DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

They're not gone - only one site has been removed from that category since the May 2nd posting by Minstrel, and that was done by miss robozilla. There were a number of sites that were unreviewed to have one specific word removed, they have since been readded to the directory.

Added - I skimmed the unreviews too fast - a couple of sites were deleted for having no content also.

 

What exactly does that mean?

 

It means the sites were unlisted (but not deleted), one word was removed from the descriptions, and the sites were relisted.

 

lol

i guess ill reject dmoz if they submit to my directory ... i think they dont acomplish one rule : no adult sites

as i said early i dont have any consideration for dmoz since i submited one of my former sites to their directory and wasnt aproved till now. that site is better than 99% of their sites in index and certain better than some dead sites.

dmoz exists only for this line :
Visit our sister sites mozilla.org | ChefMoz | MusicMoz | Open-Site | Wikipedia

as content they are pants

 

Sounds disturbing, if not sick. Did you take a closer look at these listings?

 

No, kidding, Einstein.

"She plunged into a sea of platitudes, and with the powerful breast stroke of a channel swimmer, made her confident way towards the white cliffs of the obvious." -- W. Somerset Maugham

Let me put it more simply so that your concrete "mind" can comprehend the question: What was the word and why was it deleted? And what was the purpose of deleting it?

 

minstrel, had a brief look. From what i can see, the category underwent a very descrete cosmetic overhaul, nothing less and nothing more.

 

What makes Digital Point different is people can speak about their concerns about DMOZ. There are a ton of other webmaster forums where this is not possible, and I commend DP for allowing us to have an open conversation.

This is one of the reasons this thread and others have been so popular, because people grew frustrated in other forums where their opinions were censored, while DMOZ editors laid down the law. I commend DP for not allowing that to happen here.

 

You asked: "What exactly does that mean?" referring to "There were a number of sites that were unreviewed to have one specific word removed" - I answered that question exactly.

If you wanted to know what word was removed and why - then why didn't you ask that question in the first place? If you really want to know what word was removed - there's a site that will show you the way a page looked in the past - and you can go there and look. As to why - IMO I don't believe I can answer that question without violating the communication guidelines.

 

Stop wasting my time with childish games, lmocr. I have no patience for this sort of crap or for you.

 

You do have the option of ignoring my posts if you consider my answers to be "childish games".

 

Try "thinspirational" - it isn't a word.

 

Good eye, brizzie. "Thinspiration" may not be a word but it is a catch word for anorexia-bulimia.

Original listings:

Current listings:

Nice cover-up. Same sites. Just disguised and "sanitized" a bit.

And for those like lmocr who still want to claim this is a good thing or who doubt the harm that such sites can cause, please see http://www.geocities.com/melgsunshine/eatingdisordersbreakthecycleinmemory.html.

 

OK, well in Pro-Anorexia there is one site mentioning self injury and you can't see the content without registering. The other site is a (sad) journal - insight. I did see warnings on some sites about "trigger" material on the pro-anorexia sites.

Health/Mental_Health/Disorders/Impulse_Control/Self_Injury/Support_Groups/Chats_and_Forums/ - firstly this is categorised as a mental health disorder so it is clear that DMOZ is not promoting it as a positive thing. Secondly surely support groups for such people are a positive thing - again I noticed warnings of trigger material on some. The grandparent category http://dmoz.org/Health/Mental_Health/Disorders/Impulse_Control/Self_Injury/desc.html also contains a warning about trigger material, which could, IMO, be repeated further down the structure.

 

Please bear in mind my previous comment: Hiding pro-anorexia sites among anti-anorexia sites or pro-self-harm sites among anti-self-harm sites is not an answer and if anything simply increases credibility for those sites. That's just deceptive.

And placing pro-self-harm or pro-anorexia sites in a "mental health" category doesn't mean a damn thing... show me a mental health professional who encourages people to harm themselves and I'll show you a mentaL health professional about to lose his license. It doesn't change the nature or content of a site to move it into a category where its intent may be unclear.

That's no different than moving a pro-pedophilia or man-boy-love site for a pro-child-rape category to an anti-child-rape category. That's not just simple-minded, it's blatantly deceptive.

And removing the word "thinspiration" or "thinspirational" from a site description does not change a site from pro-anorexia to anti-anorexia. That's not just simple-minded, it's blatantly deceptive.

