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. orlady

    orlady Peon

    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    30
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2101
    It's clear that in the minds of certain participants in this thread that Freedom of Speech means the concept of minstrel and gworld being able to speak freely without censorship (including, but not limited to, impugning the personal or corporate character/integrity of any person or institution they choose to attack), while restricting the transmission of any and all content that the aforenamed minstrel and gworld find objectionable.

    There's no point in arguing further with these tinpot dictators of this forum.
     
    orlady, Jun 11, 2006 IP
    vulcano likes this.
  2. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #2102
    It is funny that you speak of censorship and become the defender of free speech when it is to protect anything morally or legally questionable while in the mean time doing your best to censor people in DMOZ, RZ or in this forum. :rolleyes:
    The editors know about the admins practices in DMOZ and other people in this forum know your views from your postings here, so the question is, who are you hoping to fool by these kind of postings? :confused:
    I am sorry that the fact that we care about child porn, self mutilation, suicide and other subjects that damages the children and vulnerable is too troublesome for you but not everybody can be as careless as you.
     
    gworld, Jun 11, 2006 IP
  3. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #2103
    That IS pretty funny, orlady. Would you like to tell the people how many complaints you have made to moderators and administrators at DigitalPoint in an attempt to censor posts by gworld and me (and probably others)? What is angering you is that the DP admin and moderators aren't jumping to your commands as they would at DMOZ and the Resourceless Zone.

    For you to claim that what we are saying isn't worth worrying about in the face of evidence that it obviously does worry you sufficiently to file lord knows how many dozens of complaints to Shawn and the moderators is hypocritical almost beyond belief.

    And DMOZ made YOU an administrator?
     
    minstrel, Jun 11, 2006 IP
  4. vulcano

    vulcano Active Member

    Messages:
    418
    Likes Received:
    63
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    68
    #2104
    gworld, I haven't met orlady personally, yet. Your attack is utter nonsense, you show me one single posting from her, where she tries to censor people here or where she expresses any views supporting "child porn, self mutilation, suicide and other subjects that damages the children and vulnerable".
     
    vulcano, Jun 11, 2006 IP
  5. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #2105
    For the answer, see my post just above yours. Ask orlady yourself for the answer to that question and if the answer she gives you is less than "dozens" I suggest you ask one of the moderators for the truth.

    If your claim of ignorance is true, that is indeed disturbing. Not surprising, but very disturbing.
     
    minstrel, Jun 11, 2006 IP
  6. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #2106
    Contact the moderators in this forum and ask how many complains have been filed by her and her cronies in order to censor the discussions here. ;)

    Edit: I posted before seeing minstrel response but ask yourself, if she had any genuine interest in free speech, why doesn't she do anything about the situation and censor in DMOZ and RZ or why does she try to censor this and other forums like it.
     
    gworld, Jun 11, 2006 IP
  7. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2107
    With all due respect gworld, you have to admit there was a time when you should have been censored in this forum... a time when you were constantly accusing me and another editor of owning child pornography sites and using DMOZ to promote them. To your credit (and my gratitude) you did retract those horrible statements but they're still here because DP doesn't allow censorship.

    Having personally experienced the appalling refusal of those in charge of this forum to censor even the most horribly damaging false personal attacks, I find it hard to believe that orlady would/could censor anything here. In fact, if I even suspected that she could censor discussion here, I'd be very upset that she didn't stop the accusations against me when they took place.

    I could be wrong since I'm seldom there myself, but as far as I know she doesn't have anything to do with resource-zone. Orlady is an individual just like the rest of us, you can't hold her responsible for everything everyone says or does.

    Added: I admit that I did contact moderators to ask for censorship of the accusations mentioned in my first paragraph but I didn't even receive a reply. I certainly didn't do it as one of orlady's cronies. I did it as an individual human being who doesn't want my grandchildren to ever come across that garbage while searching the Internet. The discussion remains uncensored so it's on to plan B... at some point they will be told about the problems and struggle with the pedo cats, the cleanup and the fact that some mud was slung in the process.

