DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

It is important for them to have as ambiguous guideline as possible, so they can list anything they want with a minimal amount of work. In achieving this result, if they need to deal with embarrassment of child porn sites being discovered, so be it.

The so called "new" guideline is a good example since it refuses to deal with the core problem and instead deals with technicalities is resulting that those sites that are listed in DMOZ already changing their web site so it confirms to it. It is interesting the porn webmasters know about the new guideline and how to get around it even before it is official.

The damage to DMOZ or even it's existence is not in their priority list, if it can not be a profit generating tool. You can try to give logical arguments and argue the points as much as you want but it is almost impossible to convince people to go against their personal interest.

 

Them, they. Who are these people exactly? Because I have had a couple of nasty spats with Adult editors and I don't recognise anyone specific in the above statement. And what power exactly do them, they, actually have. Given Adult editors are a minute percentage of editors and there is only one Adult meta editor? Do you have any evidence against any specific Adult editor that they support the listing of child pornography sites, against DMOZ guidelines. Or does implying this on DP simply serve whatever it is your objective actually is. Bearing in mind that disagreeing with your own approach of selectively quoting US law does not constitute support for listing child porn sites, only that others consider your basis flawed.

First thing is to define child pornography for DMOZ purposes. Bear in mind that in many countries the point at which children are considered fully capable of making sexual decisions is 16. In some countries it is 18. Even 21. Purchase of pornography is generally 18 even where the age of full consent is 15 or 16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Age_of_Consent.png

So start there. Suggestion: "DMOZ considers child pornography to be websites containing images of models under the age of 18, regardless of the laws applying in the country where the site is hosted. Editors will not list sites containing images of models under 18 even if legal where they are hosted. In addition the site must comply with all the laws applicable in the country of hosting."

Once you have a cast iron unambiguous definition you can start talking about how to validate a site. I started to do that then deleted it - I had only got to the end of the first sentence then realised it isn't as easy as it sounds to define something clearly and beyond misinterpretation.

 

Typical of editor suggested guideline, 1 paragraph, 3 sentences and 60-70 words wasted to state absolutely nothing. How are going to suggest to enforce this when they will fight anything that tries to enforce a minimal legal requirement? Are you going to try to find the name of each girl and call them and ask if they are 18? The editor that lists the site will certainly argue that the girl looks like 18, why should any one accept your opinion that she look like 16?

I think DMOZ has perfected the art of big guidelines that will state nothing and even worse some times they state 2 opposite views in the same sentence. This is the golden rule, always be on high moral horse while you are so ambiguous that no one can make you responsible or accountable for anything.

 

Exactly what I have been struggling with and what I alluded to when I saidto LVH:

If a website claims that all of their models are 18 (as almost all of them do), but we suspect otherwise, what can be done about it? Simply saying "She looks younger than 18 to me" is not a reliable measure of age by any stretch of the imagination.

When the cleanup starts next month we will be re-reviewing every site. I'm going to encourage people, especially in the Teens categories, to be sure to double check each site and make sure that at the very least they claim that their models are 18 or older. As lolitasex proved, stating that the models are "of the age of consent" or "of the legal age" does not verify that they are 18. This should already have been done when the site was listed - but content changes so it is always good to double check.

 

I guess those comments only apply to editors. It would help if those comments applied to all posters in this thread.

 

You know it doesn't work that way lmocr...

But minstrel does have a good point. We want gworld to stop spamming the thread and trolling about 2257 laws, but we are only validating his trolling and spamming by responding to it and arguing back. I don't expect him to stop if we ignore him, but if we quit responding, at least the thread will only have half as much spam in it and half as much attention diverting junk.

 

Deal - I won't respond to the troll in this thread. I will start a new thread if I just can't let an ignorant interpretation get away without comment.

Is that okay with you minstrel?

 

One caveat here: The 2257 and other legal issues are not "trolling". Please do remember that I have never said the issue has nothing to do with legality, but just that legality is only part of the issue.

I think brizzie has it right: Err on the side of caution. Ask yourself first is this illegal? and then is this likely to aid and abet or provide comfort to those who might abuse children and teens? and then is this in the grey area for any of those issues?

