Welcome to real teens and more child porn

If you look at the famous image galleries in DMOZ, you will notice that in the 3rd place there is a site with name of Real Teens.

http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=traci+lords&all=no&cs=UTF-8&cat=Adult

If you click on this link (www*real-teens*com/home.html), you will notice the following text on the entrance page:

"Welcome to REAL TEENS! Are you sick and tired of all the so called 'teens' who are clearly in their twenties? You've come to the right place! We specialize in REAL TEENS, not the 20+ 'teens' you see on so many other sites.We are based in Holland, so we don't have to bother with repressive U.S. laws.
......................................
You want proof that we have real young girls, the kind that other websites don't dare to show? Well, here it is: we have TRACI LORDS HARDCORE!!! A full archive of 1740 pictures and 40 movies of this famous sex goddess."

Now lets look at torrents policy regarding linking to prohibited material:

"Traci Lords

During her stint in adult entertainment, all but 2 of her movies were made when she was underage. In an effort to keep confusion to a minimum, any media involving her will be deleted. Posting is a bannable offense because it's considered underage. "

Time needed to find another child porn site listed in DMOZ: less than 5 minutes.

 

And what about time taken to remove reported non-compliant listings?

 

I'm very glad to see that the site I have mentioned is of use not only for downloading porn or erotic content .

Anyways, I guess we'll see another 40-60 replies from DMOZ editors arguing the removal of that site..

 

You are right. DMOZ is very good at sweeping the problem under the carpet and then claiming the problem never existed.

 

I can't help, but think you were searching for that site for entertainment purposes. Also, ...less than 5 minutes, this torrents-site and the remarks there got posted several days ago. What took you so long to find it? I think it is embarrassing that you have to post it here.

The site is hosted in Houston, Tx., it does not contain a 2257-statement, there should be no problem deleting it right away.

 

I have no idea about what you mean with this but if you mean I posted this because it is embarrassing to DMOZ, you are right. DMOZ had a chance to take an active position regarding these type of sites after the last exposure, have they done anything? NO.

According to Meta, 2257-statement is not necessary. Therefore, I don't think you can use it as the reason for deleting the site.

 

Part of the "active position" is, changing guidelines, making it more and more difficult for dubious listings to slip through. This respective site was listed years ago, from what I see, an editor that is not an editor anymore. The cats need a cleanup, which will get done. My remark was aimed at you, as I see it, stirring the pot here, is becoming more and more embarrassing to you, damaging the last bit of credibility left when it comes to this cleanup.

There are also other valid reasons to get rid of it.

 

If it displays models under 18 it is deletable immediately under current rules.

 

Gworld, instead of dragging this out site by site with a diminishing return on shock value whilst allowing other sites to remain there until you want another embarrassment opportunity why don't you do a list of all of the sites you have found and publish the details here, without the URL so as not to give unwarranted publicity to it. Send the URLs by PM to orlady. You can have a massive shock and embarrassment effect, the sites get no unwarranted links or publicity, they don't stay listed a day longer than necessary, and you can test the ability of DMOZ to respond appropriately using PM to transmit the URLs. Otherwise you are playing to the crowd and leaving these sites listed until it suits your agenda. Lest anyone forgets, you are an editor, you are obviously willing to investigate these matters, you could apply for and get permissions to edit in these categories, and remove the sites yourself using existing DMOZ guidelines as justification. Isn't that what you expect other editors to do? Why aren't you doing it yourself?

 

That was blatant sniping and smearing. I expect better from you than that, vulcano.

If you want to follow that logic, how do you think the editor who listed that site was able to find it?

Why aren't you thanking gworld for posting the information and bringing to light the fact that sites like this still exist? He just made the cleanup job one site easier.

Allow me to answer that one: The main reason for doing it this way instead of your way (or the DMOZ way) is this way it's public - the DMOZ way it's hidden. The appalling situation in Adult has existed for years and nothing was done about it until DMOZ started becoming aware of widespread negative publicity. The child porn listings are just the beginning. There are other appalling categories that desperately need cleaning and nothing is going to happen there until there is a public outcry either. Hell, last time I looked lmocr was still defending pro-anorexia sites and this morning I find macdesign/bobrat defending a pro-suicide site.

