I need a dmoz editor's help, please

Difference


V7N, Umdum, Seven Seek - Not Evil

 

If you did your homework you would see where I currently stand on the "comprehensive" issue.

http://www.internet-marketing-blog.com/2006/05/10/comprehensive-vs-selective/

 

So selective it includes a site clearly described to appeal to pedophiles - "young girls masturbating and modelling nude" - who else other than pedophiles would be attracted by such a description.

So posting a 2257 notice means the models are not minors? How naive are you? According to the authorities responsible not one single 2257 notice has so far been checked. How about the DMOZ listings - in case you missed it I argued strongly for the removal of all porn sites in DMOZ described as "teen" because of the risks of such a policy. In fact my known stance on this is the complete removal of the DMOZ Adult branch, a view shared by many DMOZ editors. Same risks apply to any other directory.

If DMOZ is evil for listing teen porn sites then so is every other directory that does the same thing. The actual differerence with DMOZ is that the majority of DMOZ editors who want to remove such sites are powerless to do so whereas the owner of a small directory is directly responsible and has the power to make the change instantly. And the other difference is $79.

 

John, I have nothing against you or your directory, but a lot of those girls look too young. It's your directory and I wouldn't dream of telling you how to run it, but you might want to think about how trustworthy a 2257 statement is from someone marketing "young girls masturbating and modelling nude"

It seems like they're trying to appeal to the prurient interests of pedophiles while hiding behind a thin veil of being technically legal, assuming the 2257 is legitimate.

But, it's your call.

 

Why do you need to "assume" or question the "trustworthy" of a site that has the 2257 declaration while DMOZ is listing sites without it?

At least this people are trying to obey the law and if they are cheating then on top of everything else they will be charged with forged documents and fraud and looking at serious jail time. if you click on 2257 documention, you will see every producer is identified with their address and the girl they are associated with. They also have to send the picture of the girl with 2 piece of ID to the site owner.
Compare this to DMOZ editors site listings with private register of owner, server and owner in different countries and no 2257 declaration.

I do not want to get in to moral issues of porn and if it should be permitted or not since this a perfect excuse for "senior" editors to run the discussion to the ground and keep the listings but there should be no discussion if people should follow the law or not. The situation is clear, this directory has listed a LEGAL site while DMOZ hides behind big words and lists ILLEGAL sites.

 

We review every submission that comes through. No submissions get approved without actually viewing the site.

That site in particular seems to be a well known site, which is compliant with all laws. I personally do not find the girls to be inordinately young. There are some sites that intentionally portray of-age girls to be younger, but we do not list those.

Going over the site in question, I'd guess that most of the girls there are in the 19 to 23 age range.

...

 

Um, excuse me, I tend to date women who are younger than me by a decade or more. Early 20's and even an 18 year old now and then. 23 is "young" and it's entirely legal, and by no means does that make a person a pedophile.

 

Good to know. I only took a quick look. Like I said, it's your call.

This isn't about DMOZ, I personally find it hard to trust the legitimacy of any site like that. But that's just my opinion. If I had my way DMOZ wouldn't list any adult sites.

This isn't about John either. If he checked the site and is satisfied with the content then I'm going to trust that he made the right call for his site.

 

As the saying goes, don't believe everything you see. Porn websites today are more probably more into business of conning perverts then the law - lot less risky and much more profitable - you can do a lot with Photoshop these days:
http://homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/bikini/bikini1.html (not porn site)
http://www.imarc.net/blog/47/make_jessica_alba_hot_in_11_steps/ (not porn site)

Since my friend is photographer I have seen how simple it is to do this and this has become such wide spread phenomenon that unless you took photograph yourself there is a big chance that some editing work was done - even normal people want there photos to look as good as they possible can!

Creating child pornography this way is of course illegal:
http://digg.com/world_news/Man_Arrested_for_Photoshopping_Fake_Porn

 

I just had a lengthy discussion with the primary editor of v7n directory, and she called my attention to one girl in particular on that site, and it does appear that, although she may very well be of age, the site's portrayal of her appears to be designed to make her look younger and this is not something we want to have listed.

The site in question will be removed.

Thank you all for your input.

 

Ivan, thanks for the links. I learned something today.

John, thanks for checking out that site. I knew you wouldn't sell out your reputation for a mere $79. We all know that site content changes, so a directory owner shouldn't be judged solely on one listing in his directory, imho.

 

John's not the type to sell out his reputation at any price. Good on you, John, for rectifying the situation.

 

Thank you John for both taking the time to review the site again in depth and for removing it so quickly. It is best not to take risks with this type of material. I withdraw my earlier remarks.

 

Obviously other people have higher moral standard than DMOZ management, or are you still claiming that DMOZ management is just very stupid and list the illegal sites because it is part of their nature to list and support illegal sites.

 

Thanks John.

See it isn't difficult to take out a listing. I just don't know why it takes the DMOZ editors to do that before and at present.

When it happens, at the end of the day everyone says a polite Thank you.

 

Most of us know you already Annie. Personally, I want to see you go much higher in DMOZ.

Allah Akbath.

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to compostannie.

 

When it comes to these types of listing you have no arguments from me. As to the reasons it doesn't matter why, what matters is that it is wrong.

It is easier when there is only one person giving the orders. This is the big weakness of the DMOZ Admin system. This is a lesson on how things should be done.