DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

I would like to hear a DMOZ opinion on this.

 

good. down with DMOZ.
where are all the combative and arrogant editors at now with all their rude ass comments? nobody? come on loud mouths, now is your time to shine.

tell us again how the complaints about DMOZ are all fake and just coming from webmasters with poor quality sites.

 

Great Catch Gworld, if I could rep ya right now I would. I also agree I dont think we are going to get an editor here to comment on these things. Like all of you I dont believe there is any way to dance around this with any comment they might make.

 

also, someone should take a bunch of screen shots before they remove all the listings.

 

Could someone provide more information? I'd like to write this up and get it on digg/shoutwire....the world needs to know.

 

This story should be featured on http://www.corruptdmozeditor.com

 

the digg idea is great SVZ. but im not sure many people would know/care about this situation except for people like us. if someone picks a time to make the digg post ahead of time, then we can all go digg it so it makes the front page. otherwise i dunno if it would make front page.

 

The problem is even worse than just giving multiple listings to such sites. According to American Federal law all such sites should have 2257 declaration which means that the site owners have documentations that people who have their pictures on these sites are over 18 years of age.

A lot of these sites with multiple listings do not have 2257 declaration which means their models can be under-age. These sites are breaking the federal laws and are illegal. According to DMOZ TOS, DMOZ should not list illegal sites but still these sites get hundreds of listings. The editors are aware of this but as I mentioned before they are powerless to do anything about it accept to make excuses.

Here is a list of questions on DP that I previously asked DMOZ editors but they all refused to answer.

1- What is YOUR OPINION about a law that requires 2257 statement to insure that models are not under aged, good or bad?

2- I have provided links to 2257 regulation, in YOUR OPINION does sites that don't provide this statement are breaking the law or not?

3- If these sites are breaking the law,what is YOUR OPINION about DMOZ listing illegal sites, is it against DMOZ TOS or not?

4- In YOUR OPINION, listing illegal sites and editors profiting from such illegal activities is in accordance with DMOZ social contract as stated by DMOZ or in conflict with it?

 

My opinion as a DMOZ editor is that the listing of these sites is totaly inappropriate. I am not able to delete them myself but have reported them internaly to DMOZ editors that can. I don't know if these sites are realy about childporn (and I'm not going to visit them to check if they are). Maybe the descriptions are just not written correctly. But even that should not be allowed. I see this as a very serious issue and will inform you about the actions taken.

 

What is your opinion about this:

"You have all noticed that cherryboys (.) com has 61 listing but what you have not noticed is that cherryboys (.) net which is not even a real site and it only redirects to cherryboys (.) com has 104 listing.

http://www.whois.sc/CHERRYBOYS.NET

Don't you think that this is great? a non existing site gets 104 listings. "

Can you explain how a non existing web site gets 104 listing? Where did the editors saw those pages that they listed, on their own hard-disk?

 

The main reason I see that editors tend not to respond to threads like these is because some of the posters do not want answers and will not listen when editors try to explain. We explain why things are the way they are and all we get is nasty comments, insulting red reps and the lies are continued. Pointless.

So, here I am ready to beat my head against the wall of intolerance.

Did anybody bother to look at these sites you are throwing around? No, you didn't.

cherryboys.net does in fact redirect to cherryboys.com at the ROOT level and the root is not listed. Had anyone bothered to look at the actual links listed in the directory of cherryboys.net they would see these sites do not redirect.

104 listings going to 104 unique galleries. Can anyone point to something actually wrong with listing sites that have unique content? Can you find anywhere in the DMOZ guidelines that state not to list unique content?

This has all been beaten to death over and over and yet the same small group of people continue to post the same old misinformation, completely ignoring the facts and everything that has been explained over and over again.

Why bother to get your facts straight first? Just make some untrue accusations, most of the public will not check what you're saying anyway... Ya'll should get jobs at 60 Minutes. Don't let the truth get in the way.

Once again, misinformation is presented and not challenged. Heck it's not even checked out, people just start jumping on the bandwagon and talk a bunch of nonsense. Is it any wonder no editor wants to bother answering?

 

(i saw dustyg stomping on puppies)

but no, that is a good explanation...i guess.

 

A good explanation of what exactly?

It isn't an explanation at all of why a site like that has 104 listings. It isn't even the beginning of an explanation. It's just smokescreen to avoid answering the question of why sites like this are listed even once, let alone dozens of times.

 

He ment to say HUNDREDS of times. boy, it would be nice to get just one listing from dmoz. but 104 listings, wow. but again this cherry boys site is a real quality main stream site so i understand why they have all these listings

 

it's so weak....

 

I fail to see what is wrong with these listings. It was stated that these sites do not exist. They do exist.

They are listed in Image Galleries, they provide image galleries so they are in appropriate categories. Each of the links I checked out go to a unique image gallery. Unique content is required for a listing according to DMOZ guidelines.

It was stated that these sites have images of underaged models. Yet, all the models look to be over 18 and the site claims to have all the appropriate age documentation.

What's wrong with these listings, exactly?

[added]

Is it really just a case of sour grapes?

[added] And the anonymous red reps are flying... gee there's a surprise.

 

Well really, DustyG... are you surprised? Leave that RZ attitude at the door and you might be surprised how differently you'll be treated.

But let me see if I understand you: You don't see anything worrisome about porn sites having dozens or hundreds of listings in DMOZ? You dont see anything worrisome about hundreds of porn sites having dozens or hundreds of listings in DMOZ? You believe that DMOZ should be in the business of listing porn sites?

Would galleries of nature photographs or other non-porn photography sites have 104 listings in DMOZ? Are you able to show us some non-porn galleries that are listed that many times?

 

I don't mean to be rude and out of turn..... Arent you promoting it yourselves by quoting the sites here? Don't get me wrong, free speech n all that, and I'm not a fan of dmoz at times... If I was you, I'd notify the FBI, or whoever deals with these types of sites (if no-one already has), google, etc, etc....thats if its illegal....

just my 2p's worth.....

 

HOW DID EDITORS DISCOVER THESE 104 QUALITY LINKS IF THE MAIN SITE REDIRECTS TO ANOTHER SITE?

Editors always complain here that all webmasters are spammers because may be by mistake somebody submits 2 times after not hearing anything about their submission but some how 1 webmaster submits 104 different pages of a same site that redirects to other sites and that person not only is not spammer but gets 104 listing even while the main URL redirects to another site.

And the pigs fly too.

 

They're not live links.

But it's really not about legality. It's about fairness and why those sites get special treatment.

See post #31 here: