Slashdot

I'm a 'editall+catmv' at ODP (see my editor profile [dmoz.org]) and have been an editor practically since it started, and these guidelines are currently being discussed on the internal ODP editor forums.
The copyright, at no time, remained with the editor. If it did, then ex-editors could use court rulings to remove their listings. Netscape do own the copyright (and always have) - but with an 'non-exclusive licence', meaning you grant them the right to use the data but you still have full rights to do what you want with it.
The illegal sites section has been under planning for about 9 months now - and the mud has 'flown' over certain issues (mainly drugs [dmoz.org] and warez [dmoz.org], but some porn [dmoz.org]). What some editors fail to realise is the ODP could be sued, and Netscape lawyers are just trying to 'cover their backs'.
As far as I'm concerned, this, like many other issues, will be resolved over time in the internal forums - with assistance from Netscape lawyers where there are 'gray areas'.
Richy C. [beebware.com]
--

Suicide is wrong

So what should the punishment be? Death?

Suppose someone came to you and said he was going to kill himself by slashing his jugular with a broken W2K CD. You could either talk him out of it altogether, which will probably lead him to ignore you totally, or you could point out the relative painfulness of this method, and suggest he investigate alternatives.

There are very few well-planned suicides. One of the reasons for this is that the act of planning to kill yourself can be a sufficiently positive experience to pull you back from the brink.

--

If a directory cannot point you to material which advocates currently illegal activities, then it cannot help you engage in reasonable discussions about how laws should be changed.

Ah well... another forum bites the dust. Guess we'll have to take Thomas Jefferson's advice and build another directory, just a little farther out west :-)

Yeah, we can get rid of this "Romeo and Juliet" filth:
Act 1, Scene 2:
CAPULET
But saying o'er what I have said before:
My child is yet a stranger in the world;
She hath not seen the change of fourteen years,
Let two more summers wither in their pride,
Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride.
PARIS
Younger than she are happy mothers made.
--
Then in Act 3, Scene 5, Romeo and the 13 year old Juliet are in bed together.

From their About [dmoz.org] page, I find this line to be so misleading as to be a 1984ism:

The Open Directory is a self-regulating republic where experts can collect their recommendations, without including noise and misinformation.

Uhhhh, yeah. With this new change, it's self-regulating except where other people regulate it, or it regulates itself to avoid controversy. And experts can't collect their recommendations in certain categories because they're deemed inappropriate.

As someone pointed out, censorship is damage, and the Internet tries to route around it.

This has given me a new metaphor for it: censorship is a form of noise, which actively seeks to drown out content with silence, and tries to keep people from finding out things they would otherwise want to know.

Let's take a look at the sensitive issue of "suicide."

Blocking "suicide," for instance, keeps people from learning about ways people can kill themselves. It also keeps people from learning ways NOT to kill themselves. I once saw a Suicide FAQ that described the various means people have tried, and the circumstances under which the people were left as vegetables. If a successful suicide is painful, try an unsuccessful one.

Blocking that category also makes it harder for people to recognize suicidal impulses, or what to do to prevent suicide. They may be found under some other Mental Health category, but which I couldn't tell you because the server just bowed under the /. Effect.

A proper "suicide" section might also include information for people trying to recover from the suicides of others. That might also be under mental health, but "mental health" is rarely the first keyword that pops into your mind when you think "suicide," is it?

So they remove the knowledge. That won't stop people from trying it. It may keep a few from succeeding, but those people won't be any better off. And then the people they leave behind will wonder what to do about it...

...and they have the audacity to start the first chunk of the 'About' text with The Internet Brain. They view the Internet as a repository of knowledge, and then start selectively ignoring parts they don't like... I don't need to tell you what this reminds me of.

(It's not until they actively try to excise those parts they don't like that it becomes a form of lobotomy.)
---

It's important to realise that the US First Ammendment concerns only the US Government, not private corporations. Even private corporations that are arguably more relevent to real life than the US Government.

