You guys of course realize that the "access Adult sites" are the exact same sites that anyone who wishes to do so can access at www.dmoz.org/Adult right? Becoming an editall doesn't grant some sort of magic access to a library of porn. If someone wants to look at it, they will.
You guys do realise that whereas responsible parents can stop their kids accessing porn sites and even the DMOZ Adult branch listings they can't stop them entering the internal Adult forum, that their kids are entering into a binding agreement without any effort being made to solicit the parents' consent, and that the problem is solved very easily.
But surely a 14 year old editor should have some sort of censorship placed upon them. Especially in the internal forums. Age restriction is discussed widely in the Adult section, pertaining to warning pages etc. Kid editors need to be kept out of Adult areas. ( I'm a mum of 4). After all the discussion on peadophila and appropriateness I would 've thought this certainly was a given. I dread to think... Outside Dmoz surfers no-one can do anything about it, but surely internally, there should be some age verification or something going on ?
I hope you monitor your kids' computer activity, shygirl, because the reality is that you cannot depend on the rest of the world to do that for you. Dmoz metas are not in a particuarly good position to "catch" a teenager who claims to be an adult when he or she applies to edit. On the other hand, the teenager's parents are in an excellent position to place filters on the household computer(s), observe the teen's Internet activity, and prevent their kid from "borrowing" credit cards that could help them "prove" a fake age.
Wow! I can see why they made you a meta or admin or whatever the hell you are, orlady. That's two posts in a row form you demonstrating expertise in skirting the issues, going off on tangents, and generally using bafflegab and distraction techniques to avoid address issues, answering questions, or providing useful information. Well done!
Hello siddy Of course we guys realized that! And of course you guys realize it's not the point! If one of your young children suddenly realizes one day that by pushing a stool over to the door he can reach the lock and then go outside unsupervized, it certainly doesn't give me the right to stand on the other side of a busy street waving a candy bar at him. Oh and if he plunges into the busy traffic to get to the candy, it's not my fault. After all you are the parent, right? It's your responsibility to make sure he can't get out the door in the first place. How sad for all those youthful editors whose parents are not responsible. And how sad for all you editors who think there is nothing wrong in waving Adult content in their face to tempt them. Whether intentional or not it gives the appearance that the directory approves of Adult content for youngsters. And that is much more than sad, it's downright disgusting!
Oh but you are in an excellent position to make the Adult section an "apply for only category" like the Kids and Teens section. Heaven forbid these kids get automatic permission to the Kids and Teens section with promotions. Give me a major break!
Not only Young people have access but awhile back there was even a kid who was editor in adult section.
Maybe not, but you don't actually ask them how old they are, you don't ask them to confirm whether they are a minor or not, you don't ask them to get informed parental consent to become an editor, etc. No editor claims to be an adult because there is nowhere for them to make that claim. DMOZ is based on trust. If you trust editors to edit fairly then you must surely trust them to make correct declarations and to abide by guidelines telling them not to access Adult related areas (but there are no such guidelines). The T&C clearly state you must be capable of entering into a binding agreement, which excludes minors, unless, presumably, their parent or guardian provides consent and takes responsibility. It is not difficult to include the warning and the declaration - most forums do it, it is a standard feature of most forum software. So why the reluctance to implement the same in DMOZ. I will speculate - by indicating up front DMOZ has an Adult branch (hidden from the main DMOZ index page) and internal forum (to which minors have unfettered access) it will put off many parents allowing their kids to become editors and some adult editors too on moral grounds. To me that is extremely close to deceptive and completely against the basic principles of DMOZ. If my speculation is wrong, which it may well be, I am all ears.
This actually brings up another interesting question about this whole situation. Because some of the admins are paid by AOL and the staff with root access are working directly for AOL, there is no way that AOL can deny responsibility for the situation in DMOZ. This in turn makes it possible for all parents that AOL has entered in a contract with their children without parental consent or has introduced their children to the world of porn to sue AOL and seek damages. Since this is a reasonable and clear danger as direct result of AOL policies in DMOZ, does anyone knows if AOL has mentioned this risk in their corporate filling with SEC?
I think there are 1 or 2 Admin that are also paid by AOL. Since there is staff from AOL involved in DMOZ, it will not take away AOL legal responsibility in any case.
Admin is a completely volunteer position. 1 or 2 Admins have been hired by AOL as part time staff members, but the positions are separate. I'm not qualified to comment on legal responsibility, just wanted to set the record straight regarding Admins being paid.
OK, we can agree that some of staff are also Admins or some of the Admins are also staff, as you like. What is your opinion about DMOZ introducing kids to porn and not limiting their access to adult sections?
You don't really expect me to answer that, do you? I think you already know how I feel about that and you're just tossing out some troll bait hoping for a nibble. Not today buddy.
