DMOZ Top Listed DOmains

I don't make up lies (contrary to DMOZ editors) and I know that you removed the link from your signature and I just now checked and you have removed the $25 price and asking users to email you for the price but it doesn't change the fact that you are selling submission reporting which DMOZ do not provide to users.

Here is the link to your site so people can judge by themselves :

Buy DMOZ submission report

Why should I file an abuser report, that is one of the biggest jokes on the Internet, plus I like editors that do these things, the more of you out there, the faster DMOZ collapses.
I don't understand why you complain either since I am just generating more business for you.

Alucard;

Since you mentioned AOL lawyers, do you mean that AOL lawyers have gone through this question and have approved that DMOZ should link to sites that are not 2257 compliant and break the US law?

The changes in 2257 are new, the original version has been around for a long time. Therefore, don't make excuse that it is new or DMOZ is concerned about privacy law. privacy concerns is only about in what level the information should be kept and not if the information should exist or not.



P.S. If it was you or another editor that gave me red rep, as I explained before it doesn't work because I just post that I got a red rep from DMOZ editor and people start giving me green reps and in the end I end up with higher points than I started with.

DMOZ- Authoritative Directory for Rape and Torture Porn Sites.

 

How is it going with cross referencing domains with IP addresses? I think this will be interesting since you will see different domains with different owners in different countries, for some strange reason are using the same server.

 

As usual gworld - you can't get your facts right - you twist reality to suit your incessant agenda. I am providing a service that monitors that status of DMOZ listings - that is the public listings that everyone on this whole planet has access to.

The information is provided by accessing the DMOZ RDF files that are also available to all - I do not provide any info whatsoever from internal editor logs.

I do not provide the status of a site that was never listed and is waiting for review - read the FAQ page.

 

You say that you are not concern with hunting down any of these type sites ( So others should do your job ) or the legalities of the listings, if I am understanding you correctly. Ignorance of the law is no defense. Just like the Nation Association of Realtors is going after DMOZ for improper use of their trademark but yet the editors claims of I didnt know are not flying now in relation to NAR.

If a site that is require by US law to have a 2257 disclosure on their site and they do not and you are promoting that site, which a listing in the DMOZ directory is promoting that type of iilegal content, you as DMOZ and the editors who are listing these sites are breaking US law. This also in turn causes anyone who visits these sites to be breaking the US law. As stated if this disclosure is not supplied by US law it constitutes these sites to be listed as child porn sites in the eyes of US law makers.

Turning a blind eye doesnt help your position with those that are already flaming DMOZ. I would also bet that if the press got a hold of this or the National Child Porn Prevention group. The public presure and press DMOZ would receive would be something that netscape/aol/google would not want to associate themselves with. This also could bring unwanted attention to DMOZ by law makers to tie up any loopholes that they preceive directories like yours of having in relation to iilegal porn.

You can shout you have no knowledge of the law and that you are only a volunteer but this is no defense to the law and the US federal statues DMOZ as a whole is violating.

 

Amazing... he can't even keep his own site updated... now I understand why the sites never get listed...

 

It wasnt a threat. I could have got part of the name wrong somewhere. As for inviting them in to this conversation I would love to, but I personally do not know anyone there, only that they exist.

To be honest this isnt really about them. This is about the turning of a blind eye to US law. I will be the first to admit that I have no love lose for DMOZ but with the statements that have been made here by some editors. I get the impression that what is legal and iilegal doesnt matter to them.

Editors have always stated that DMOZ was created for the general public to better serve their needs and inform. How does listing an iilegal site by US standards benefit the public or their interest?

When a venture such as DMOZ is taken on, you as a volunteer whether you like it or not are obligated to uphold certain standards and laws of other countries. Ignorance of the laws at least in the US is no defense to your actions. This is my understanding of some of the comments posted by a few of the DMOZ editors. They feel since they are not lawyers and only Volunteers they are not obligated to abide by these moral, ethical or legal opinions.

 

Let me hijack this thread right here: have you guys noticed that resource zone is complete dead ever since the submission checks stopped?