Secondly, censorship is not this great evil. Each and every one of us practices censorship every time we -don't- tell our respective bosses exactly what they can do with their latest batch of memos or policy decisions. Is that wrong? Ummm, I dunno about you, but I like being able to eat.

Sure, that's "self-censorship", rather than mandated from outside, but if a given set of thoughts are (in themselves) intelligent and what you'd probably do anyway, WHO THE HELL CARES?! Is life on this planet so miserable that we have to resort to the Not Invented Here Syndrome?

If society is grasping to the same straws that nearly destroyed companies like IBM and ICL, maybe there -should- be pages on suicide. NIHS is invariably fatal, usually slowly and often painfully.

This kind of reminds me of attitudes I've seen in America, with regards to the seatbelt laws. I've seen plenty of people who do not wear seatbelts. Not because they don't want to, not because they don't think they're a good idea, but because someone ELSE had the nerve to tell them they should.

If you do the opposite of what you would only do anyway, PURELY because someone else thinks it's a good idea, you are still letting those people control what you do. Resenting those people, then, is stupid and petty. But all too frequently observed.

I'm not going to tell anyone here to get a life, because you already have one. Just stop handing it over, reversed or otherwise.

It's also worth pointing out though that American laws only effect American businesses. The suggestion that something should be removed simply because it is illegal implies either that almost everything should be removed (because it's illegal somewhere) or that one set of laws should override all others, so America's crazy attitude to drugs should impact people in Holland, for instance.

On which note, there's also the gray line. Does a site giving information on illegal narcotics and their effects promote use of those narcotics?

And while I don't doubt the technical right of someone to refuse to provide information of a particular type, there's certainly a moral onus upon them to include as much information as possible if they're going to claim that something is a universal, open, directory. You could argue that technically they have the right to do anything, including sell your profile to other organizations, look for keywords and pass your names to government agencies if certain keywords come up, etc.

I find a bunch of things worrying about this proposal. I worry about the implications for global free speech if US or any other law is used as a filter to determine what goes in and out of a resource supposedly there to look for information. And I'm concerned that this directory is going to be promoted as something it isn't.
--

I posted this story more than a month ago.

I wrote [words to the effect]

AOL's legal department has forced editors to remove their content. The warez category has now been replaced by something called 'Software Piracy'. See here: http://direct ory .google.com/Top/Computers/Hacking/Software_Piracy/ [google.com] (this is the Google mirror, because Dmoz has been slashdotted).

You can see the old content here http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:directory.goo gle.com/Top/Computers/Hacking/War ez/ [google.com]

I wrote to one of the editors (all but one have since resigned), since there wasn't any explanation on the site, and here's what he said:

To: Anonymous Coward Tue 19/09/00 07:14

it's been decided by the legal dept of dmoz that we no longer provide links to sites giving out illegal material. so they have pretty much deleted all the warez sites. anyways i'm not involved anymore as i resigned from my position as warez editor.

[name removed]

Anyway, looks like AOL have censored the so-called 'Open' Directory out of existence.

Great.

So much for freedom on the net. It looks like we are left with AOL stifling diversity again, just like it did when it censored words like 'breast' in the past.

Basically corporations like AOL will control and censor the internet to suit its own interests, and there's nothing anyone can do. No 'free' organization could afford the infrastructure for a truly Open Directory, and so we end up with the 'Censored' directory.

Even if someone did setup a true Open Directory (please), because AOL controls all the content, and because affiliates will use the AOL version, it wouldn't get the profile it deserves, and so it wouldn't get the sites - DMOZ gets most of its visitors thanks to its use on sites like Google.

Anyway, I urge you all:

• resign from the AOL directory.
• retrieve the censored content from the google cache (do it like this: go to http://directory.google.com [google.com], navigate to the censored section, and then append that URL to http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:.

  And do it now!)

You really have to draw a line somewhere, otherwise I could put up a post stating:
"$10000 to the person who kills Rob Malda".

If someone kills Malda stating he wanted the reward, and the police arrests me, should I be able to plead "free speech, man.."

Should I be able to plead "free speech" for shouting "kill all white children" from the rooftops (I bet this would _really_ scare children walking the streets below).

