1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

Discussion in 'ODP / DMOZ' started by dvduval, Jan 26, 2006.

  1. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #2061
    So are you agreeing at at the PRESENT time, DMOZ is negligent by promoting self mutilation and suicide sites and has a legal responsibility for any one who is hurt as the result of coming in contact with these sites through DMOZ?
     
    gworld, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  2. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2062
    No. I see you're

    [​IMG]
    again. Don't let me stop you.
     
    brizzie, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  3. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #2063
    No. Please re-read what I've said. I am telling you that will not work. You accept/list some sites and not others. Anyone is going to assume that your selection process is intended to result in "good" sites being listed and "bad" saites not being listed. The further logical assumption will be that DMOZ (or the DMOZ editor) approves of the listed sites and disapporves of the unlisted sites. The further translation of that is the DMOZ endorses the sites listed and does not endorse the unlisted sites. This is not rocket science. This is basic psychology.

    And that doesn't even include the SE ranking boost that comes from a listing.

    No. The only way NOT to promote and endorse these sites is not to list them.

    This
     
    minstrel, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  4. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2064
    I understand what you are saying but what I am saying is that you will not get DMOZ to ban listing of such sites outright. You might persuade, through reasoned argument and explaining the consequences of doing so in your professional opinion, editors to exercise their right not to review or list the sites for personal reasons. And/or you might seek clarification of the trustworthyness criteria for listing in relation to such sites that might result in a de facto reduction in listings. But you will almost certainly never obtain an outright ban along the same lines as child porn, unless these sites become illegal. In terms of what is possible in the real world regarding endorsement, clear disclaimers denying endorsement and adding health warnings to some categories would seem to be achievable objectives if a convincing case can be constructed. That might be nowhere near what you would want DMOZ to actually do but perhaps it is a step in the right direction towards social responsibility that you could persuade editors to support.

    What I can say is that when it comes to outright ban I will guarantee that you could not swing a majority let alone a substantial majority of editors to that view (which would be what would be needed for editors to initiate change) nor convince Admins such as orlady to lay down a ruling. Which somewhat limits your routes to obtain change.
     
    brizzie, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  5. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #2065
    That is precisely why a "reasoned appeal" to people like orlady is futile.

    Sadly, I believe you're right. I've seen people like lmocr and orlady defend these sites. They will not give them up.

    But they can be made to give them up by public pressure on the people who own the directory - that is one of the things I am now more than ever convinced must and will happen. Do you really think that AOL cares enough about DMOZ to take the heat for misguided DMOZ editors and Admins?

    This is only the beginning.
     
    minstrel, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  6. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2066
    There is a difference between defending the sites (which I don't think anyone has done) and defending the principle of not banning legal sites outright, which I will defend myself because I think it is the thin end of a big wedge. Personal morality and ethics are... personal. The sites offend my personal morality and ethics, but an outright ban is attempting to impose that on others and unless there are legal constraints as well I would not support such an approach. I am personally strongly opposed to abortion but can understand the pro-choice arguments so would not support banning it. Same sort of thing.
    There is a difference between an aggressive campaign to ban outright and a persuasive and reasoned argument that editors should use their personal judgement and conscience in deciding whether or not to edit in those categories that offend. I don't think it is impossible to make all editors aware of the dangers of listing these sites and persuade them not to without needing to introduce "legislation". Remember that before you highlighted their existence 99.99% of editors were unaware and almost certain never to list such a site themselves so it isn't as if there are a lot of people to persuade - there was already negligible interest in listing such sites.
     
    brizzie, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  7. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2067
    Sorry should have answered that one too. You are welcome to try but I don't think AOL will intervene on this one - the sites are not illegal. Internet censorship (and that is what it is in the absence of laws banning the sites) does not seem to go down very well in the US if the furore over Google kowtowing to the Chinese government is anything to go by.
     
    brizzie, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  8. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #2068
    I guess we'll see, brizzie.
     
    minstrel, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  9. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #2069
    Instead of wasting your time arguing about this, may be you can write some thing about this from medical point of view and I will add the part about AOL legal responsibilities and we can publish it as an open letter to AOL and Time Warner management in different web sites and in email campaign to their management and media. ;)
    We will see how long admins or editors can decide about things when AOL comes down on them. :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  10. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #2070
    I am in fact already in the process of preparing an article on the psychological-medical and social-responsibility issues in all this. Stay tuned.
     
    minstrel, Jun 8, 2006 IP
    EveryQuery likes this.
  11. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2071
    Guaranteed way to get precisely nowhere by muddying the waters.
    You mean like AOL came down on them over listing pedophile chat rooms - that one was solved by editors. If AOL won't intervene on that, what chance they will intervene on this?
    I would be interested in reading it when you are done.
     
    brizzie, Jun 9, 2006 IP
  12. buratssky

    buratssky Peon

    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    15
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2072
    Would just like to ask a question no disrespect intended. Who takes responsibility then ? Will it be an endless finger pointing of who's who. ? While in cases as an oil spill in the sea there are at least people who take the responsibility and admit the mistake. That is in the corporate world. Who corrects mistakes with social responsibility in the internet. I mean if Digital Point would correct its responsibility in Public for mistakes done for example or Yahoo has indeed how many times apologized for its actions in its wrongdoings. What does AOL definetely stand for.

