DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

mariush - Thank you for pointing out these further facts about the site! I haven't had a chance to look at anything other than the first page of the site because I am at work, but if someone else hasn't done so already, I will take a look at it when I get home.

 

lolitasex(.)com has been deleted and I placed the following note on the URL:

I don't think there is any way to prove conclusively that the site contains child pornography, but there is enough evidence to make it suspect and has been stated, we'd rather err on the side of caution.

 

In reply to: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=895197&postcount=25 (trying to keep this discussion in one thread so that it is easier to follow)

No, it's not all for nothing - just the pointless arguing about 2257 laws that don't apply to the sites in question. It is a waste of time that diverts attention from real issues.

The problem is 2 fold.

1) I'm sure that 99% or more of US porn sites are in full compliance (or at least appear to be) with 2257 laws. On top of that, 2257 laws don't apply to sites outside of the US. So using 2257 info as a means of judging whether a site has fishy content or not is not going to be a reliable method.

2) I don't think you're going to find any explict child pornography sites in the ODP (meaning the really sick shit - little kids). The only thing that you are going to find is sites with models that look young. The problem with this, from the approach you are taking, is that these sites are almost guaranteed to be legal. Why? Because what would be the point of using a 17 year old illegal model and risking going to jail when you could just use an 18 or 19 year old model that looks young and is completely legal? It just doesn't make sense.

The ODP already applies rules stricter than US laws when listing sites in Adult/Image_Galleries because, as has been stated, the laws are full of loopholes.

The key to reaching your goal is in trying to make the listing guidelines even more complete and more defined. That is how we will ensure that no child pornography sneaks its way into the ODP!

You think that some of the models in listed sites *look* too young? Well, that's very subjective. What might look young to a 60 year old editor will most likely look a lot different to a 19 year old editor. How do we put these concepts into guidelines that can be realistically used? That's an excellent topic for discussion and one that could lead to real improvements.

We have the same goal here LVH. We only disagree on the way to achieve the goal. Wouldn't it make more sense to work together instead of fighting?

 

It is interesting that until today, you, orlady and lmocr were defending the listing of this site and had no intention of deleting it. I just found this site in 2 minutes and posted as an example of questionable site that does not have the minimum requirement according to American law (2257 reg.) and there fore it is illegal.

Some how you and other editors had the time to find out that the server is located in Denmark and therefore American law does not apply and it is legal according to Danish law. Therefore it can be listed even if it uses child porn words and the girls look young.

At the same time that you had so much time to post and argue to keep this site, you did not have enough time to look at definition of age of consent in Danish law (sine you were defending this site based on legality in Denmark).
If you did a simple search in Google, you could find the Interpol site which states:

Age of consent for sexual activity

When a person is fifteen (15) years old s/he can consent to sexual intercourse.

http://www.interpol.int/Public/Children/SexualAbuse/NationalLaws/csaDenmark.asp

Therefore this site was openly was admitting that this girls are from 15 years old.

Would you like to explain, why you didn't have time to check the facts or simply delete the site because it was questionable but you had so much time to post and defend this listings and make fun of those who ere criticizing such listings.

I posted a question yesterday to you that isn't better to err on side of caution and don't list such sites but you were determined to list such sites but today after the connection of this site to child porn is exposed, you would like us to believe that DMOZ likes to err on side of caution and delete this site.

I think a better wording will be, we are exposed, let's err on the side of cover our ass.

 

The site was removed.

People seriously concerned about child pornography will be happy that it is gone.

Trolls will look for reasons to criticize the removal.

 

I am not criticizing the removal, I am criticizing you and other editors like you that make such listings possible with their BS excuses.

If I can find a child porn site in 2 minutes in DMOZ, how many others such sites do you think it exists?

Why do you fight even a minimal requirement according to the law for such listings, if your really wants us to believe your blah, blah after the exposure of this site?

Are you going to give us the same argument as yesterday about server being in another country, the next time we give you an example of questionable sites?

You must be kidding me, if the laws have loop holes then DMOZ guideline is comparable to black holes where any legal or moral arguments against such sites will disappear for ever.

 

Ther is a pattern throughout this thread that sites have been identified, they were discussed, and then many were removed.

Typically, it takes only a couple of minutes to use DMOZ to locate questionable sites.

It just seems like DMOZ errs on the side of exploitation, until more information is given. That is why this thread is so long. I can't imagine it going away any time soon.

I am not here to troll, but rather to help prevent these terrible sites that exploit young people, and help pedophiles better search for "lolitas" and "young teens".

 

I agree with that, and I see it as a positive thing.

Obviously it would be better if these sites were never listed at all - but some questionable sites have slipped through the cracks over the years. Now we are finding and getting rid of them.

I appreciate the help from people like dvduval that are here to help locate these sites.

 

Thanks for your comments. I know this thread is not a "fun" thread to see or participate in for DMOZ editors, but I do truly appreciate your efforts, and though we may still disagree, it is evident that "some" positive steps are taking place.

Maybe one day I might even be invited back to DMOZ!

A much less "shocking" issue, but equally problematic (imho) is the top listed sites in dmoz. Actually, this is one of the ways I located many of the sites in this thread in the first place.