Of course I do, the youngest three don't have access the oldest one (16) uses the ancient pc we have next to me in our pc room. However he knows I edit in Dmoz and I've lost count of the amount of times I've asked his opinon on a site regarding homework. He's quite interested in the whole Dmoz thing actually. But if he did wish to edit, and I allowed him to apply, and he was successful... there apparently is nothing to stop him accessing the Adult discussions internally, and clicking on the numerous links provided as examples, ( the same as referred to in the thread dealing with Child porn here) by Orlady regarding shaved women, and the links presented there which are definately NOT for children's eyes, yet just 'there' to click on. 16 year old boys, well..as dogbows said, waving a candy bar. Lets not be niave. This is my last on this subject. But I do think there should be some internal age verification system in place and Adult discussions hidden from those under 18/21... I see no justification against it.
You are pushing a point to an extreme and asking stupid questions. And in doing so degrading the arguments. Are you a tabloid editor or a DMOZ editor? DMOZ does not introduce kids to porn, it isn't some seedy den of iniquity luring kids into the world of porn. Porn is all over the Internet and every responsible parent knows that. The DMOZ Adult branch content is itself protected (by some not very well publicised means that IMO should be plastered over the front page of the Adult branch but it can be blocked by a parent who knows what they are doing). The Adult forum contains material unsuitable / inappropriate for young people but is not porn. But there is no warning for parents or kids that it exists during the joining process. Nor does it require any additional rights to access it. In other words DMOZ could do a lot more for very little cost to be more responsible rather than trying to brush it under the carpet but that doesn't mean Adult is in any way pushed under people's noses - a large number of editors are blissfully unaware it even exists, courtesy of moving embarrassing threads out of the heavy footfall forums. Adult positively tries to keep a low profile. I guess because any attention it does get tends to be negative. This is easily solved. http://dmoz.org/Adult/faq.html#14 contains the instructions on how to keep kids out of Adult. 1. Include information in the editor application process that DMOZ contains an Adult branch and indicate that it is protected by PICS tags and how to set the browser to prevent access. Why are those instructions hidden away in the Adult branch FAQs? If you have got to the instructions then you are already in the branch. And remove the sarcastic comments in the last paragraph of that FAQ section BTW - it is unbecoming of official DMOZ documentation. 2. Include information that the forums contain an Adult forum that is likely to contain material and language unsuitable for children. As that favourite organ of DP distaste, RZ, does it should be no problem to have to specifically request access to the Adult forum and access could be denied for minors or suspected minors. 3. Add an age declaration and parental consent section to the editor application so the T&C can be complied with. Editors don't lie do they? If they do then they shouldn't be editors. Instead of assuming kids will pretend to be adults try it. I'll bet 99% will be honest - isn't honesty something positively sought in editor applications? 4. Add a guideline explicitely stating what underage editors may not do. DMOZ does not allow underage editors to use the Adult branch so there is absolutely no reason not to enshrine that in official guidelines. Absence indicates ambivalence at least. Minimal cost and effort for all these points. And what do you get in return? 1. Informed consent and decision making in becoming an editor. Not surprise and sometimes disgust when the realisation eventually strikes. If you provide the tools to block these aspects in the form of upfront PICS tag information and restricted access to the Adult forum then you immediately counter objections potential editors might have. And who knows it might attract more people previously put off by the existence of Adult. 2. Control over underage editors and what they can access in cooperation with parents. DMOZ provides the tools to protect the kids, the parents implement and enforce. 3. DMOZ taking a responsible attitude for once. Gotta be worth some good PR. 4. Excellent editors like you know who not resigning in disgust. You never know, you know who might even apply for reinstatement if she were content her concerns had been addressed. And others like shygirl have no reason to even feel the slightest disillusion. Why are issues like this, things that are common sense and a responsible approach, always like pulling teeth?
1) is there any where on the adult editors application that they ask for editors age? 2) Wasn't previously at least one case of a kid being editor in adult section? 3) While most porn membership have some kind of age verification system such as credit card, DMOZ has none. 4) can any editor in adult section, contact such membership porn sites and ask for password in order to review the site for listing? 5) Wouldn't you think that porn sites will supply a password because they want to be listed and assume that editors should be of legal age?
1) No. 2) I've never heard that, but that doesn't mean it isn't so. Got anything to back it up with? 3) Dmoz is providing no content. 4) They could if they wanted to...They could if they weren't editors as well. 5) What a porn site assumes is out of the ODPs control, obviously. And how is this important? The same editor would already have access to an unlimited supply of free porn via google, TGPs, the free sites listed in the ODP, etc. I do, however, agree with brizzie (as I always have on this matter) that there are a few very easy steps that the ODP could take that would at the very least cover their own asses - like requiring editors to state that they are of legal age before editing in Adult or reading Adult forums. Editors might lie...but that's beyond our control.
It was awhile back, probably before your time and as I remember he even became a Meta. I think his editor name was Dannyboy as far as I remember. Just think how much fun will be for a teenager when all the porn sites sending him free passwords. I think after that experience, it is little bit hard for powers in DMOZ to claim that they were not aware of the problem or dangers.