 

Because as I have explained many many times before, the problem is not about deleting 1, 2 or 10 site. I am sure those sites will be deleted as fast as it is mentioned here. Nobody is disputing DMOZ ability to sweep the problems under the carpet but it does not solve anything. What do you expect me to do, check every new site that is added on daily basis? There is a need for a real guideline that makes it very difficult to list such sites and in case it is find out, deal with the editor and the site in a proper way. So far, DMOZ has been unwilling to take steps in that direction.

May be because there is nothing in new guideline that would have dealt with this site and this site would have stayed as listed as before. The cleanup job is more or less a window dressing which makes it more difficult to find deep links abuses and causes couple of extra dollar costs for webmasters, but nothing else will be changed.

 

If it is 100 sites, surely that will make an impact. Until you mention the sites involved they will almost certainly remain where they are and DMOZ has already been embarrassed by this - it can't get more embarrassed. Drip feeding it isn't having your desired result according to you. But you'll do things your way and the sites will be listed until it suits you to point them out. Or this major review they are starting ekes them out. If you can make that removal happen faster then I think you should.

Only hide the URLs.

 

Look again. The link gworld posted is NOT a live link. The live link is to the DMOZ category.

 

I wonder if this will get picked up by the popular press. I'm sure the Google angle will read well in the headlines

"Google supports child p0rn peddling site!"

 

Yes but he's put the (broken) URL below it. At the end of the day he'll do what his agenda dictates anyway. But I had to at least ask...

 

Is this lmocr talking? Why is that a problem? It's not a live link and he's posting the broken link to identify the site.

 

Yes the editor broke the link, and the offending site has been removed from the directory with no debate. Problem is, once the public servers catch up with the editor server and it's totally gone from dmoz, it will still be available here. I'm sure anyone who wants child porn will know how to fix that link, and I'm also sure they will be able to find this thread and will appreciate that the location of these sites are preserved here to be used as a nice rich resource.

Is that what we want?

 

My famous agenda again.

Here is the story:

Hugh Hefner (Playboy), I and Larry Flint (Hustler) were sitting in Hugh's mansion drinking and having some fun with playboy bunnies (I think it was miss December, Jan, Feb. and March) when Larry came up with this great idea that if we can force DMOZ to respect the laws and only list legal sites then we can close the American market to foreign competition that publishes illegal sites with under aged children. Hugh loved the idea but said that "free speech" fighters in DMOZ will fight any guideline that tries to enforce repressive U.S. laws about child pornography on DMOZ listing policies.

That is the reason I volunteered to post about the illegal sites in order to force DMOZ to respect the laws. What a terrible thing to do, to force DMOZ to have clear guideline against child porn and force editors to only list legal sites but what can I say, I have an agenda.

The biggest problem with DMOZ mentality is that if you see a problem then you are the problem.


Before any of editors try to cut and paste the above to make it sound like it is for real, I should mention that this is a parody on those postings that claim if someone wants to stop illegal listings, then that person must have evil agenda and be corrupt.

 

Annie, Annie, Annie. What is it with you and brizzie this morning?

There is no live link here. It was never a live link. The DMOZ link was live and it contained a live link to the offending site. You tell me that site has been deleted now. Good. I'm happy. It was deleted because gworld found and identified the link as problematic. I do not understand why you're complaining.

Or are you just buying the DMOZ party line that publicizing the mess that DMOZ created is just by definition a bad thing?

 

...you will notice, that the word "famous" even ended up in the first post of the respective thread "the famous image galleries". Next, just because we seem to be in a daily circus here, with some elephants, gorillas, pinguins and chimpanzees, it is only logic that the audience has to be welcomed to real... Minstrel or gworld, I am only complaining about the way that things are handled here, this is pure sensationalism, we already have http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=53712
so why was it necessary to start a new thread other than trying to heat up the whole thing again and again?