DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

This thread has had well over 5000 views - I guess that's a start.

 

JN has been reading, but he is one of your groupies now Minstrel....

 

Not to mention multiple listings in some cases...fully endorsed by editors.

Tough to believe this gets through ANY editor . Again, is this a case of corruption OR not re-reviewing? Not that I am defending anyone here, but it is possible this content is changed after approval and no re-review is done. Even Brizzie has suggested that it could take years to spot and remove this.

After learning more about editor's responsiblities it seems that re-review is not mandatory. In some industry sectors that's probably fine but with adult it's not, IMO. Frequent re-reviews of this category are necessary to ensure this doesn't happen.

Some of these webmasters KNOW NO BOUNDRIES.

 

Since I dont have any sites listed, I need to ask.

Is it possible to edit your own listing once it is approved?

If not, then it does not matter if the site changed. That is the listing that got approved, and the editor that approved it, knew what it was when he/she approved it.

 

No it is not. Only editors can do it and some times people fight and fight to change the description or get their site removed from DMOZ and the only answer editors supply: Tough luck, we do what we like to do and we don't listen to spammer webmasters.

 

Maybe I'm not explaining myself, SiteExpress.

1) I submit my adult site to the appropriate category as, let's say Tommy Lee and Pamala Anderson themed as TommyLeeandPamalaAnderson.com
2) Site gets listed
3) Now I change the content to TommyLeeandPamalaAnderson.com to something else that doesn't meet guidelines

I am not sure how often this happens but I would venture a guess of LOTS. It makes sense if re-review is not in the job description. This is just another possible spin on this, but clearly can't explain multiple listings.

 

I stopped by the local FBI field office this morning. Agent that greeted me initially asked another agent to join the conversation and record it after learning that I was there to report child pornography. We talked for about 30 minutes. During this conversation I was informed that law enforcement agencies including FBI has setup websites to catch pedophiles. Some of these sites may be listed in DMOZ. I was asked not to visit any of the sites listed in DMOZ that are suspected to contain CP. Knowingly visiting such sites is a felony. I was asked to provide all of my personal information including my ISP and any email addresses that I have ever used. I was scared by the end of this interview. I was told that I personally should not investigate any further. FBI is aware of the situation and they will take it from here.

I did write to the Attorney General’s office as well as the Governor’s office. I have also contacted my congressman’s chief of staff.

For the life of me, I can not understand why DustyG is so adamant in being a party to distribution of CP.

 

The Title and description is from DMOZ. The rape text is what editor puts in the listing in DMOZ during review and APPROVAL. If you change your site, it does not change the description in DMOZ. The RAPE text is APPROVED by DMOZ EDITOR.

 

Are you for real? I mean...didn't the FBI just kinda blow their cover?

 

Just so it's clear, you don't like gay porn so you want that category emptied of content and removed. You don't like Adult material so the Adult branch should be emptied of relevant content and removed. Since we have the bonfire roaring are there any other books you believe need to be burned, Adolph?

No one is going to argue that sites that sexually exploit children should be listed, but that's really not what all this has been about. This is about censoring what topics a directory should include. Scary.

[added]

Are you insane? I am talking about the site cherryboys. There is NO child porn there. None! I am not in favor of child porn, I am not interested in distributing child porn. You people have serious problems.

 

Wow man, this is going to make the national news, I think a movie will be made based on this thread too!

 

i wanna be played by....michael jackson.

 

What is scary is that people like you are editors of a directory that aims to list "the best of the web" and are apparently unable to see the inherent contradiction betwen that stated goal and the sites listed in that directory.

But I thank you for making it clear to one and all that you do in fact approve of this and see nothing wrong with the DMOZ policy.

For anyone who missed it:

DustyG, a DMOZ editor, has just publicly proclaimed that he is in favor of, supports, and defends the use of DMOZ to promote pornography.

Are there any other DMOZ editors who agree with him?

 

If DMOZ editors only supported the main stream porn such as playboy, I think a lot of people would be OK with that but the problem is that they list the the worst underground and illegal sites. I suppose because of the nature of the underground porn and legality issues, it makes it much more profitable than main stream porn.

 

You'll excuse me but I'm coming at this from precisely the opposite direction. Removing multiple listings of porn galleries from the same owners and bringing Adult into line with the rest of the Directory would greatly improve it. It is a mess and it drags the rest of the Directory down with it.

What if a lot of the contributors think it is ruining the site but a small handful hold out against bringing it into line and clarifying the guidelines?

Please read my posts - there is an affiliate content site feeding Adult galleries. Cherryboys may not be one of those, I've acknowledged that since I trust you did as you said, but some from that affiliate are already apparently gone - it is deserving of investigation. Proper investigation, quality control work. Why? Because of the false impression it gives of abuse in the Adult branch.

Do an internal search on V-Stores or ask a Shopping meta. Then decide if the situation is comparable in any way. They would not list a V-Store because the affiliate chose a set of products no other affiliate had chosen. It is an affiliate - gone.

An interpretation of the guidelines that is out of line with other branches. And which many editors disagree with.

Good, best news I've had all day. That is a change most reasonable people inside and outside DMOZ would find encouraging. And considerably reduce the appearance of corruption in Adult. But I won't hold my breath, I argued this very point in December.

As for the progression of events, someone starts it off, others bring in more detail. Red herrings abound in threads inside and outside. But what eventually came out is DMOZ listing pedophile networking sites, an affiliate scheme no-one had previously noticed (and which appears to have resulted in a number of deletions already), and some other very dubious categories. Forget agendas and the motivation of people here, DMOZ has benefitted greatly from the subject being aired and attention being given to fixing it.

 

I am talking about the inherent contradiction in listing sites like those mentioned in this thread in a directory that purports to have as its goal to list the best of the web.

I am not talking about censoring the web. I am talking about the inherent hypocrisy in the support of the Adult section by DMOZ and its editors.

I am not suggesting that DMOZ editors are responsible for policing the internet. I am suggesting that they are responsible for policing their own directory. I am also suggesting that if they continue to support the policies of the Adult section (and certain other policies as well) that they at least change the stated goals of the organization to something like "dedicated to promoting whatever sites our editors feel like promoting and endorsing".

 

"excuse me if I'm thinking the suggestions they make are not going to improve the directory but will only serve to make the directory more useless, which is, by their own proclamation"

The above is quite a stupid statement, the critics here are right because these listings do not improve the "quality" of DMOZ in anyway whatsoever and could in fact result in lawsuits and criminal charges against AOL

Most people that complain, bitch about the submission process and how they can't get consideration for their sites, they are pissed because they can't get their sites listed when there are hundreds of duplicate listings for criminal editors and their associates!

How the editors justify this criticism as wanting to "destroy DMOZ" is quite idiotic and just adds to the case against them!

 

Some of its editors

 

Well...I think that about sums it up.

We all have serious problems, but the people who promote, advertise, and endorse sites that advocate rape, incest, and god only knows what other forms of leud conduct are perfectly normal people.


On a side note. I was finally able to get ahold of my uncle, who works at the New York Post today. His first response was a giggle and "That's nasty." Then, as I read of a list of more of these sites to him, he got serious, and said he would hand it to his superior to investigate. He couldn't make any other promises than "It will be looked at."

 

Are you joining the conspiracy nuts, bro?

I though I was the only one who said such things.