DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

People threaten DMOZ daily with lawsuits and they have been getting a rough time outside for years. With little effect. You have to look at the record of both companies when it comes to similar cases - and it isn't particularly encouraging.

 

Does AOL really have a choice here with people writing their lawmakers

 

No, editors are discussing it I understand and I wouldn't expect any feedback until they are done. DMOZ rarely acts quickly. Pagode said he would report back and I trust him to do that when there is a result, unless orlady returns to post an official statement.

 

No doubt this story will be picked up by the national media now!

Little did we know that threads on Digital Point would ever get this much exposure, but I think we did have an idea that they would in the end!

 

If AOL lawyers believe there is no illegality in listing those sites then sure they have a choice and at a corporate level maintaining lack of censorship on the Internet without breaking the law may possibly be more important. But it shouldn't have to come to that for people to know what is right and proper.

 

Wishful thinking maybe! And presumably not on CNN.

 

What is there to discuss?

1) It is illegal as shown in this post.

2) It is againts DMOZ policy as it is shown in this post.

The new positive me likes to know how can some one still argue about it or by mistake think that such sites can be listed?

I am sure it is all one big innocent mistake. love and hug, bro.

 

With the 2006 elections coming up I am sure that AOL will find many lawmakers that need a shot in the arm willing to take this issue on!

I expect the entire category to be taken down soon, they just can't risk the bad publicity at this time with Bush going after Google now!

 

I think DMOZ would drop the Kids category before they drop the Adult. Too many people have a serious stake in that Adult category.

 

Adult represents about 1% of DMOZ listings. In terms of editors probably less than 1%. In terms of sleazy porn sites less than 1% (Adult is more than porn). In terms of editors working on listing sleazy porn sites, a tiny handful.

Who knows? But discussion is better than dismissing it.

 

As Brizzie could confirm I am bound by DMOZ rules to not publish internal discussions so I will giva an update in my own words.

Both issues (child pron and multiple deeplinks) are still being discussed. Most time is spend in the child porn issue as this is the most important of both.
As with all large organisations run by concensus discussions can take some time. Some editors were invited to give their opinion. But as volunteers not everybody is able to login everyday. Several of the higher ranked editors (admin, meta) have given their opinion and background information. Until now we have come to the conclusion that according to US laws the sites with stories are not illegal. But this does not mean that we should keep them listed. We are not only looking into which listings to delete but also into how to rewrite guidelines to make clear to editors and non-editors what is allowed and what not.
I know you will say why does this take so much time, just delete the sites. But from the inside it is not so easy.

Until next time.

 

Yes, but I guarantee you 90% of those adult editors are not there just to donate their time to the good cause that is DMOZ. I'm just guessing, but I bet that 1% of the total editors is very tight group and would never want to see change in the system.

 

Can you tell us what is the reason that you think such sites are not illegal? I have quoted the US Supreme court judgment in my previous post that clearly shows these sites are illegal.

Why should be any discussion about this when it is clearly against DMOZ policy as I stated here ?

Don't give me the speech about collective decision making because you know very well that many sites are deleted everyday for reasons that are not even 1 percent as good as the above reason.

But the new me knows that all these are just one big mistake and not because some editors will like to continue with illegal activities, so love and hug, bro.

 

I am beginning to really miss the old you.

 

Yeah Gworld, don't take the act to an extreme, you will piss off Minstrel too much

 

The correct US law can be found on http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_110.html

Also see http://www.asacp.org/faq.php

 

Pagode is giving you information on what is going on internally, why knock him for that - he could have stayed silent.

Pagode can't publish internal discussions but I can, at least a single quote from the past that I won't attribute further than extremely senior whose word is law, but which I had in my notes when I was involved discussions on other issues surrounding Adult late last year - there is a category for Teens too but I lost that one (I think and too complicated to go into).

Anything dealing with sex and children needs to treated with the utmost care and caution here. Context and intent are necessary considerations. Be careful not to overgeneralize and simply these issues. While the Open Directory has a place for all topics, and makes every effort to be all inclusive, sites that overtly sexualize children in a vague or inappropriate context or manner should not be added.

That will probably get me a lifetime ban from ever applying for reinstatement but it indicates the context in which editors will be discussing this matter and the degree of seriousness with which DMOZ will take this matter. I hope. It would have been my first quote had I been involved in the internal discussion. Pagode - if you haven't guessed the author, PM me and you can do an internal search to track it down if it is of use.

 

I think it is very brave of you to post this and it can be used as a defense in case DMOZ faces lawsuits over these listings!

If anything they should make you an administrator for the time and effort you have put in here

 

Brizzie, I have to ask:

With you being so critical and outspoken about the Adult category of DMOZ, did you face any pressure from your fellow editors to shut up and step back in line?

 

Not really, since I retired as an editor I am not bound by the same level of confidentiality. Even so, since I stopped short of attribution they might forgive me.