1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

Discussion in 'ODP / DMOZ' started by dvduval, Jan 26, 2006.

  1. pagode

    pagode Guest

    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    47
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #1141
    As it seems to me you are only interested in hearing your own opinion and never try to understand what other people have to say. That is called a monolgue not a discussion. I was willing to listen to you and other people posting here and help you to solve real issues but if there is no intention from the people postinge at DP to do the same I see no reason to continue posting here. If there are some other DMOZ editors that are still willing to do so, good luck to you.
    SEMrush
     
    pagode, Feb 10, 2006 IP
    SEMrush
  2. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #1142
    That speaks volumes about you and underscores the worry many of us have about DMOZ editors. You must be so proud... :rolleyes:

    There are some editors who are listening and even encouraging the ongoing discussion and publicity about these sites. This is one of those issues where it is abundantly clear that editors who are not part of the solution are part of the problem. And that is the point I was making in my replies to your posts.

    I was beginning to change my mind about you, pagode. Please resist "reverting to type" - there are already too many like lmocr and bradley among your colleagues.
     
    minstrel, Feb 10, 2006 IP
    compostannie likes this.
  3. Seiya

    Seiya Peon

    Messages:
    4,666
    Likes Received:
    404
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #1143
    Corruption gets everywhere... you should know that :| Not all editors are corrupt though.
     
    Seiya, Feb 10, 2006 IP
    compostannie likes this.
  4. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #1144
    The free speech defense is just total nonsense. There is nowhere in first amendment or even logical discussion of free speech that this kind of shit is protected.

    If your are going to take the free speech excuse, how about the right to free speech of those who have "AFFIRMATIVE VIEW" on rape, murder for hire, political assassination, terrorism, killing the Jews or lynching the blacks?

    Do you support their right to free speech and list sites in DMOZ that explain why rape should be legal and it actually doesn't damage the women and in reality they enjoy the rape or your defense of free speech is only limited to pedophiles and child molesters? It seems the limitation to free speech is getting interpreted based on editors personal interest. :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Feb 10, 2006 IP
  5. mdvaldosta

    mdvaldosta Peon

    Messages:
    4,079
    Likes Received:
    362
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #1145
    Does google allow adsense on sites showing child porn? I don't think so. Is it illegal? It does fit into their "don't be evil" motto. How could you consider the DMOZ a reputable sources of websites when it clearly shows poor judgement and lack of morals to list such sites. It's really not a legal or free speech issue, those websites are not an asset to the internet.
     
    mdvaldosta, Feb 10, 2006 IP
    compostannie likes this.
  6. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #1146
    There's another interesting factor I've just become aware of:

    Look at the attached logo now appearing on DMOZ pages (upper right hand corner) - "AOL Search".

    This clearly (for the first time) brands this as an AOL site.

    It seems that in order to increase its internet presence and traffic stats, AOL wants to include DMOZ traffic in its stats -- I'm told that the "in partnership with AOL Search" logo is required by the company that measures internet stats for reporting to prospective advertisers. I'm also told that the company is ComScore Media Metrix -- http://www.comscore.com/.

    The added question is how does Media Matrix feel about a customer basing its traffic even partially on a directory promoting and endorsing pro-pedophile groups? Is this what companies are looking for when they make decisions on where to spend their advertising dollars? Do you think that companies made aware that AOL is associated with a directory that is endorsing such sites will be at all happy about continuing their association with AOL?

    I realize that Anthonycea is sometimes an easy target for ridicule for some people but his comments about AOL vis-a-vis DMOZ may not be all that outlandish after all.
     

    Attached Files:

    minstrel, Feb 10, 2006 IP
  7. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #1147
    It is not outlandish, I personally don't know of any company that like to be associated with pro pedophilia sites by spending their money to buy ads. I wonder how the next AOL ad campaign will look like.

    AOL- We connect pedophiles.

    Support your local pedophiles, advertise with AOL in partnership with DMOZ.