    Happily, I can also tell them that those involved were eventually able to get past the flaming and learn to listen to each other's point of view. It will feel good to tell them that in the end we did some good and we came away with mutual respect for each other. :)

    From discussions of the past few weeks I'm getting the feeling that a lot of the good momentum is getting bogged down with pettiness and that's a real shame. :(
     
    compostannie, Jun 11, 2006 IP
  8. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2108
    Isn't there a difference between defending the content on these (legal) sites, which no-one has done, and defending the right for others to hold opposing (and legal) moral positions.

    The instances of self-harm and its impact on innocent victims I personally have experience of relate to alcoholism. Anyone who has close friends or family impacted by such an addiction knows the misery, often violence, it causes over years and years. The scale and impact of alcoholic abuse far far exceeds instances of self-mutilation. Yet I don't see you campaigning against the promotion of alcohol over the Internet let alone on DMOZ. Isn't that hypocritical? I have also seen the mental trauma caused by abortion, resulting in depression, attempted suicide. Why aren't you campaigning over that issue?

    When it comes to suicide the sites I looked at that were listed seemed to give practical advice for those facing terminal illness and the pain that goes along with that. Some countries and states have accepted suicide and assisted suicide as being a human right in these instances. Which sites in particular give offence in terms of encouraging suicide irresponsibly? If I ever get terminal cancer then personally I want the right to die without undue suffering - I have seen the suffering and I'm not going the same way.

    http://dmoz.org/Society/Death/Suicide/Methods/

    http://geocities.com/dunricin/methods.htm - content removed. The proposed law referred to seems to be Australian BTW.
    http://kyushu.com/gleaner/editorspick/seppuku.shtml - seems like a sick spoof of some kind and not appropriate here.
    http://www.freep.com/suicide/suicide_methods.htm - 404 error

    The rest seemed either neutral just giving information, academic studies, or made it clear their targets were the terminally ill. None with the exception of what I think was a spoof were glamorising or promoting it as a lifestyle option.

    The category for suicide notes - most of it seemed sad, some of it sick. But IMO far more likely to give insight in the mentality of suicide victims than actually encourage it.

    http://www.axe-s.com/tips/ and http://www.i-mockery.com/goth/suicide.htm were not pleasant and pretty useless. http://suez-cide.tripod.com/ says it "takes a less dogmatic and politically correct and more humorous approach." though I didn't see anything particularly funny about it. And also says "This site does not encourage suicide, nor does it intend to provide such resources. "

    When it comes to self-harm - DMOZ has a category http://dmoz.org/Kids_and_Teens/Health/Emotional_Health_and_Wellbeing/Self_Harm/ which is aimed at helping these kids.

    http://dmoz.org/Health/Mental_Health/Disorders/Impulse_Control/Self_Injury/
    http://dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/Health/Mental_Health/Disorders/Self_Injury/
    Both are describing the condition as a mental health disorder - I haven't found any categories promoting the act as something positive, not even by looking at minstrel's blog article. Quite the reverse.

    Anorexia - http://dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Health/Body_Image/Pro-Anorexia/desc.html - "Please note that ODP is a web directory. By listing these sites, ODP does not condone this point of view."

    As for censorship, there is no censorship on internal DMOZ forums. The only, repeat only, post ever moderated was one by a removed editor who hacked back in using another editor's user name. The censorship on RZ is nothing to do with Admins - last I heard that forum was not exactly popular with AOL staff. It is privately owned and its rules are determined by a small group of meta editors acting outside official sanction. Censorship here? That is up to the forum owner surely - most public boards have standards they enforce.
     
    brizzie, Jun 11, 2006 IP
  9. vulcano

    vulcano Active Member

    Messages:
    418
    Likes Received:
    63
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    68
    #2109
    At least I never had to contact moderators complaining about any posting. Well, I think both of you must have had a pretty boring sunday right up until orlady dared to call you "tinpot dictators of this forum". Usually every accusation contains at least a grain of truth.
    Opinions?:D
     
    vulcano, Jun 11, 2006 IP
  10. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #2110
    As I said, vulcano, I responded because of the appalling hypocrisy of her statement.