Again, see http://www.geocities.com/melgsunshine/eatingdisordersbreakthecycleinmemory.html.

 

I saw.

Which of the support groups about self-harming are not support groups but pro-self-injury? I've skimmed one or two and found them disturbing for the subject matter but not advocating self-injury as some form of positive action.

It isn't intended to be disguise it, the category remains "pro-anorexia". Educated guess but DMOZ does not use made-up marketing/hype/slang words hence the removal of them. Some of the sites listed in the category do not seem to be "pro" anorexia but informational. Others I personally find abhorrent due to the context but the anorexia tips seemed pretty standard weight loss tips, and the bulimia tips were nothing I had not seen/heard in news reports - I expected to be shocked and surprised by the content but wasn't; only by the context. I did find it insightful to learn why people with these disorders do it - I only hope that I never have to use those insights in real life.

 

I looked at the Razor Blade Heat site, all of it. Whilst it was from the perspective of a cutter, I thought it was very good, informative, contains advice for friends and relatives, is explicit that sufferers should tell someone, and encourages them to seek help, answering all the common objections to actually seeking the help and overcoming the obstacles. I would have been happy to list that one.

 

Thanks for the update, brizzie.

As I said originally,

I could see that either meaning "I want people to accept cutting as an acceptable and desirable way of life" OR "I want people to better understand what cutting is all about so that cutters can find the understanding and help they need". I'm happy to learn that it was the latter.

I have a lot on the go at the moment so I didn't have time to do a review of the site, or anything else really other than to flag it. I appreciate that you took the time to follow up on that.

 

To go Offtopic: MY GOSH, this has to be one of the longest threads I have ever seen

 

'Tis true. I have "reported" to moderators/administrators at DigitalPoint about several posts that appeared to violate the terms of service of this forum, namely "Personal attacks against people or sites," which according to http://forums.digitalpoint.com/faq.php?faq=dp_faq#faq_posting_guidelines "will not be tolerated." I have not complained about personal attacks directed toward me, but I have pointed out posts that had no purpose other than to insult/attack another user.

I did this because a staff person of this forum had stated that staff had been unaware that this ODP/DMOZ area contained offensive/insulting posts because no one reported offensive posts here. I will not quote the message directly because the specific wording and name of sender are not relevant. However, it would be accurate to paraphrase it as "We can't fix a problem if no one tells us about it -- if bad posts are appearing, forum members should report them."

In reporting posts, I was not asking for enforcement the terms of service of some other site, but rather the written terms of service of this site. Silly me, thinking that the management of the website would actually stand behind the posted terms of service. I have not determined whether the following provision was part of the terms of service at that time, or if it appeared more recently:

That particular provision is in conflict with both the message I had received from staff and with the "Report Bad Post" instructions, which say "Note: This is ONLY to be used to report misplaced threads, spam, advertising messages, and problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts."

I received only one reply regarding any of those reports, and the reply did not in any way suggest that my reporting was excessive or inappropriate. Certainly no one notified me that minstrel and/or gworld were receiving detailed information about my reports. Woe to any forum member who dares to think that the management of this website treats such reports as confidential.

Additionally, I wrote to DP administrators/moderators requesting removal of several live hyperlinks in this thread that were stated (by various participants in this thread) to point to illegal child porn. I do not know if these sites are truly child porn, but if they are as horrible as was claimed, the persons complaining were ill-advised to promote them by listing live links. I received a reply to that message, asking to identify specific posts that had problematic links. I did not attempt to supply an exhaustive list, but sent a few that I remembered.

Also, on one occasion a reported a new thread that appeared to have been started in the wrong forum; a moderator apparently agreed because it was moved.

I apparently have moderator privileges at ResourceZone, but I did not ask for them and I have never used them. The terms of service at dmoz do not allow me to discuss forum-moderation practices there, but it is true that editors are expected to behave in a civil manner toward one another.

I hope no grammar-school student ever is asked to diagram that sentence.

My principal concern about this thread/forum is the chronic and continuing pattern of baseless allegations against the personal and corporate character of individuals and institutions. I only commented about the alleged child porn URLs because there was a widespread view that it had been poor judgment to post these as live links, but it was too late for the original posters to change that situation.