If you can answer "yes" or even "possibly" to any of those questions, do not list if it's a new site and delete if it's an existing site.

 

Would you like to explain what is it in respecting a federal law that scares you and lmocr so much?

I mean you must think that people are really naive and stupid to believe your BS that you would like a tougher regulation and that is the reason you want to ignore the law which at least tries to enforce a minimal requirement.

Of course 2257 regulation is "trolling" in Sid and Imocr mind. I mean get serious, who cares about the government, federal law and justice department if the great adult Meta has told them to ignore the law and it doesn't matter.

 

Why don't you actually read what other people say gworld. I said START with a definition. THEN you can talk about the guidelines to validate it. Which are not easy to define in such a way as to remove all ambiguity. Until you have an agreed definition of what you are trying to validate you can't work out the most appropriate way to actually validate it. - you know you claim editors are obstructive in these matters - your own attitude is as obstructive if not far greater. To be honest your statement is typical of what I might expect from some Adult editors eager not to nail things down properly as a way of preventing proper guidelines being applied. So can we assume that you are in fact one of those Adult editors or are you just plagarising?

My local Asda-Walmart has solved the problem, as have lots of pubs and bars, when it comes to alcohol purchases - 18 here. If the checkout girl thinks you look younger than *21* then you have to provide absolute proof you are 18 or over and if not then despite being of legal age you will not be served. They are making a risk assessment - you cannot always tell a 17 year old from an 18 year old and mistakes will be made. Mistakes may still occasionally be made when a 17 year old looks 22 but it is far less likely; that buffer zone ensures they err on the side of caution every time. In terms of the quote above - "but we suspect otherwise" - then do not list, end of story.

I think you have to nail this down definitively before you start re-reviewing sites. Going into a massive re-review without comprehensive guidelines and validation techniques is IMO a waste of time as the outcome is likely to be haphazard at best. Teens and Barely Legal sites are the ones that are the highest risk. You should be looking at absolute proof of age not relying on webmaster claims. How do you do that with a website? Not very easily other than by imposing an age buffer zone. You might also look at the host and the webmaster's other sites - do they have other sites that indicate they are into, or not bothered by, underage models. "Barely legal" as a term indicates a webmaster aiming so close to the line it is likely they wouldn't be bothered if they could get away with it and if they are hosted in a country that does not enforce porn laws then what are the chances they might be lazy when it comes to checking model ID's. What I am saying is that you need comprehensive guidelines on how to assess the credibility of any age claims on a site.

From http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html#include

Can you see which person or entity is responsible for it? Does it give enough information about the source for a user to judge its reliability? While we cannot assess the accuracy of every site we list, we can select sites which give verifiable information.

For example, the site of a trustworthy business or organization typically displays its official name and address, or includes industry-appropriate information about itself verifiable through a recognized third party. A trustworthy informational site typically gives its authorship and/or sources, as appropriate, and makes clear any commercial sponsorship. The information necessary to verify a site's trustworthiness will vary depending upon the topic and the category.

You are obliged under this change of guidelines to assess the trustworthiness of these sites you are going to re-review. That means the trustworthiness of claims to contain models of 18 years or more if that is what the definition is decided to be. That is not going to be a straight-forward task but it has to be done unless there is another band of Adult editors seeking to exempt themselves from another section of the guidelines!

 

The re-review that will be starting shortly in image galleries is based on a new guideline for the category. I don't think it would be a good idea to hold the major pruning that will be going on so that additional guidelines to deal with this issue can be discussed.

Hopefully, after the categories are leaner, there won't be any questionable sites left.

 

I hate to break it to you but this "definition" has already be DEFINED and even the enforcement method, backed by 5 years prison term has been already established. It is called surprisingly 2257 regulation.

Why not simply adopt a law which is there and can cause serious trouble for anybody forging it instead of months and months of non sense discussion and making a half ass guideline that can be "interpreted" in anyway that people want. Do you really think that people will be more scared to write the models are 18 years old and what DMOZ is going to them if they lie than falsifying a record that is required by government?

I forgot, the point is not to actually do anything, it is an opportunity to write big posts and discuss things.