    AOL- We are committed to supporting pro pedophilia causes. :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Feb 10, 2006 IP
  8. Deobfuscator

    Deobfuscator Guest

    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #1148
    Me again. I notice quite a few of the participants in this thread have been banned, but surprisingly not me.

    Gworld - you make some good points (I said SOME good points) as have a lot of other posters, but this is post 1100+ and things are getting nowhere.

    My opinion: this has been a mudslinging exercise at the ODP. But you know, some of the mud looks like it might stick. I'd argue that exploring each issue in a different thread might be more relevant and readable than this epic.

    "Affirmative views" of illegal sexual practices
    Let's broaden this out just a little because there's a PRINCIPLE here that could be applied elsewhere. Perhaps there are more categories in the Adult section that have similar problems. What are they? What are the ODP's legal and moral liabilities? Perhaps this should include issues of "questionable" descriptions.

    Multiple deeplinking to image categories
    We have determined that this is custom and practice, but is it a valid way to do it? Is it being abused? How else would you categorise these sites?

    Should there be an Adult category at all?
    Is it appropriate to have an Adult category? Or should it all go? Or is some of it valid and useful (for example, there are informational categories covering aspects of sexual practices and sexual health, plus shopping categories, plus a number of sites that aren't listed in the main directory because of strict nudity guidelines).

    I think perhaps those are the three big questions raised in the thread. But perhaps this thread has run its course, and it might be more productive to concentrate on the main questions.

    Did that cover all the main points? If not, what else would you distill out of the thread as an issue?
     
    Deobfuscator, Feb 10, 2006 IP
    compostannie likes this.
  9. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #1149
    They weren't banned for their comments in this thread. I don't believe they were banned permanently, either.

    :confused:

    I would say some progress has been made -- not enough, but some.

    Then you've missed the point. (Not a huge surprise to me.)

    I disagree. I think this thread is probably well indexed and bookmarked by now. I think it's better to keep it here.

    I don't think so. Not by a long shot.
     
    minstrel, Feb 10, 2006 IP
  10. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #1150
    :confused:

    The last time you graced us with your presence, I was a disgruntled, unsuccessful pornographer that hated DMOZ because I couldn't get my sites listed. What has changed?

    As usual, you have got it totally wrong. The problems with "AFFIRMATIVE VIEW" is not about the wording, it is about what it represent which is giving justification to pedophiles to commit sexual acts which is based on hurting children to look normal and acceptable. How do you suggest that we should word the "AFFIRMATIVE VIEW" on rape or lynching blacks?

    The problem with deeplinks is not about nudity, it is about what it represent and implies, which is acceptance of corruption among adult editors as "normal" or "current practice". Do you think that it is DMOZ duty to act as marketing arm for those webmasters who want to sell affiliate programs for porn web sites and earn commission that way?

    Your third question if there should be an adult section is just an attempt to muddy the water. I don't think that you find too many right wing religious nuts in DP that are against all kind of sex and nudity, so your third issue, actually is no issue in this thread and it only serves to confuse the real issues which are the support of illegal sexual acts and corruption in DMOZ.
     
    gworld, Feb 10, 2006 IP
    Seiya likes this.
  11. bradley

    bradley Peon

    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #1151
    I'm sorry, did you just call me a paedophile?
     
    bradley, Feb 10, 2006 IP
    compostannie likes this.
  12. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #1152
    For are read were. And then I had a look late last year. And found that a large proportion of the listings referred to were added by editors subsequently removed. Presumably for abuse. Which is why I brought up the internal thread on the future of Adult, in a general discussion forum which a large proportion of editors who use internal forums could join in. I understand it was moved into the forum for Adult editors where many non-Adult editors will not visit. Changes the balance of the discussion entirely. It is not a non-issue - Adult has been a hotbed of corruption - ask a Meta. Their legacy is still there. Editors are still following the same practices, which contradict practices elsewhere in the directory, that give every impression that the abuse continues. Those are not non-issues - the appearance is of impropriety and since I would regard you as being of the highest integrity it suprises me you can't see that.