While stating ways to kill yourself is perfectly legal (and IMHO ok), actually trying to push people to do it is not.

If anyone takes an agreement then he may find a "clause of exceptions". Usually it refers to situations that may void the agreement. It is practice to state strictly these exceptions or parties may get into court and get some Bad Weather there. This sort of "Examples of unlawful content" would probably be one of the reasons for Netscape to get wet in court. As these "examples" are too foggy to be understood. Frankly here it would be enough to send someone to court. As such rules should carry the term "According to the Laws of the Russian Federation..." (V sootvetstvii s Zakonodatelstvom Rossiskoi Federacii...). Without it you can't state that an activity is unlawful. It is not you who should decide it but the courts.

AOL/Netscape state examples. What can be behind? Reverse Engineering? On what bases? In Russia it is legal to do it under certain restrictions. Cracking? In Norway it seems that law can be only broken if someone does invades other's computer. Material that infringes any property right? On what base, under which law - UCITA, Millenium or Trepanarian acts? Or what the author believes is violation? Like Microsoft that even forbides to cite its user guide for nuns? Libelous? Under which base? The court decision or a phone call of the offended guy?

And what is beyond "Examples"? "Flame AOL!"?, "Anarchy"? "Communism"? "Cult of the Dead Cow"? "UFO's"? "Martian Anomalies"? In this last example I still remember that I was kicked out of Yahoo! just because I was too harsh to NASA's folks. This flagrant example of Internet censorship was never explained to me. However I know this was made just by a few E-mails or phone calls from some "scientific authority at Stanford University", who considered that even Malin's place deserved a place at "Entertainment->Paranormalia->Martian Anomalies". This casts some shadows on this possible move of dmoz. You write something that doesn't fit the general trend and you get the label "outlaw"...

That point always bugs me, that something is illegal for falacious reasons, and you can't get any dialog going to enlighten folks because of the self reinforcing myth. A great example is the tomato [jerseyside.com]. Once upon a time, quite intelligent folks beleived that tomato's were deadly poisonious! BION. It's not too hard to imagine our diligent politicritters out pandering to the unenlightened masses proposing even more stupid laws to protect our children from 'poisonous' plants and other fabricated issues to pump up the self esteem and importance of their otherwise useless existance, and further entangle us freedom loving citizens with yet another legal speciality. A democracy needs FACTS, not media control and manipulation. Idiots.

It's interesting that they use the term "unlawful content", and then include in that definition "material that infringes any intellectual property right," and "material that is libelous." Those two instances aren't illegal, but they are acts upon which an injured party can bring a civil suit.

This isn't about stopping crime, it's simply about keeping themselves as free of liability as they can. I guess it's a result of the lawsuit-crazy world we live in, that organizations are driven to these sorts of decisions.

New guidelines [actuality.co.uk] and Old guidelines [actuality.co.uk]

Since the DMOZ server has been flakey today.

This could provoke a shitstorm, but it has to be said:

Can we have an informed discussion about the evils (or otherwise as some may argue) of child porn without access to it?

First, to cover some objections:
1. Child porn (that we all can agree is porn, ie non consenting sex with children) continues to violate the victim.
In this case, I agree. However, it may be the case that some victims of this may (for the best of reasons) wish to have this available, perhaps for research, or to prove that it did in fact take place.
2. That it legitimizes or furthers the child porn industry
If the materials were being solicited or purchased then this is almost certainly true, however, apparently the material exists, and some people must therefore have access to them (police for instance).

But, there may well be *legitimate* reasons to wish to access 'child porn'.

The first is that it may well *not* be child porn and is being misrepresented. I know that a police investigator in Australia said that a lot of the stuff they find in pederasts houses is children's clothes catalogues and the like.

The second, related in some instances to the first is for the purposes of research, journalism, discussion and counseling.

Please Note:
I am not apologising for pederasts, paedophiles or child pornographers, I find the idea abhorrent and am glad that our society shares this view. I do not advocate sex with children or support anyone who does. I do not, and never have possessed any material remotely likely to be classified as 'child porn'.