 

For f***'s sake gworld... did you not get the bit about US regulations not applying to non-US websites. Loophole. This is about defining a common international standard for DMOZ editors and DMOZ listings wherever they are located and regardless of the applicability of any law of any country. If you noticed in the definition I suggested, in addition to a basic universal requirement you must add to it any legislation applicable in the hosting country. What I was suggesting goes beyond 2257 and removes any arguments as to where and to whom 2257 applies.

Crap. As you can see from this thread there are loads of different interpretations of the applicability of 2257. You start repeat start, with a definition that cannot be interpreted other than to mean do not list sites with models aged under 18. That is the statement of what is not to be listed, it is unambiguous and doesn't say appears to be under 18. Having agreed what the definition is then you move on to define guidelines on how to assess and validate that a particular site does not contain models under 18. Those are going to be troublesome to avoid misinterpretation.

A large proportion of the webmasters are not US citizens, have no US connections, don't have to abide by any US government regulations, don't have to keep records, are not in danger of being jailed by the US authorities, and care even less about DMOZ guidelines. So the guidelines that are implemented must take account of that. Declarations and statements as to the age of models are at best an indicator, a minor indicator, at worst useless. Validation must take other forms in addition to or instead of relying on such declarations.

And your answer is to rely on a statute with wildly varying views on applicability and with acknowledged loopholes you could drive a coach and horses through. What is your motivation for that gworld? Why don't you want DMOZ to go further and block those loopholes? Why do you want to exclude all non-US sites across the board because they don't follow US regulations? Why do you sound more and more like you've swallowed an Adult editor encyclopedia of obstructive techniques?

 

Nevertheless there is a new guideline on the table which should be applied in the re-reviews so it would be best to define its applicability in advance. Or you are letting sites back in that still breach guidelines.

 

Just wanted to continue to affirm that I am very pleased with your answers, and I hope that you will take the time to report back to us about some of the steps you begin taking next month. I wish DMOZ did not have a section devoted to pornography, but it is good that you are at least trying take a look at it now.

I have one question: Do you suppose that one of the inherant problems of the adult section is that adult editors were not receiving reviews of their work by non-adult editors?

Pornography often involves some really sick stuff that apparently is legal such as necrophilia and beastiality. I would expect that many non-adult editors would not be interested in reveiwing such categories for compliance (even less controversial categories).

Let me propose one idea:
Maybe DMOZ should consider running a completely different domain for adult sites. Wouldn't that solve a lot of problems?

 

How would that help? If it's still under the DMOZ name, what's the difference?

 

Other people have proposed that same theory. To be honest, I don't think it plays (or has played) a large part in anything. I've only been heavily involved in Adult for 12-18 months. The guidelines seem to have been fairly lax in Adult in past times and a lot of what I consider to be junk was added durring this time. The chronic problem in Adult is lack of manpower. I don't have any statistics to back this up, but IMO a lot less editors get accepted to Adult than in other areas of the directory because so many people want to abuse this area. A lot of past Adult editors have been removed as well. I feel that the problem with abusive editors in Adult is pretty well taken care of at this point as there are a lot of eyes internally that watch Adult editors. But we still don't have a lot of people to do the work. Add on to this the huge amounts of spam and junk submissions to Adult and it's nearly impossible to keep up. This means that (up until now) old crappy listings have stayed listed and lots of good new sites have never been gotten to. Hopefully with a concentrated effort on this clean up, we can get rid of all the old junk that has been floating around. This will have two effects: 1) Adult will look better and 2) there will be less to maintain.

This has been proposed as well (aalong with other similar suggestions). I agree with minstrel - I don't see how this would solve any problems. What problems do you think it could solve?

 

Sid once again this is simple and I do not wish to go into a long explination of it. IMHO as I understand the the statues pertaining to the 2257. Dmoz should be required to keep on file those documents.

So to resolve the issue of the age of the models, you apply US LAW and require those who submit to those categories to also upload the 2257. Maybe I am missing something but it doesnt seem to be more simple than that unless those who control that section dont have them or they are promoting child porn.

 

LVH, what brizzie has proposed is a far better and more consistently enforceable solution.

 

It would reduce the importance of the section, and it would also separate dmoz.com from the section. That way dmoz (the domain) could make an attempt to have a more "family-friendly" reputation, and all the porn could be placed elsewhere.