    Thanks in advance for clarifications.
     
    buratssky, Jun 9, 2006 IP
  13. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2073
    You are assuming that DMOZ, or AOL as the parent, thinks that a mistake has been made. I think it is clear from orlady's post earlier that DMOZ does not think a mistake has been made in terms of not banning the sites minstrel is concerned about right now. Personally I don't think it has made a mistake in not instituting a ban. Individual editors may have made personal mistakes and listed sites when, had they been fully aware of the issues, they might not have done so. But you can't remove a site on personal conscience grounds once listed. The sites concerned are not illegal and are freely available through search engines. If they were illegal then the relevant authorities would be empowered to have them removed from the Internet and DMOZ would follow suit. Whilst this remains the case it isn't DMOZ's role to be the social conscience of the Internet. There are things it can do in terms of making editors aware of the issues around such sites and leaving it to personal decision and it could provide disclaimers of endorsement and health warnings. But that is entirely different from a corporate ban and removal of existing listings.
     
    brizzie, Jun 9, 2006 IP
  14. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #2074
    Does this mean that DMOZ supports listing of such sites, obviously if it is not a mistake then it must be DMOZ position that this is a correct decision. In case that this situation ends up in courts and the court decides that there was negligence, who in your mind will be responsible for damages, AOL or individual editors? Does DMOZ have any provision to protect editors from financial and legal liabilities?

    Edit: This is the information about an AOL case that AOL refused to be accountable by hiding behind US Communications Decency Act by this regulation will not protect AOL when they actively promote such sites.

    "The case began when AOL was sued in 1994 by a mother claiming that her then 11 year-old son had been lured via the internet to the home of a paedophile, Richard Lee Russell. Videotape of the child engaging in sexual acts with other children was marketed and sold by Russell through AOL chat rooms. Russell is now serving a 14-year sentence for offences relating to child pornography. The child’s mother raised the action against AOL to recover damages for emotional injuries suffered by her son.

    AOL said the lawsuit was barred by the US Communications Decency Act (CDA) which says that on-line service providers cannot be treated as the “publisher or speaker” of content transmitted over its service by someone else.
    Lower courts agreed with AOL and dismissed the mother’s claim. However, the case was sent to the Florida Supreme Court for review as a matter of “great public importance.” By a 4-3 majority, the judges found the AOL was protected by the CDA, saying “AOL falls squarely within the traditional definition of a publisher.”

    One dissenting judge, Justice R. Fred Lewis, vehemently argued that AOL should be liable because, according to his report, AOL failed to take action when notified of Russell’s activities on its service and therefore “acted as a knowing distributor.” He argued that AOL could have removed the offending content when it became aware of it, although AOL disputed this.

    The case could go further in protecting ISPs than current European protections. ISPs are generally not liable for what they host unknowingly, but can become liable if they fail to take action when notified that the material exists on their servers."

    http://www.out-law.com/page-1458
     
    gworld, Jun 9, 2006 IP
  15. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #2075
    Why not? Why is there no mechanism for removing sites, legal or not, that probably or definitely should not have been listed in the first place? Is this some sort of "once it's done there is no way to undo it" policy or just that no one has the guts to stand up and say "this is wrong"?

    To me, this is one more example of the hopeless lack of organization, accountability, and responsibility that characterizes DMOZ. I cannot think of another organization other than government services that would admit to such a mess and apparently feel no shame in doing so.
     
    minstrel, Jun 9, 2006 IP
  16. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #2076
    There are so many ambiguous guidelines that if you want and have the authority, you can remove all CNN or Microsoft listings without any problem. That is the purpose of ambiguous guideline to give "some" people to do anything that they want. Brizzie posting is just another another chapter in his Alice in Wonderland saga. ;)
     
    gworld, Jun 9, 2006 IP
  17. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2077
    I just want to add something to that last post of mine which explains why even though I find the sites concerned personally repugnant I would not support them being banned unless and until there was a law banning them. My objection to a ban is based on minstrel's own arguments in support of a ban.

    Alcohol - causes death, injury, disease, wrecks families, creates victims in their millions. How many people have died of liver failure, been beaten by drink-fuelled thugs, injured by a drunk driver, etc. in the last 24 hours? Spend a couple of days on statistics and you can probably make a stab at an answer. Should we ban sites promoting alcohol?

    Gambling - causes misery for the gambler and their families, loss of homes, suicides, creates victims in their millions. How many people have been the victim of a gambler or the organised crime that surrounds it, or lost everything in the world in the last 24 hours? Should we ban sites promoting gambling?

    Abortion - to some this is murder, certainly causes trauma to all involved, causes depression, sometimes leads to suicide or long term mental health problems. How many babies have been aborted, how many mothers and fathers mentally scarred, how many suicides and attempted suicides have there been in the world in the last 24 hours caused by abortion. Should we ban sites promoting abortion.