    She complains that we object to anyone disagreeing with us. She has probably filed more complaints about posts that disagreed with her viewpoint than any other forum member in the history of DP.
     
    minstrel, Jun 11, 2006 IP
  11. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2111
    Just curious... Do you state this as fact or opinion? Has Shawn and the mods told you this? Or is there some way to find out that type of statistic on a forum like this?
     
    compostannie, Jun 11, 2006 IP
  12. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #2112
    It's a fact, Annie. Ask a moderator yourself if you doubt it.
     
    minstrel, Jun 11, 2006 IP
  13. vulcano

    vulcano Active Member

    Messages:
    418
    Likes Received:
    63
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    68
    #2113
    But isn't that actually so? To me it seems that every now and then you let some poster slip through, just to proof the contrary, one can't be just that cruel.;)
     
    vulcano, Jun 11, 2006 IP
  14. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #2114
    Vulcano, are you even reading this thread? Or are you just responding reflexively? :rolleyes:

    Do you know the meaning of the word "hypocrisy"?

    http://www.google.com/search?source...=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-21,GGLJ:en&q=define:hypocrisy

     
    minstrel, Jun 11, 2006 IP
  15. vulcano

    vulcano Active Member

    Messages:
    418
    Likes Received:
    63
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    68
    #2115
    You can bet that I do read this thread and that I am aware of the meaning of the word "hypocrisy".
    Nevertheless, IMHO more than one unbiased reader of this thread would come to the conclusion that your posts are sometimes selfrighteous.
    It might help to look up the meaning of "selfrighteous", though.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=define+selfrighteous&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N

     
    vulcano, Jun 11, 2006 IP
  16. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #2116
    If condemning mindless knee-jerk bullshit that defends practices that assist in injuring or killing the young and vulnerable is self-righteousness, then I'll willingly and proudly plead guilty to that.
     
    minstrel, Jun 11, 2006 IP
  17. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2117
    Minstrel - can you point at the category(s) that promote self-mutilation, cutting, etc. as acceptable behaviour please. I can't find any.

    Thanks.
     
    brizzie, Jun 11, 2006 IP
  18. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #2118
    Well, well, well. Perhaps campaigns like this one do have an effect after all.

    http://dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Health/Body_Image/Pro-Anorexia/

    They seem to have been removed from this category. :)

    Thank you to whoever did that.

    On the other hand, the pro-ana and pro-"mia" sites are still there and they probably kill more people than "cutting" every year.

    Addendum:

    brizzie, have a look here:

    http://dmoz.org/Health/Mental_Health/Disorders/Impulse_Control/Self_Injury/Support_Groups/Chats_and_Forums/

    I am busy with other things at the moment and haven't had time to explore that in detail but a quick spot check revealed http://www.angelfire.com/ grrl/ cut/ which contains this comment:

    That may be a less alarming statement than a brief glance would suggest. I'm also aware that many of the sites listed in that category are NOT pro-SI but having pro- sites hidden among anti- sites is one of the concerns I have in other categories, like the eating disorders categories, because if anything that can give MORE credibility to a dangerous site.
     
    minstrel, Jun 11, 2006 IP
  19. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2119
    If this is the case then I would be interested in knowing the guideline that provided for that. Is this an instance of "trustworthyness" being used or something else? If self-mutilation sites were in the pro-anorexia category I can see how that would be miscategorisation.
     
    brizzie, Jun 11, 2006 IP
  20. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #2120
    brizzie, SI is often associated with (a so-called "comorbid condition" of) eating disorders. Thus, sites which may have a primary focus on ED may also deal with SI. If it is a pro-ED site, it may well also be a pro-SI site.

    But I am also worried about sites remaining in DMOZ and simply being recategorized or having categories renamed. You may recall this was a significant concern in the discussion of the pro-pedophilia sites.
     
    minstrel, Jun 11, 2006 IP