 

In all honesty: if I owned DMOZ, I would shut the place down and clean up all the things that need to be cleaned up before accepting ANY further submissions (and that is me saying it despite the fact that I have clients awaiting approval on listings).

Maybe all of these discussions are invalid because AOL and Google don't seem to care. But from a directory owner's point of view: if there is any desire to provide long term quality ... something needs to be and should be done.

 

Yes it is but the company that owns ODP is a US company and therefore is govern by US law. When laws of other countries conflict with US laws, the laws of the US supersedes that of another country when dealing with a US based company.

I would say that the resposibility falls on the editor. As an example if I hire someone to cut a tree down in my yard and that tree falls on my neighbors car. According to US tort law I can be held responsible as well. Even though I had nothing to do with the physical cutting of that tree, it belong to me and I was responsible for making sure that this company was qualified to perform their duties. Fair or not, this is the law.

In my opinion of what I understand of the US law. It is the responsibility of those that perform these actions which stands to violate the statues at question. Now if you are not a US citizen you can not be held personally responsible for prosecution unless you are extradited to the US, which is highly unlikely. Therefore the company that you volunteer or work for is responsible for those actions. However ignorance of the laws does not preclude you from those laws and the penalties associated with them.

 

But the problem really is that the company owning it won't take any responsibility and treats DMOZ like a red headed step child ... you know, like when you have some idiot friend following you to a party and you pretend not to know him when your cool friends are around

 

That maybe so and IMHO is smart of them to do and try and seperate themselves from DMOZ, but this will not avale them of the responsiblities their volunteers and to the public and US law makers.

 

by the way: I really respect Sarah and many who just play their part and don't have control over those issues. it's the geeks who started DMOZ and let things fall by the wayside such as Rich Skrenta who himself was caught in corruption. They set the pace for a system that was meant to fail. The issues need to be brought before AOL and/or Google to put an end to this once and for all.

 

I have to agree with you sitetutor but IMHO I believe that if AOL goes out on its own away from google results at that time DMOZ will be no more..or if public perception causes a hard look to be given to DMOZ aol/google will have no choice but to take the high road.

 

This guy was one of the founders and has been demoted due to being involved in corruption. That is where the problem is, not with editors who don't have control over any other categories than their own. We are now discussing the issue in Clasione's Court Forum The Law is clearly being violated.

 

As I have said before in this very thread, there is a team of editors who edit the Adult branch of the directory who are very carefully monitoring the situation. They have a legal team (the ODP lawyers) who are available to give them advice as to the legal ramifications of what is and isn't done in the directory.

Editors have been told not to enter into any discussions about legal matters concerning the ODP - we neither represent the directory in any official capacity, nor are qualified to make legal statements.

Adding a link to the official policy: http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html#illegal Please note especially the last paragraph.

And to those who don't just want to hear "official ODP BS", I'm sorry, but once the subject of legality is brought up, we are not at liberty to get into discussions. This is not specific to the ODP - this is common practice in business, as many of you are aware.

 

It is interesting that as a "public minded volunteer" you have to hide behind DMOZ legal team to justify your public interest volunteer work.

It is even more interesting that you don't want to state what is these lawyers position since even according to your link about illegal sites:

"Illegal Sites
Sites with unlawful content should not be listed in the directory, particularly those intent and substantially focused on making available and distributing illegal materials. Examples of content that is illegal in most jurisdictions include child pornography; material that infringes on intellectual property rights; material that advocates, solicits or abets illegal activity (such as fraud or violence) in specific instances; and material that is libelous. Factual and how-to information is generally NOT abetting illegal conduct unless its intent is to facilitate the immediate commission of a crime in a specific situation. "

The inclusion of web sites without 2257 declaration is against DMOZ stated policy.

Can it be that all your talk about Lawyers is just blowing smoke to protect editors and web sites engaged in illegal activities? Can it be that editors involved in corruption have such hold on DMOZ that they are the controlling party in DMOZ?