pornography and material appealing to the prurient interests of pedophiles (to quote a phrase) cross everyone's line except those to whom it appeals, and a very tiny number of puritanical free-speechers. Orlady refers to prevention of child victimisation and I personally think that is the motivation behind most of the people who have spoken out about the issue in this thread and elsewhere. It isn't controversial. The technicalities of legal issues vary from country to country (pornography involving 14 year olds is not illegal in Portugal for example) and DMOZ therefore has to set a minimum standard applicable to all editors wherever they are located - de facto that is models 18 years and over per US Federal law. It is not acceptable to list sites featuring girls and boys of 14 years old just because they are legal where they are produced.

When you move beyond a universal stance on child pornography and pedophile enabling forums then you are getting into much more difficult waters. I have grave misgivings about sites promoting self-harm and anorexia as lifestyle choices and as an editor I would never have listed such a site. Whether they should be banned entirely I have yet to be convinced about. I think there is a difference between sites that advocate and assist people to deprive others, innocent victims, children, the mentally ill, of their human rights, and sites that do not advocate or promote force or illegality to victimise others. Example - sites that advocate rape (no matter what the age of the victim) as legitimate I don't think should be listed. On the other hand sado-masochism as a sexual deviation harms no-one bar the participants (not that it is my cup of tea).

It is a personal opinion only but when it comes to listing sites in DMOZ my own stance would be to ask whether the content advocated *and* provided substantive and credible information on how to commission a universal crime. Some crimes such as rape, robbery, murder, etc. are recognised as universal. Why advocate *and* provide information? Because much of crime fiction as well as factual reporting might well fall into the provision of substantive and credible information on how to commit the crime. I think if you go further then it is difficult to know where to stop, with the ultimate result being a directory that lists apple pie recipes and not much else. Then the fat police come along and declare apple pie is causing obesity and if DMOZ was responsible they would only list healthy desserts.

 

Shoving issues under the carpet isn't a responsible way of dealing with things either. In the 50's, 60's, and 70's people didn't talk about the abuse of children by people in authority - such as priests and teachers. So they got away with it and a lot of kids were damaged. Since people started talking about these matters openly these bastards have fewer and fewer places to hide. They try and hide on the Internet so it as well that its existence is given high profile to ensure vigilence.

Is regrettable and the publishing of direct links here or anywhere else is not a good idea IMO.

 

The issue of pro-ana, pro-cuttting, and pro-suicide sites is, to me, also about the protection of vulnerable youth. Although vulnerable adults are also a concern, the ones most likely to be negatively influenced by something they read on the net, especially something that they may find in a "trusted" site, are children and teens. And I think an organization like DMOZ should be acting in a more socially and morally responsible manner to do what they can to help protect those individuals. Yes, they do it to themselves - that doesn't mean that a responsible adult shouldn't do what is possible to dissuade them rather than encouraging such practices.

Here in Canada (and I think in the US and UK too), there are strict limitations on ads for cigarettes, as just one example. Smoking is also something one does to oneself. But the concern behind the legislation in Canada was to try not to encourage young people to start smoking by portraying it as glamorous or cool in television and magazine advertisements. I see the pro-ana and pro-cutting sites as representative of the same issue.

Does DMOZ list sites that sell cigarettes?

 

http://www.dmoz.org/Shopping/Tobacco/Cigarettes/