In my opinion, looking through the top listed sites is a great way to locate eidtors that are stretching their priviledges a bit too far.
http://www.domaintools.com/internet-statistics/dmoz-listings.php?p=14

 

Cool info dvduval.

 

The solution is very simple, just go to all the sections in DMOZ adult that involves Lolita and teens and delete any site that does not provide at least a minimum documentation about models age. You have already said that you want to err on the side of caution, so why not? It is that simple.

Now you can start with all your excuses about why it can not be done and wait until the next site is exposed, so the editors can sweep it under the carpet fast.

 

This thread serves a purpose when it stays on topic but the noise and the circular arguments are such time wasters. I think most editors appreciate the good that comes out of this when we all keep focused on the goals.

If you really believe it's that simple then you should go do it. You keep acting like you aren't an editor and that you don't have just as much of a duty to do this as we do. Gworld, if you really care, do the work. You obviously have a better understanding of the topic than someone like me so it doesn't make sense that you hold me accountable while you point fingers and avoid accountability yourself.

 

That list will look a lot less impressive (at least as far as Adult is concerned) in the next few months.

This will not happen over night, but the wheels are in motion and I seriously expect that the number of listings in Adult/Image_Galleries will be reduced by around 50% when the clean up is complete. We plan on starting at the beginning of next month.

We will be concentrating on a number of factors, but relative to your post, one factor will be to list sites from a diverse set of domains.

Less listings x concentration on diverse domains = less listings per domain.

I'm sure there will be naysayers, but keep watching over the next few months and they will be proved wrong as you see large improvements happening.

 

This is what I posted in another thread in response to Sid regarding the delete of that site:

This is the reason I know that deleting couple of sites will not help in anyway. There is a need to implement a guideline that stops such listings but as long as the suppliers of excuses like Sid and lmocr will try to fight and drag on any discussion regarding the necessary changes, the senior editors will have all the excuse that they need to stop any change in guidelines which in turn guaranties the continuation of abuses.

I am trying to make a real change while some editors are just trying to sweep the most obvious problems under the carpet.

 

Hey, you're the one who said it was that simple...I was quoting you, but now you say it won't work. I agree that it won't work the way you said to do it, but if you want to try it be my guest. It's not something that I want to waste my time with.

You know real work is being done internally yet you tell these people otherwise. Why is that? I like you but I'm beginning to doubt your credibility when you say things that we both know are not true. These circular arguments are counterproductive and it's getting boring.

 

Are you really as much of an idiot as you pretend to be? I have never defended the listing of that site - I was correcting your ignorant application of the law - which was the only subject you wanted to discuss at the time.

Nice try with your attempt to rewrite history.

 

Thank you, sid.

See my comments to sid. If you choose to bicker about what is or is not illegal or where laws apply or do not apply, as you have been doing, you are every bit as much of the problem as those you attack or criticize. Get with the program or shut up.

 

An editor listed that lolita site against DMOZ guidelines - are they still an editor and if so have they been reported for abuse of editing privileges?

More information - well yes, there are very few people willing to re-review a site alleged to contain child porn so information should be as complete and specific as possible so an editor can get in and out as quickly as possible. Spurious legal arguments about 2257 quite likely distracted from the real reasons why the site had to be deleted. Not complying with 2257 would not be a reason for removing a Danish site - being considered child porn by other porn webmasters obviously is a lot clearer evidence.

I want to post a told you so. In December internally I did say that if DMOZ doesn't err on the side of caution it will accidentally list a child porn site. And that it was a risk not worth taking. I seem to recall my own approach to risk management and my criticism of DMOZ risk management being ridiculed. Given this discovery an apology would be nice. On the other hand, events since December, whilst painful for the Directory - uncovering pro-pedophile sites cannot be on any Admin's wishlist, and distracting from the proscribed priorities, appear to be resulting in moves in the right direction so I can take some comfort.

Clarifying, strengthening guidelines, making sure there are no ambiguities is the answer to the best way to ensure editors are clear on what they can list, what to assess during review, and, most importantly, what other editors can do to a listed site when uncovered. It will never stop an abusive editor listing an unlistable site or an editor being sloppy in reviewing a site - you can never entirely prevent that, though you can make sure they never do it again by removing their privileges - zero tolerance is sometimes a good thing.

It is in the interests of no-one, including any porn merchants within editor ranks, and certainly not people like sid, imocr, or any senior editors for sites appealing to pedophiles to be discovered within DMOZ. As such discoveries damage the very fabric of DMOZ and threaten its future more than any other issue that might arise. Answers must be found that are practical - easily understood and applied. There is work to do gworld - start or join in an internal forum discussion on the wording of revised and strengthened guidelines, bearing in mind that what you think is easily understood and applied does not necessarily correspond to what others think - persuade and convince. Don't insult, it rarely works as a mechanism for change as others have to pick through the trolling to find the real issues at the heart, and most people haven't got the patience so dismiss everything as pointless ranting. You want (other) editors to listen to what you are saying - it is a two-way street so why not try listening back even if you disagree with their conclusions.

 

Sorry sid, what minstrel said.

 

You were just arguing the law to keep those sites listed, the same way that you were arguing the law to keep pedophile sites listed in the beginning of this thread.
It is interesting that your "interpretation" of the laws will always keep the questionable sites listed in DMOZ until those are so exposed that DMOZ be forced to remove it. Of course then, you are all for removing it.