My identity is well known (and easily discoverable), and I am posting this non-anonymously to make the point that you don't have to be some sleazoid hidden away on the net to have an interest in the *topic* of child porn and all that that entails.. I wish to make the point that censorship is censorship, and a lot of the apologists for censorship use porn, and particularly kiddie porn as the excuse to clamp down on freedom. Child porn existed before the net the material was shared thru various networks. Clamping down on discussion of this problem will not make it go away, and in fact will probably make the situation worse.

The point is that people engaging in the sex, soliciting it, purchasing it, or profiting from its exploitation are the criminals.

If someone has a site dedicated to the legitimate discussion of this issue, it may well have disturbing images to get its point across, or to facilitate proper discussion of the issue. I do not believe that this, is in the absence of the above criteria, makes the site or those pictures in that context, or links to the site, illegal or immoral.

Sorry for the long citations but I think this needs to be well remarked. Besides this is directly related to my previous post.

The newguidelines:
"Sites with unlawful content should not be listed in the directory. Examples of unlawful content include child pornography; material that infringes any intellectual property right; material that specifically advocates, solicits or abets illegal activity (such as fraud or violence); and material that is libelous.

Following these guidelines, editors should not use terms for subcategory names that would incorrectly suggest a category contains links to illegal content (e.g., Warez or Bootlegs). Similarly, ODP descriptions should not make reference to illegally obtained content (e.g., software or music), as such descriptions could incorrectly suggest an intent by an individual editor or the ODP to promote the distribution of such materials"

The old guidelines:
"Since US law governs the ODP, sites that infringe on US law should not be listed. Copyright infringement, certain kinds of pornography and death threats are illegal. The legality or illegality of a site is not based on the legality or illegality of the subject. When in doubt, just always remember - sites that clearly violate US laws or International law should not be listed."

Sincerly, a great move by AOL... :) US law stops governing ODP. Any law stops governing it. Now it is just unlawful/illegal. By who? The Supreme Court of Directors of AOL?

As a webmaster, I love dmoz. Dmoz is usually the easiest search engine to get to list you. After dmoz picks you up you are almost always covered by the other search engines quite quickly. Furthermore, because so many sites use dmoz's data, you suddenly have a couple hundred sites linking to you which shoots you up in the google rankings. Then because Yahoo now uses google rather than inktomi, you end up getting a lot of hits to your website just for a listing in dmoz.

Dmoz doesn't seem to work well when editors can't decide what category something should be in. My Ladder game [f2s.com] isn't listed. I've submitted it to several categories with no luck. The Java Games category points to web games and the editors there won't accept it because it doesn't run in a web page. Submitting it to other categories like arcade game specific titles, has recieved no response. Oh well.

I have also applied to be an editor several times. but have been rejected. What helps to become an editor? I usually use a different email address for every category I apply for. Would it help to use the same account for every category? It asks about experience in the field. What helps here and what hurts? It asks for URLs. I assume three good URLs will help your chances. If there are any editors out there that could comment on this, I'd sure appreciate it.

I get that a lot with my own comments, and it's hurtful. Are you so sure of your own righteousness that all opposing viewpoints must be trolls? You just illustrated Anne Marie's First Law of Slashdot:

"As a Slashdot discussion grows more controversial, the probability of an allegation of 'troll' approaches one." (Anne Marie's First Law of Slashdot)

Keep in mind that the editor of the Open Directory project are for the most part volunteers. If a site hasn't been added to a category, there may be a good reason (such as the ODP definition of SPAM... a little different from the rest of the computer world, which means somebody which is trying to get their site into about a hunderd categories or so. ODP guidelines suggest that a particular site only be listed once or twice, and that should only be the top-level of the web site as well unless it really does fit into multiple categories on lower levels. This is what the editors are supposed to do anyway).

There are some things you can do to get listed in the ODP.

1. Contact the editors of the category. If after a resonable length of time (about a week) you don't get a reply, contact the next higher level of editors. All editors of a higher-level category can take care of the lower levels, but usually try to leave that to the more specific category editors.
   