    The old argument that the complainants about this appearance are disgruntled DMOZ hating submitters whose sites have been rejected or corrupt editors who got caught, groups whose sole objective is the destruction of DMOZ because it does not serve their personal commercial interests, is an old one trotted out regularly. I think I have been known to repeat the line myself. And it was often true, about the complainants that is. What you see now, from myself and a few others, are motivations that are the exact opposite - editors and former editors thoroughly sick and tired of the appearance of abuse brought about by non-enforcement of the interpretation of guidelines applied elsewhere in the directory. And the invention of practices by people whose interests those practices serve. Accompanied by feeble excuses and aggressive intimidation of opponents. That is a new factor - people who criticise these deeplinks from a love of DMOZ and what it is supposed to stand for; at least what they thought it stood for.

    Some of my former editing colleague might disagree with "good" (like all editors I made some howling mistakes). There are a few editors that have left in the last 6 months or so I would classify as the awkward squad, people who love DMOZ and were not afraid to make their voices heard. It is a personal opinion but the increasing absence of dissenting voices is not a good thing. As a project manager I always want to hear every side of an issue before making a decision - awkward squads stop you making big mistakes. In pre-Admin days in my experience voicing opposition was much more common and welcomed and there were some great (and heated) debates. These days you can visualise a withering stare and much of the old spirit has gone, squashed. You had a possibility of winning an argument , unless Staff felt it important enough to step in with a ruling. Now, one of the Admins can stop a discussion dead by imposing their opinion rather than effectively chairing a debate impartially. In the end there is no further point in expressing any opinions that any of the 8 Admins might not agree with. Trouble is they are editors first rather than managers.

    In the remainder of the Directory many of the practices developed in Adult would be considered abuse. You refer to Adult guidelines but again much of this is unwritten and developed practices, not official guidelines. And whatever an individual branch decides can never ever override the official guidelines.

    Suppose Real Estate was given its own branch and decided that it was OK to list individual properties and the practice developed. Then one day it was discovered there were 20,000 listings for just 1000 agents and of those agents 100 were editors and those 100 had made the decision to list individual properties because they were the industry "experts" who know what surfers would find useful. What would your position be then? Those editors were not guilty of abuse because they had developed practices that protected them against that accusation. And anyone who suggested that maybe it gave the impression of abuse is then accused of knowing nothing about the real estate business - a "site" in the real estate world is a page with a property's details on it. Idiot, don't you know anything? And what right does an Arts editor have to comment on Real Estate branch policies? And we'll discuss this in the Real Estate forum where the 100 real estate editors outnumber the concerned citizens 10 to 1. Thank you. Idiot. Leaving? Good, that is one less opponent to convince.

    But if the owner had listed them it would have been a clear cut case? To prevent sites that I was associated but which I did not think were suitable from being listed I tagged them. Had I not and someone else had listed a former version of a site now a mirror I would have been mortified at the impression it gave. And before I could tag I left an editor note. It is the easiest thing in the world for an editor.

    I agree, I don't agree with the way you have expressed the argument, but as long as a site is clearly providing information not advocating or encouraging I can see it provides some value.
    Try "Therefore only sites that only give information about this disease should be listed."

    I strongly disagree since those opinions may influence or encourage others who are a like mind to think they are doing nothing wrong.
    Because they have a disease, they can't stop themselves. You aren't getting any insights, you are getting fantasies about it being normal, excuses, and sometimes pure evil thoughts. People in denial and in exchange for what you think is an "insight" but which is in reality the product of a sick mind, a child somewhere may be abused because someone else read the opinion and decided to act on their own sick impulses because they were convinced it wasn't a disease after all. You can argue they could have found the site and opinion elsewhere. But they didn't, they found it on DMOZ because some editor thought it would be useful information for surfers, the only reason for listing a site in DMOZ. Gave it a seal of approval for containing good quality content per DMOZ guidelines. Despite a ruling that says to be very careful not to list anything that sexualises children.

    But most Admins and meta editors, and AOL staff were well aware of its existence and for some time. Were they not? And did nothing to remove the sites. Nothing at all. They just shut their eyes and ignored it. I know who raised it internally, before anything was mentioned here, someone let me know. That person was brave, to be commended, and in succeeding in getting the chat rooms removed has done DMOZ, society, and possibly a kid somewhere a huge service. Well done mate.

