DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

Because Brizzie makes a defendable argument, rather than a paranoid rant. That's why it's different from what you've posted.

 

gworld - you blame corruption, I blame poor guidelines and the legacy of corrupt editors long since ejected. You think DMOZ is run for the profit of editors, I say there are a handful of corrupt editors who are ejected as soon as a case is proven against them. You are the prime source of the red herrings that obscure the real issues. But beneath the crap and conspiracy theories there are some valid points. For example you did pick out quite a few sites in another thread which when investigated were the work of corrupt editors who had already been removed. So you can be useful for some things if people are patient enough to filter out the complete nonsense.

BTW the person who gave me a red rep with the word b***s**t - who were you trying to avoid offending by using *** instead of letters?

 

Ignoring all the RZcrap in the past few pages, can one of you tell me how you justify all these multiple listings:

http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=es-ee-ex.com&all=yes&cs=UTF-8&cat=Adult

That one website OWNS that category. Why is that?

 

Back in 1957, Sykes and Matza published some papers on what they termed "Techniques of Neutralization" - basically rationalizations used by criminals to justify their criminal acts and limit taking any responsibility for them or feeling any remorse for what they do. This is especially true of sex offenders, and among that group of sex offenders, especially true of pedophiles. Among other things, what those listings in DMOZ do is aid and abet the legitimization among child molesters of these sorts of rationalizations.

The above is from my lecture Powerpoint slides for a course I taught in 2003.

 

minstrel

I can answer the question easily - because I have asked the same sort of question. It is because the guidelines as applied by the Adult branch permit this type of multiple listing of sites, i.e. you can't point at anything that specifically prohibits it. And as even deobfuscator accepts it does give the appearance of anomoly. There is a lot of disagreement about whether this interpretation is right especially since it gives such a bad impression outside. The answer is to rewrite the guidelines to clarify what is permitted with the reasoning. Which would give a clear answer when something is pointed out as "evidence" of corruption and aid in proving corruption when it is suspected, and avoids the inevitability of answers that sound like fudge and BS. But the difficulty is to find a form of words that everyone can agree. Many have tried to get the Adult interpretation changed and I was the last one to try. I thought I had failed but apparently it is still under serious discussion. We live in hope...

 

In famous words of Mr. Brizzie: In part because as you say they do look anomalous. For anomalous read corrupt.

You say tomayto and I say tomato.

 

It should be under more than serious discussion. It should be under demolition. It's not like that's an isolated case. I had never really explored the adult section until this thread started. It is appalling - worse than I ever imagined in several ways.

It is a festering boil on the face of DMOZ. How do any of you tolerate it?

 

Ok everyone. I want you to sit down for this. Make sure you aren't taking a drink when you read it, as you might choke...

Are you ready?

I agree with minstrel.

That is EXACTLY what the pro-pedophilia chat/forums do.

They should not be listed in the ODP.

 

minstrel

Is this kind of there is nothing wrong with pedophilia, If DMOZ a big directory which is owned by AOL, a big corporation chooses to list pedophilia sites with "AFFIRMATIVE VIEWS"?

 

When you people wake up and realize that Minstrel has knowledge and wisdom that is way above average and that he is not a raving maniac then we may be able to get somewhere here!

 

Even a better question, who owns the site?

In famous words of Mr. Brizzie: In part because as you say they do look anomalous. For anomalous read corrupt.

 

By the way guys, the Dateline NBC show is on right now....on NBC

 

Because he or she believes this is Resourceless Zone..they dont realize that we have minds of our own here and they cant bully us around in this forum because they are the minority.

 

I don't need to watch the show anthonycea, I know you will keep us up to date.

(I can't watch it anyways as I am at work - actually hoping you will let us know what they talk about).

 

You or anyone else can keep up to date here!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032600/

This is an ongoing media/police effort, it is on prime time TV.....

 

It's like this - in other parts of DMOZ if an editor were caught listing multiple domains from the same owner in the same category, with some exceptions such as Universities and Colleges, then almost certainly they would be investigated for abuse and could well be removed. In Adult such activity is considered the norm and although it is a norm, since it is not specifically documented as an exception, it gives every impression of corruption. Why is its mere existence not corrupt? Because it is a norm, a localised policy, that has been accepted by Adult editors. So it should be documented - but a large number of editors would disagree with such an exception. Or the policy reversed but other editors believe the norm is acceptable. So stalemate and the worst of both worlds ensues - the policy exists and there is nothing clearly documented to justify it. Hence it will give every impression of corruption until the stalemate is broken. The stalemate could be broken by Admin decree but what if the Admins are split about the need for action?

The other point is that there is legacy crap left by removed abusive editors but lack of resources means the crap hasn't been cleaned up entirely. Again this looks like continuing abuse but it simply inability to properly maintain. And again difference of opinion - is it better to keep everything up, crap and all, or take everything down and relist only the non-crap (relatively speaking). I think it is bad enough to take the lot down and start again, others would point out that this would kill the galleries as there are insufficient people to put the OK stuff back. To which I would say big deal, so what, the appearance of abuse is damaging the rest of the directory. And then you are into another debate. And so it bounces back and forth getting precisely nowhere. Year on year every time the issue comes up - hence some cynicism on my part that this time will be any different. The difference this time is that last time I looked a lot of those sites were listed by editors who had been removed so why do half the job and remove the editors but not remove what they were doing? At least remove every Adult listing added by a proven corrupt editor, not necessarily permanently but at least for re-review (which means sometime never) and deny them the fruits of their abuse. But prevent the abuse occuring again, and remove the appearance of abuse by bringing the galleries into line with the rest of mainstream DMOZ.

 

You guys at DMOZ better get moving because the media has never had a "White Hot Spotlight" on this subject as we have RIGHT NOW, it is on NBC as we speak!

DP and it's members are the best thing that has happened to DMOZ and AOL should thank us for getting on your asses!

 

Criminal behavior is the norm among criminals. Child molesting is the norm among pedophiles. Recognizing something as a "norm" only tells us that a lot of people in that subgroup or subculture are doing it - not that it is loegal or morally or ethically right.

This to me is the most baffling question. How can there be any admins who support this?

And I would agree 100% with you. Dump it. Excise the cancer. because if you don't, it will eventually take down the entire directory. Make no mistake about that.

Again, the fact that this is not SOP amazes me.

At the very least. I'm not sure I personally would be satisifed with that but it would be a step in the right direction anyway.

 

so in summation brizzie:

Let's talk and in the mean time editors who want sexual gratification have that and those who are interested in financial gratification have that.

Let's talk and talk some more and in the mean time editors who want sexual gratification have that and those who are interested in financial gratification have that.

Let's talk and talk and talk some more and and in the mean time editors who want sexual gratification have that and those who are interested in financial gratification have that.

Let's talk and talk and talk and talk some more and and in the mean time editors who want sexual gratification have that and those who are interested in financial gratification have that.

This is what you mean?

Don't you ever wonder that why it always stops before it results in any action?

 

Disturbing would be an understatement looking at the sections called pedophile affirmation
Digg if you like
http://digg.com/links/DMOZ_editors_in_support_of_Child_Porn_