2. Be polite. Because they are volunteers, they don't have to put up with abuse, and if enough people are chastizing them, they may simply give up even editing a category.
   
3. Become an editor yourself. If it a rather obscure category, even if there are some other editors already listed, you will probabally get the category. This isn't always an option, but it can be quite rewarding. The people involved with ODP will be justifibly annoyed if you try to add your site and make it the cool site of the category, but they have ways of dealing with that as well. Adding your own site to the category isn't by itself against any guidelines.
   
   
   Adding to some the other search sites or indexes will justifibly be easier, simply because they are all totally automated. Keep in mind just what the Open Directory Project is about: Allowing people to edit what is cool and appropriate for a particular topic. I've seen some very impressive work in the ODP, and will still continue to support it in the future.

Quoth the poster:

You really have to draw a line somewhere, otherwise I could put up a post stating: "$10000 to the person who kills Rob Malda".
If someone kills Malda stating he wanted the reward, and the police arrests me, should I be able to plead "free speech, man.."
Should I be able to plead "free speech" for shouting "kill all white children" from the rooftops (I bet this would _really_ scare children walking the streets below).

Oh, come on people... This tired old argument is none other than the same old argument that the first amendment (free speech) is limited because "you can't yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre." This erroneous argument is usually bandied about as iron clad proof that there is a need for censorship. The truth is that the courts used this argument to censor someone who was passing out leaflets.

Truth is, you can yell from the rooftops all you want--that isn't hurting anybody. It's when you stop yelling and start acting on your words that you cross the line.

While stating ways to kill yourself is perfectly legal (and IMHO ok), actually trying to push people to do it is not.

Err, this and other arguments to justify censorship are pretty specious. Again, you can talk and say whatever you want, even try to convince people to see things from your point of view. It's when you act, when you actually deprive someone else of their rights that you are in the wrong.

-- Shamus

O, Brave New World, with such people in it!

The major problem with the Child Porn meme (I supposed you'd call it a memetic disorder) is that people are so terrified of saying anything against the negativity surrounding it because of fear of being branded a pedophile.

Is a mother taking nude pictures of her daughter (non-pornographic, but nude) child porn? Common sense says no, but I know of at least one case where a mother was approached by social services after being reported by the photo developing house (I hit google, but can't find a link for it -- anyone?).

Here's a better question - say a pair young kids (as in, 12-13 year old) decide to grab thier daddy's camera and document themselves having sex (and if you don't think that 12 and 13 year olds are sexually active, then I really don't know what to tell you). Is this porn? Not anymore than me taking a nude picture of my girlfriend is. Is it non-consentual? Hell no. Would anyone who was in possestion of those pictures get lynched? You betcha.

The internet crimes enforcement treaty discussed on slashdot a few days ago even made it a requirement of the treaty that it be illegal in signing countrys to allow production and consumption of pornographic images that even just *appear* to be child porn. I'm sure that there are several eurpoean porn actresses that, due to a genetic tendency, appear to be 15 or 16, when in reality they are in thier 20s (I'm not posting links, as last time I did, people freaked). Even worse, this could cover drawings and animations. In these cases, any child-porn based argument against it falls apart -- children aren't being victimised in it's production (whether women are victimised by simply participating in pornography is a debate best held elsewhere).

Question - is drawing a picture that would be considered child porn an offence? Should it be?

Is writing a story? In that case the ASSTR [asstr.org] is going to have a problem.

(In these situations, there are going to be people who still belive that these forms of child porn are harmful - in which case the main justification they can give is that "reading it may make one more likely to participate in Real child porn, or molest real children" or whatever, which of course is an isometric argument to "smoking pot paves the way for harder drugs", and just as bunk).

This whole subject bothers me because of the fucking literal insanity that comes over people when the subject is mentioned. It's like, otherwise rational, freedom loving people are willing to say "yeah, I belive in freedom of expression, execpt for stuff like Child Porn" just out of social fear. I don't know how many times I've seen that used as an excuse or justification for accepting arbitrary restrictions on freedom or increased police powers. It's disgusting and insulting.


--