    Unprotected sex - results in diseases such as HIV and as a result pain and sometimes death, results in abortion sometimes (see above), is the cause of overpopulation in many countries and consequent starvation and poverty. How many people died or contracted a STD or starved in the last 24 hours as a result of issues that relate back to unprotected sex. Do we ban all sites including every Catholic Church website that disapprove of barrier contraception.

    Cars and trucks kill people. Guns kill people. Knives kill people. Falling off a ladder when painting walls kills people. People drown in fishing accidents. Children die by falling into fish ponds and paddling pools in the back yard. Tobacco kills smokers and passive smokers. Sharks, bears, crocodiles, alligators and all manner of wildlife kill outdoor enthusiasts. Let us ban them all on grounds of social responsibility. Of course not.

    But where do you draw the line? I don't think you can draw that line - governments draw it through legislation and individuals draw it based on their conscience and personal experience/knowledge. DMOZ bans illegal sites and allows editors to decline to list sites based on personal conscience.

    Returning for one moment to one of minstrel's objectionable categories - sites that promote eating disorders as a lifestyle choice. Where is the line, precisely between promoting an eating disorder, and diets. Diets taken too far result in eating disorders - the individual following the diet determines whether they take it too far. A colleague of mine looked really sick when I saw him after a gap of some months. I asked, concerned, about his rapid weight loss. He and his wife had been on some dramatic diet and had lost a huge amount of weight and he was so proud of himself. I thought he had gone too far too fast and from his description the diet sounded positively dangerous even though he said it was monitored by a dietician. If I were an editor reviewing a site for that diet would I accept it. Or reject it for being downright dangerous and irresponsible. These are the sort of decisions editors would be asked to make and it is impossible. My answer? I would neither list or reject, my personal conscience would not allow me to list but as a non-medical practitioner I have no clue really how dangerous the diet actually is.
     
    brizzie, Jun 9, 2006 IP
  18. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2078
    I have said several times that a listing is not an endorsement of content. I personally wish DMOZ would say so more clearly. The legal stuff is all hypothetical crap - you have so many hoops to jump through just to establish a connection let alone direct cause. And if the past is anything to go by AOL would hold the editor responsible - says so somewhere in the guidelines and when you sign up to be an editor. I am not a judge, I don't have any causal evidence in front of me, I am not weighing up a multitude of factors, I have no idea who the judge would hold responsible. To be honest I think a judge would probably throw out the case at a very early stage.

    Easy to answer. There is no mechanism for removing listable sites i.e. those that meet current listing criteria, once listed. To do so is abuse for which the editor can be removed. Illegality is a justifiable reason for delisting. Immorality isn't. Why? I object to abortion. I could go around delisting all abortion sites based on my belief. I object to gun ownership. I could go around delisting whole categories of gun dealers. Down to my religion says competition is immoral, I'm going to delete all my competitors. An editor has a right to decline to list any site whatsoever based on personal belief (not reject, decline to list). But no right to delist on those same grounds.

    Not true. There is a relatively broad grey area where a listing decision can go one way or another but rejecting or removing a site that meets all the criteria will get your editorship revoked.
     
    brizzie, Jun 9, 2006 IP
  19. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #2079
    No.

    1. Excessive dieting may be unhealthy but it does NOT result in an eating disorder unless there was one there to begin with. One does not develop an eating disorder because one follows a fad diet. An eating disorder involves a lot more than just not eating very much or not eating in a healthy way. They are not the same thing at all.

    2. If you (generic you) are confused about the difference between dieting and anorexia/bulimia, you should absolutely not be editing in that category in the first place. Get some basic knowledge about the area that you're going to edit BEFORE you start adding sites. This is another aspect of DMOZ policy that is both stupid and dangerous.

    brizzie, you are obviously defending the indefensible here and I think you know it. You have metas and admins. You have internal forums. First, I'm not suggesting that individual editors be given the power to go in and unilaterally delete sites they don't like, and in any case if they did that to eliminate competitors there are already mechanisms in place to punish and manage that. However, you have "test" areas. On forums, there is often a "quarantine" area where moderators can move (not delete) a post or thread for review, On my forums, sometimes I agree with the moderator and the thread is removed; sometimes I don't and the thread is returned. All that would be required would be that someone have the guts to point out a problem site and request re-review. That doesn't happen apparently because there is some ridiculous rule that a site cannot be deleted unless it's illegal.

    Is it worth pointing out that we already went through the issue of legality vs. responsibility with pro-pedophilia sites? Was THAT impossible?
     
    minstrel, Jun 9, 2006 IP
  20. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #2080
    One dissenting judge, Justice R. Fred Lewis, vehemently argued that AOL should be liable because, according to his report, AOL failed to take action when notified of Russell’s activities on its service and therefore “acted as a knowing distributor.”

    I hope DMOZ editors have a good liability insurance when AOL tries to pass the buck to them for DMOZ actions. ;)

    I agree with you about that last part of your post: "you have no idea."
     
    gworld, Jun 9, 2006 IP