DMOZ Top Listed DOmains

Matthew

It is very interesting that you are not an editor but you just join in and make 2 posting that are defending DMOZ and you are so familiar with DMOZ that you quote DMOZ TOS in your posting.
You are also telling every one that they should not complain about DMOZ and WON'T CHANGE A DAMN THING AT DMOZ. May I ask then why do you post in this thread and what is your interest, after all there are so many other threads and subjects in this forum.
I believe you when you say that you are not an editor as much as I believe that pigs fly.

DMOZ- Authoritative Directory for Rape and Torture Porn Sites.

 

One might well ask why you continue to post all these inane ramblings against DMOZ. SInce you know we don't care about anything you say - it's truly pointless for you to keep posting.

Now if any of you would actually have the guts to point out these so called child porn sites, I think we wuld care, and they would get removed. But I see no sign that it has happened. Is that because you want DMOZ to keep on listing child porn - or is it because you made up the whole story?

 

I don't think it is pointless, otherwise all DMOZ editors such as yourself, Alucard, jimnoble, sarahk,.... wouldn't be jumping up and down to stop it but if it really bothers you so much, I suggest that you don't read this thread or my postings.

I regard to child porn, read my previous postings that DMOZ editors porn sites does not have a 2257 declaration and it is considered illegal and child porn by American law. I also put a specific question that without 2257 declaration how the editors can determine if a girls is 16,17 or 18 just by looking at a picture but none of you like to answer that question.

Can it be that the same editors that find rape and torture a turn on think also that 15,16 and 17 years old girls are fair game too?

This is not even a question about porn is good or bad but how can DMOZ list sites that engage in illegal activities.


DMOZ- Authoritative Directory for Rape and Torture Porn Sites.

 

Just for the record, gworld, I am not trying to stop you posting whatever you feel necessary to post to these forums. That is your choice, and I would defend your right to do that, no matter how much or little I personally think of the content of what you post.

You have your own axe to grind, and, by reading the history of your postings to this forum, people can judge for themselves what you are attempting to do, and your prospective chances of success. When I respond, it is usually to try to show that there may be another side to these accusations, even if they are summarily dismissed out-of-hand as "standard ODP editor BS".

 

I have nothing against discussing this matter with you or any other DMOZ editor, if they are serious but most of editors define discussion as directly quoting DMOZ TOS or repeating the same in different words and that is what I refer to as standard ODP editor BS.

Let's keep discussion to subject and please answer the following question without repeating the saga about "volunteers" and DMOZ TOS:

1- With absence of 2257, how do editors determine a site is not a child porn site (15-16-17 is still a child porn), do editors have a magic eye that can tell a girls exact age by just looking at a picture?



Can you tell me the exact age of this girl?

2- The sites without 2257 are breaking US law, why is so important to list sites that are illegal, where is the great benefit to all internet users to list illegal sites, if they are looking for porn, there are many porn sites which obey by the law?

3- Why a site that is dedicated to rape and torture deserves 126 listing but other serious sites or even porn sites that obey by the law do not deserve 1 listing?

DMOZ- Authoritative Directory for Rape and Torture Porn Sites.

 

I think you just broke the law by posting a porn picture in this forum without the so called 2257 document. Even if you did not, personally I find it offensive and inappropriate.

 

OK, sorry to do this, but I will quote some more standard ODP procedure.

Like Google, we are not the Internet Police. We have no skills or ability to ascertain the potential illegality of a site. Some sites are quite obviously illegal on first glance, and those do not get listed.

For anything where it is not clear whether a site is legal or not, we suggest that the owner of the site be reported to authorities for having illegal content on the site. The site is then taken down, and the ODP will remove the listing (hopefully in a semi-timely manner). We have seen this in many cases of copyright infringement, fraud, libel, etc. There have also been some specific cases where lawyers have been in touch with the ODP's lawyers and as a consequence large groups of sites got removed.

An ODP listing is neither an endorsement of the site, nor a statement as to its legality. Nor is it any reflection on what an individual editor may think of the topic. I know that I have listed sites espousing opinions with which I strongly disagree - it's not for me to judge.

As to impending or recent new pornography laws, it is not something that I take any interest in, nor do I wish to. From doing some looking around, though, there has been a lot of internal editor discussion about dealing with these sites.

 

Great point, gworld!

I think the picture you have there now is okay, as it does not show nudity.
It's also worth noting also there are no clear warnings that you are about to view adult content from the DMOZ categories.

I think what is becoming increasingly evident is the ODP is getting infiltrated more and more by business interests that many would consider to be on the gray side of ethical such as porn (and don't forget gambling, cigarettes and pharm). It's one thing to list a few reputable sources of information, but that is not what we are seeing at all. It's really pathetic.

 

This is typical of DMOZ editors that they think they are so great but don't know what they are taking about.

2257 requirement states that it is only required if a person is shown in sexual act or genital part of the body is shown. I have cut the picture for this purpose in order to make it legal.

