DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

Here, sid. Maybe this will simplify your task:

 

Well, I certainly can't point anyone to a site that I am certain contain underage children being exploited. I can say I am concerned that a search for "lolita" (a term we all know is used to describe kiddie porn) has 12 results in DMOZ.

http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=lolitas&cat=Adult

It seems most of those sites are legit since they appear to be US sites. Some of the foreign ones, who knows. I would especially be concerned about the second listing for Lolitas Bangkok, a whore house in Bangkok. The name would suggest they have some young girls there, but the site does not discuss age at all so who can be sure without actually visiting this establishment.

I would also like to say, despite some of the ranting and flaming that took place in this thread, I think we have all done some good by shedding light on this subject and putting DMOZ editors on a higher alert for such sites.

 

Let's have a face to the problem.

This is the face of a model listed on DMOZ without 2257 declaration. Which one of you can with certainty tell use how old this girl is? 14,15,16,17, 18 or older?

DMOZ refusal to remove the sites that breaks the law is helping those people who use minors in production of porn.

 

We can't find any sites that we know are exploiting children either. Also, I don't think it's fair to say everyone or even all editors know that the term "lolita" is used to describe kiddie porn. I didn't, I learned that very recently in this thread. Maybe it would be more productive to focus on that rather than making noise about 2257.

Agreed!

 

See now I'm getting a bit lost with the whole thing. So if someone could just clarify for me.

Yes, sites should absolutely comply with the law, but it's just US law you're talking about isn't it ? And saying that Dmoz because of it's US ownership should come under these laws for listing sites such as the Lolita ones ? Am I ok so far ?

This however would mean that only US hosted sites would ever be listed as obviously sites hosted elsewhere wouldn't come under this law and would be technically 'illegal' and not eligible for inclusion.

Is this what you'd like to see Gworld et al ? US only hosted sites with the relevant certification ? Like I said I'm finding these last few pages hard to fathom as to what you actually would like to see happen, US law applied across the board in the Adult section ?

I've been honest in that personally I'd prefer the removal of the whole Adult section but since it's still there... Some of those girls in the site given as an example do look very young , but then they're supposed to which only confounds and confuses matters.

Anyway, is that what we're discussing here ? Sites obeying US law ? Or is there a push for the removal of these categories also on the basis that some of the models in question 'could' be underage ? It all seems to be going round in circles to me also.

Thanks.

 

Then what on earth is the point of him posting all the crap he keeps posting in these threads?

You're right - I don't have access to DMOZ forums. What I see here from sid is pigheaded opposition to change. If that doesn't accurately represent actual intent or feelings or goals, then what kind of stupid adolescent game is he playing bhere?

 

I think the problem with 2257 is that it makes too simple to check. If a site is breaking the law and doesn't have 2257 then don't list it.

Now let's have a typical DMOZ discussion about "Lolita" guideline:

editor 1) Lolita means young girls, may be we should not list it.

editor 2) what do you mean by young? Young means 18 in USA but in Mongolia 18 is already old.

editors 3) May be we should not concentrate on age and instead think about how far she has opened her legs in the picture and if it is waxed or not.

editor 4) I agree with number 2 that young is a matter of definition and I don't like the girls who wax their private part as mentioned by editor 3

Let's make a guideline about Lolita:

DMOZ should not list sites that have young girls but young is a matter of definition in different countries and cultures, therefor while generally we do not list sites with young girls, sometime editor should be able to list sites with young girls. You can also look in the FAQ section of this guideline if the girls are waxed or not and DMOZ position on how much they have opened their legs.

 

Hmmm! With so many editors tripping all over themselves at Resourceless Zone to inform posters how wrong their perceptions of the ODP are, I wonder just how many will be tripping over themselves to set this poster straight? I would guess that they will be tripping all over themselves to ignore this one instead.

What a rude awakening this one will have some day. Post #17, paragraph #6.

http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?p=215438#post215438

 

No Shygirl what this means is that Dmoz is owned and operated by a US corporation. Being a Us corp you are govern by US law. Us law states that no one under the age of 18 is allowed to be exposed to porn, photo or otherwise.

If I am a US corporation and I have an internet site that is promoting something illegal in the US but legal in Europe, I am breaking the law and because I am a US corp I can be shut down and imprisoned. If I am doing something legal in the US and Illegal in Europe on the internet, I am breaking the Law in Europe but because I am a US corporation, Europe authorities in most cases cant touch me.

This all boils down to Dmoz being owned and operated by a US corporation. Therefore Dmoz MUST abide by US law.

 

Yes. DMOZ is an American corporation and bind by American laws as far as the definition of legality is concerned.

If you look, you will notice that all serious sites that are active in porn market have 2257 declaration since they understand the international nature of Internet. This is independent of were the owner is registered or server is located. The sites that do not have 2257 declaration are the ones who are not serious and more likely to use minors in porn production.
Yes, I like that US law is applied for all listings in adult section.

I also prefer the removal of whole adult section but this is not going to happen as admins have already stated. Too much money involved.
Since we do not have that option, I do not think it is too much to ask that we should respect DMOZ own guideline and only list sites that are legal according to US law.