    Not true. the information provided by,and the thoughts and feelings of non-editors will have influenced the thoughts and feelings of editors who discussed the matter internally. Even if just marginally.

    Thanks imocr.

    Free speech

    On BBC radio this evening there was a short piece by a veteran former politician turned political interviewer about free speech mainly related to the anti-Islamic cartoons circulating around the world. The gist was that with free speech comes responsibility and there is a line to be drawn. He specifically mentioned child pornography though I somewhat doubt he had any knowledge of this issue, and Supreme Court rulings on the US 1st Amendment. The conclusion, which seemed very reasonable to me, was that the right to free speech ends when it incites physical harm to another human being. I would say that clearly covers advocates of pedophilia. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/networks/radio4/aod.shtml?radio4/point_of_view
     
    brizzie, Feb 10, 2006 IP
    compostannie likes this.
  13. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #1153
    Excellent post, brizzie.
     
    minstrel, Feb 10, 2006 IP
  14. sidjf

    sidjf Peon

    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #1154
    You are assuming that the sites did not already have notes left on them by the editor *before* listing...

    *cough* http://dmoz.org/Adult/Society/Sexuality/Activities_and_Practices/Pedophilia/Chats_and_Forums *cough*

    The sites have been re-added pending further discussion. Apparently someone :rolleyes: decided that the sites should be unreviewed until the discussion was complete. That someone :rolleyes: was verbally spanked for this...lol
     
    sidjf, Feb 10, 2006 IP
    compostannie likes this.
  15. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #1155
    I don't know you personally, so I can not make a judgment if you are or not, it is as well possible that you are simply repeating the bunch of BS that they are feeding you in DMOZ but you still have not answered my question that why you or other so called defender of free speech, are not bothered with restriction of free speech for those who have "AFFIRMATIVE VIEW" on rape or serial killer actions and think that such protection only should be granted to pedophiles?

    What is clear specially after sidjf last post and the return of pedophile chat room listings in DMOZ, is the fact that there is strong pro pedophilia group inside the DMOZ and it makes me wonder who will be pro pedophilia except pedophiles? Is it so hard to believe that there are possibly editors in DMOZ that are pedophiles and are using DMOZ as tool for furthering their cause and networking among themselves? Ask yourself this question, what do you really know about a pro pedophilia editor, except his handle in DMOZ and an identity that editor provides in bit and pieces and possibly can be all fantasy? There have been judges, doctors, policemen, politicians and priests who have been pedophiles, what makes DMOZ editors so immune that they can not be a pedophile?
     
    gworld, Feb 10, 2006 IP
  16. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #1156
    What the hell are those baboons at DMOZ Adult playing around at? :mad:

    Why is this even an issue at all, let alone such a big issue? It should have been one of those no-brainer decisions at the start: Delete the damn things!
     
    minstrel, Feb 10, 2006 IP
  17. sidjf

    sidjf Peon

    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #1157
    This isn't an Adult issue, and the Adult editors didn't re-list the sites.

    Unfortunately these sites are, for some reason that escapes me, listed in Adult - that doesn't mean Adult editors approve of them.

    Personally, I have a hard time understanding why such "harmless" sites have to be listed in Adult in the first place... :confused: </sarcasm>
     
    sidjf, Feb 10, 2006 IP
  18. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #1158
    compostannie, Feb 10, 2006 IP
    brizzie likes this.
  19. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #1159
    Then who DID make that decision? :confused:
     
    minstrel, Feb 10, 2006 IP
  20. ishfish

    ishfish Peon

    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    28
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #1160
    You know you're not going to get an answer to that right? (Don't blame me, I thought ODP should be open source, and have the editing log files open to the public for increased scrutiny.) But I can almost guarentee that it was an administrator. And I'm pretty sure which one, but since I don't know, I won't say and potentially make a fool of myself.
     
    ishfish, Feb 10, 2006 IP