I think it is really interesting that an editor like you who volunteers for an organization that benefits from worst kind of porn, finds a picture that doesn't show anything offensive and inappropriate.

May I suggest you stick to selling DMOZ information and leave the serious discussions to others.

DMOZ- Authoritative Directory for Rape and Torture Porn Sites.

 

So if I understand what you are saying, you feel that it is every ODP editor's right and responsibility to make sure that the ODP doesn't list anything that is personally offensive or inappropriate. Am I misunderstanding something here?

How many Google searches have some sort of Porn intent? Google benefits from that (probably the more-so because of the Google ads on the search result). Every employee of Google by inference benefits from that - and in their case they are definitely getting financial rewards - their wages). Which means by your logic that every Google employee who finds porn (or other potentially objectionable content) to be personally offensive should resign, otherwise they are implicitly endorsing it?

 

Alucard,

If you are serious about discussing this and you are not only postings to defend DMOZ, I have put 3 straight forward question in my previous posting that you can answer.

In regards to all your postings regarding Google is just a desperate attempt to confuse the issues. We are not discussing Google, we are discussing DMOZ and the 2 organization are also different with different published goals.

I am not going to repeat the difference, you can read it in my previous posting in this thread.

Why Google is different from DMOZ

DMOZ- Authoritative Directory for Rape and Torture Porn Sites.

 

To be perfectly honest, we are in fact discussing always also discussing Google, because if Google did not use ODP/DMOZ results then these DMOZ threads would not even exist.

So when DMOZ creates and allows Adult categories and has sites in them, so also does Google..

 

Oh one more thing gworld - with regard to

If you think I am, then you should make an abuse complaint against me and get me removed. or stop making up lies.

 

One description of a site in DMOZ is:
"Vintage porn loops and features now on video, of uncut rape and incest classics from the 70's."

And I also want to remind you of the original post where scores of unchecked porn sites are listed that feature images that are not 2257 compliant, meaning there may be images of under age persons.

And to keep things in perspective, let's not forget the many other sites with questionable mutiple listings. I'm going to be creating a DMOZ import for my www.phplinkdirectory.com script, and I will write a script that is even better at showing all the multiple listings. I might even be able to cross reference with server ip addresses. If anyone is interested in helping speed up the process, please don't hesitate to contact me.

 

Not a desperate attempt - merely suggesting that you do not judge the ODP by standards other than those you use for other internet resources. You guys seem to have a lot of respect and reverance for Google, so it seemed like an appropriate analogy.

Sorry you don't care for it, but that doesn't make it invalid.

 

Well, I agree and I disagree on that one, because Google is a coorperation while DMOZ has posted a Social Contract with the Web Community setting standards for itself that most online businesses have not.
Those are not standards we have set, but DMOZ has set for itself.

 

As for digging around and investigating listings of porn sites, I'm sorry, but I am not going to do that. You will have to find another editor who is willing to.

The general multiple listing question has been repeated and repeated. The concept of whether to know whether a site is illegal or not has been answered. The "injustice" of why a porn site gets more listings than that of a business has been answered.

Answers have been given. You aren't satisfied. Asking again and again won't get you a different answer. Oh, but like you said

If I felt it was a true discussion you wanted, then I would be serious about having one. As this thread stands and what I just quoted, I'm not.

Now, does anyone have anything different to say? Or shall we just repeat the same questions and allegations again to further underscore the point that is being made, here?

 

Most of the time, a porn site is a business, especially in the case of DMOZ listings. The problem with 2257 compliance has not been answered.

 

ST, where in the link you provided, does it make any comments which are relevant to this discussion - I am fairly familiar with the document, but, since you referenced it, made a point of reading through it again, in detail.

The only thing I could find was the idea of trying to "make the most comprehensive, user-friendly directory possible" - while I think the ODP is far from comprehensive (there are many thousands of sites out there which are not listed), I feel that it is more comprehensive than anything else out there.

Nowhere there does it say that editors should be held responsible collectively for every edit that is made, or wholeheartedly support every site listed. I know that if I had my druthers I would delist some pretty distateful sites, but that's not what the ODP is about - as they say "taste is a matter of taste".

Now, illegality is a different matter. We have been told by the ODP's lawyers on several occasions that we are not to get into any legal discussions and to refer anything along these lines to them. As I think I mentioned earlier, we have had instructions in the past from them to delist sites, etc.

What is quoted here is a US law. My understanding is that complying with it contravenes some European Privacy acts. I understand that other editors are staying up with what is happening, and making decisions about what should be done about this relatively new enforcement of the US law - my guess is that they are in touch with our lawyers. There may well be wholesale changes to the adult part of the directory as a consequence of this.

 

Im still waiting for a high level editor to investigate these sites all clearly owned by a category level editor - http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=179903&postcount=69. Jim Nobles response was "can see no sign of abuse", ok Jim whatever did you even take a look at the pages????