 

Well, I can't really speak for sid's intent, but if you look at his earliest postings here you'll see that he wasn't like that at all but kept getting flamed. From there it seems he responded in kind and has been playing a sort of monkey-see/monkey-do game. Regardless of the game playing, sid's a good guy and he really knows what he's talking about. Eventually, Adult will be improved and we'll have sid to thank for it.

If you stop flaming him and just talk to him I think you'll be surprised at how much you agree and at the progress you'll make in your discussions with him.

 

I'm gonna have to agree with Annie on this one. Regardless of how or what siddy posts here, I know for a fact he has a long history of fighting against the problems in the Adult section. He has no sites to list, he has no underlying agenda, and he is not for anything that poses a threat to kids. He just happens to get a kick out of Adult porn, but not Kiddie porn. Big deal, he has that right!

 

I've made it clear that in other threads here on DP, I am only here for entertainment purposes. I'll answer a serious question if one comes up, but that doesn't happen very often.

However, on the topic of child pornography I am dead serious and not here to joke around, play games, or to exploit the topic to promote my own agenda, as the dmoz hating trolls are doing.

It's quite clear that gworld is now trying to twist two seperate topics into one so that he can further cover his lies (this is the third switch for him in a couple of days).

He's now combining child pornography and 2257 laws in an attempt to say that it is illegal to view a site that doesn't have 2257 info. As his own post pointed out, this is not true. 2257 laws apply to webmasters. Not to viewers and therefor not to the ODP. The legal arguement is idiotic and pointless and you'll notice that not even minstrel is backing gworld up on it. He's smart enough to see that gworld is way off base.

However, the moral arguement is neither idiotic or pointless, and minstrel is correct that this is where we should be focusing (if only gworld would STFU about 2257 for a while).

Whether or not a site has 2257 info or not or is hosted in the US or not is not an issue to surfers or to the ODP. The issue is child pornography. Child pornography is an important issue for surfers, the ODP, and most human beings.

The only site that seems to be spurring this renewed interest is a site that, although cleary stating that it does not have underage models, has the word "lolita" in the title. The word "lolita" is banned from descriptions in Adult (as can be seen by the search results posted here - "lolita" only brings up sites with lolita in the URL or the title). That does appear to be a bit of a double standard. If it's not acceptable in descriptions, then why are we listing sites that have it in the title? I don't have an answer for that, but I will raise the issue internally. This has nothing to do with child pornography as the sites are in no way claiming to have child pornography on them, but the ODP obviously recognizes a problem with the term "lolita" and perhaps should be applying the ban on the word more liberally.

As for child pornography, I will state again (and as many times as is needed):

I personally am strongly opposed to child pornography anywhere in the world, on the internet, and especially in the ODP. Dmoz has never listed child pornography and if a child pornography site is listed, then either an editor was not following the guidelines when they listed it or the site changed its content after it was listed. If you find a child pornography site listed in the ODP then please report it immediately so that it can be removed from the ODP and reported to the authorities. This is not a game. If you know of a site then it needs to be dealt with promptly - not used as some sort of leverage in a battle against the ODP.

 

Don't kid yourself Sid, you are here to defend the money making scams in DMOZ.

Are you against pedophile listings? Yes.

would you like to improve the quality of listings in DMOZ? Yes.

Are you against anything that even hints at stopping money making ventures by adult editors? A BIG YYYYEEEESSSS.

It is enough to mention any subject that stops the money making parts for adult editors and your temperature goes through the roof.

It is very funny, almost like waving a red cloth in front of a raging bull and watch him charge.

 

Show me the proof.

BTW, good job once again completely ignoring the topic being discussed (child pornography and the ODP - remember?) and completely ignoring everything that other people post. It's quite obvious that you are here for one purpose - to troll. Please stop diverting attention from serious topics just so that you can get your jollies, it's sickening.

 

Every one of your posts in this forum about any post that makes it in any way difficult to list affiliate web sites in DMOZ.

Read this thread and show me anyone else that agrees with you and thinks we should ignore the welfare of minors and legality of sites and do as you suggest. It seems everyone agrees that this is a right step in stopping child porn, except you.

 

No matter how many times you repeate that, it won't make it true.

PLEASE stop using this thread to troll - there are plenty of other threads that are about topics not nearly as serious as child pornography that you can troll in. It's disgusting to watch you divert attention away from something so important so that you can satisfy your urges to troll. The goal of this thread is to determine if there is child pornography in the ODP and if there is, to get it removed. What kind of sick person would try to take attention away from that goal so that they can play a game? Answer: gworld.

 

Sorry gworld, not everyone. I agree with minstrel and sid on this topic and I'd like to see the games stop, at least in this thread.

 

It is clear that united states justice department thinks that implementing 2257 regulation that forces the porn producers to provide a valid ID for all models in porn industry is a right step in stopping child porn, as it is on the official government web site.

But may be I am wrong and the laws and regulation don't matter and make no difference since we have sidjf and a Meta who tells us we should ignore the laws and forget about it since it is not important in the fight against child porn

 

I suppose it is part of DMOZ culture to agree with both side of argument since they disagree.

Can you tell us how do you define child porn? I am really confused what do you think it is.