DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

Originally Posted by vulcano
On the other hand, those "deeplinks" have been critizised by various posters out of various reasons. We might all agree (again) though, that this practice is a major source for leaving the impression, that there is abuse.

pagode, looks like your argumentation is locked in a circle, or you did not read some of our fellow editors, responding to gworld et al postings

 

vulcano:

1) Some of the quotes you just posted refer to the pedophilia sites and some refer to deeplinks - two different topics.

2) What gworld is saying about the deeplinks and what most editors are saying about them are very different.

Gworld is basically claiming that an editor having some deeplinks listed in Adult is abuse and corruption (correct me if I'm wrong gworld).

Editors are saying that it isn't abuse when there is no proof of abuse. The listings, in and of themselves, are not abusive. They are listable according to current Adult guidelines. That is not to say that there is necessarily no abuse happening with these links - just that the mere presence of the listings is not abuse.

 

I do not think that DMOZ should be the marketing arm of porn site affiliate webmasters, do you think it should be?

If It Walks Like A Duck And Quacks Like A Duck It?s Probably A...?

 

I am well aware of the current guidelines, nevertheless I hope they will get changed.

o.k with me

have been out for a very nice dinner, replying especially to your last part... is it editors saying, is it you saying...who are those editors? Or just for the sake of it, were you trying to catch me with some oximoron?

 

I wasn't 100% sure what this meant, as it is very unclear - but I was trying to respond to it.

I am referring to the same editors you were.

 

gworld - we could argue all day about what the ODP guidelines should be, or what should be considered abuse. And, truth be told, we would probably agree most of the time.

But, the phone sex links you posted, based on what you can see (and what I can see for that matter) and based on current guidelines, are not abuse.

That's the only point I am trying to make, and there is nothing to argue about because I am correct.

Now, could there be something going on that neither of us can see? It's possible.

 

I think it is the same story as before about the emperor is naked but pretends that it is everyone else who is stupid and can not see his fine new clothes.

I see it and other DMOZ editors here see it but as long as it is beneficial for a meta and her assistant who cares, right?

 

selling insurance?

 

Kind of, insuring future income (commission) from porn site affiliation by keeping the deep links.

 

Partial success

It seems after over 1100 posts, DMOZ editors decided at least partially do the decent thing and remove the pedophile chat rooms. It is still difficult for me to believe that DMOZ needed so much public pressure to do the right thing.

This is still a partial success since even after removing the forums, DMOZ still has not stopped advocating pedophilia by listing sites that support pedophilia or as DMOZ call it "AFFIRMATIVE VIEWS".

Some samples of such sites still in DMOZ includes the following:

"Interview with pedophile Kevin Bishop. While Bishop talks about why pedophilia should be legalized, interviewer Angela Johnson has misgivings about Bishop and his views."

"The author challenges the assumption by society that pedophilia is wrong."

"Advocacy of adult-child sexual relationships. Authors attempt to dispel common misconceptions about pedophiles."

Hopefully with continuation of this thread and both more users and DMOZ editors becoming aware of the situation, we can "convince" the few editors who are actually making the decisions in DMOZ to also remove the "AFFIRMATIVE VIEWS" and the deep links which are a disgrace to any REAL DMOZ editor.

 

I'm glad the chat rooms are gone. I'm not entirely convinced the rest should go though (and before the flames start, this is from a free speech standpoint, not a pro-paedophilia stance). That's just MHO.

 

And the fact that you are still questioning this from ANY standpoint is part of the problem with DMOZ.

If you cannot justify the chat rooms and are happy to see them go, how can you justify the pro-pedophilia sites? Where do you draw the line?

How do you justify these, Bradley?

Are you pro-pedophilia? Do you believe the "neutralization technique" that claims that child sexual abuse is not harmful to the child victim? That those who say otherwise are merely hysterical redneck conservatives?

 

Is there a way to eridocate child porn from internet? This must be stopped in order to retain a good image of the netizen society.

 

The number of postings here has nothing to do with a decission made DMOZ internaly. And to be honest most of these 1100+ postings have nothing to do with the subject. Also public pressure was not one of the things that had an influence on the decission.
I can only say that it is still a split decission between DMOZ editors. We are waiting for the admins to make a definitive decission.

 

Highly unlikely. But that isn't the issue in this thread, is it?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are naive, but frankly that's pure drivel. Those sites had been there for some time. Without the negative publicity driven by posters in this thread, they would still be there.

There should be no need to be still debating or still waiting for a decision. The correct decision was obvious to anyone but a DMOZ editor when the issues were first raised.

 

I can't speak for Bradley, just for myself.
I'm certainly against pedophilia and any other sort of child-abuse.

The internal DMOZ discussion is difficult because of some good arguments given to keep most of these sites.
Some say that pedophilia is not child-abuse but a disease. Only if a person who thoughts about children also brings them into practice it is abuse and illegal. Therefore sites that only give information about this disease should be listed. This information could be help for people with these feelings or it could be information for other people how to recognise the pedophiles and protect their children.
Sites with information how to protect children and how to help children that are abused are listed in http://dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Children,_Youth_and_Family/Child_Abuse/Sexual_Abuse/ and http://dmoz.org/Society/Sexuality/Children_and_Adolescents/
Some sites are marked as not to be listable in the open part of DMOZ but are listed in the Adult part.

Do I think it is OK for DMOZ to list informational sites about this subject. Yes. Do I think it is OK if amongst these sites also pedophiles can express their opinion. Yes. It gives us insight in why they do things.
Do I like these people. Certainly not.

 

Yes, and I'm thankfull for that, if some editors were not made aware of this situation nothing would have happened. The sites were listed in a faraway corner of DMOZ that most editors normaly don't visit.
But what I meant with "public pressure was not one of the things that had an influence on the decission" is that the thoughts and feelings of people (non-editors) posting here have had no influence.

 

Do you support the incousion of sites like these?

"The author challenges the assumption by society that pedophilia is wrong."

"Advocacy of adult-child sexual relationships. Authors attempt to dispel common misconceptions about pedophiles."

Those are not informational sites. They are pro-pedophilia sites. And they are dangerous to future child victims, make no mistake about that.

No one at any time in this thread or anywhere else is objecting to the first type of sites you mention. Please don't muddy the issue. As for the sites listed in Adult, for DMOZ to list them at all anywhere in the directory is implicit endorsement. Anyone who doubts that needs to remove the eye-shades and let some sunlight in.

You are missing the point. Please re-read my post about techniques of neutralization. This is not an issue of understanding or gaining insight into pedophiles - list the many textbooks on the subject if that's your motivation, not the pro-child-rape sites.

But you are willing to continue to endorse sites which promote and "normalize" a viewpoint that assists them in commitiing acts of sexual asault against children?

 

I find that difficult to believe. If it is true, it is nothing to be proud of - it is a sad commentary on how DMOZ works.

 

Well if you compare the Digital Point posters to the Salem witch hunters - then you can understand why outside influences don't matter.

Quite a good comparison if I say so myself