Dmoz (aka AOL) Changing Guidelines In Sketchy Way 157
The Cunctator writes: "The Open Directory Project Guidelines (also known as dmoz.org, purchased by Netscape and then AOL) have recently (10/18/2000) been changed, in a few dangerous ways. The two things of interest are:
The newly censorious Illegal Sites description ('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.') which would eliminate such categories as Culture Jamming (a category I edit) and Suicide and Hacking; And the new copyright notice, which now gives Netscape (aka AOL) full copyright, which before remained in the editors' hands." DMoz has pissed off a lot of editors in the past for screwing with their content, but so far not enough to actually hurt themselves.
I am a former Meta-Editor (Score:2)
Sigh (Score:2)
--
Big brother (Score:1)
Re:Why should you promote suicide? (Score:1)
Ummm... (Score:1)
----------------------------
Editor's viewpoint (Score:4)
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]
--
Re:Why should you promote suicide? (Score:4)
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.
--
What did you expect? (Score:2)
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
Re:Why should you promote suicide? (Score:1)
Hiding guides on efficient ways to do it doesn't stop jack shit.
Quit bitching & do something. (Score:1)
It would be possible (not
easy, the code for the ODP is closed source) to start a new volunteer
project based on these logs.
-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)
Re:Why should you promote suicide? (Score:1)
Richy C. [beebware.com]
--
Copyright changes (Score:1)
Can you change a copyright agreement after the fact when under the original agreement you where not the holder of the copyright? I'm pretty sure you shouldn't be able to do this without the consent of the original copyright holder. From my reading of these agreements the original version gave dmoz the right to do pretty much anything with the information except stopping you from using it, whereas the new version is claiming to transfer the rights completely to them.
I suspect their reasoning behind this is to reduce the difficulty of challenging someone who copies their data but it seems to raise more problems than it fixes.
Re:Why should you promote suicide? (Score:1)
The vasy majority of suicides do not "really, truly" want to die; they are temporarily overcome by the wish to die. Whether this justifies censoring information, otoh, is another matter.
They need to be protected from themselves (Score:1)
So what should the punishment be? Death?
It is obvious that people who want to kill themselves have some kind of mental problem, and need to be protected from themselves until they can move on with their lives in a positive way. Remember, it's for their own good!
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.
Or you could take the hard, but moral, route and act for his own good. He's obviously not capable of acting in his own best interests, why else do you think we have pleas of "diminished responsibility". Sometimes people just aren't themselves and do things they wouldn't normally do.
But if all it takes is a quick search on the net to find out how to do it quickly, then he's going to go ahead and do it before you can help him. A life tragically lost, and the people who wrote that said are complicit in a murder.
Re:Quit bitching & do something. (Score:2)
Netscape know that any major fowlups on their part will result in them being shot in the foot.
Richy C. [beebware.com]
--
Re:I am a former Meta-Editor (Score:1)
When did you come out of retirement?
Re:Why should you promote suicide? (Score:1)
It seems to me that to take this list down would be denying many people of a useful source of information on all aspects of suicide. It's not just (even) a how-to.
Besides, censorship is censorship. You can't have just the freedom to talk about things you agree with. It's freedom of speech or no freedom of speech. No middle ground.
--
01 13 19
TVDJC TDSLR AZNGT NWQSH KPN
Re:Copyright changes (Score:1)
Netscape will have the non-exclusive right to use and modify this material.
You are not giving Netscape the full copyright, and Netscape is not restricting usage - in fact, they encourage it - see the licence file [dmoz.org] regarding the data.
Richy C. [beebware.com]
--
PC Directory (Score:5)
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 :-)
Re:Editor's viewpoint (Score:1)
Hmm...
If "you grant them the right to use the data but you still have full rights to do what you want with it" then you do have the copyright! Else you wouldn't have had to grant them anything.
So much for Shakespeare (Score:4)
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.
I think this is a good thing... (Score:2)
Well, specifically I think the illegal sites bit is a good thing. I edited Computers/Software for a while (someone took exception to my editing it, and removed me a while back), and remember several pages offering warez CDs. I deleted these sites, going on my own judgement that they were inappropriate (not to mention submitted about 20 times each), but I appreciate having backing from the guidelines now.
IMHO, I think people should complaining more about the law, and what is considered illegal, rather than DMoz's attempt to protect themselves.
I just wish they'd ban Spam software sites too (which tended to go mysteriously missing when I was editing, but AFAIK there is still a category of the damn things).
Re:Illegal Content on ODP (Score:2)
The real problem that they have is: where do they draw the line? I think Child Porn is almost universally illegal and is justfied in being removed, but other categories are a little fuzzier, especially the Warez and Drugs site index, because Warez sites have some software (mostly No-CD patches) that are useful to people that own the game legally. Many Drug sites could also be useful to people simply for educational purposes.
For all practical purposes, though, they are just making the illegal content harder to find in their index rather than stripping the index of all illegal content. People will just think of new jargon to categorize the illegal content under and the struggle to remove illegal content will continue.
Well, there goes Slashdot (Score:1)
Internet Epilepsy (Score:5)
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
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.)
---
Re:Why should you promote suicide? (Score:1)
Your assumptions:
suicide is wrong
suicide is serious
any discussion of wrong things should be banned
Therefore:
it's not OK to talk about serious subjects.
[I don't have time to fix up the logic so it actually works, feel free to do so.]
Lets talk about Barney instead!
Sorry, ducking the issue helps no one.
I don't advocate suicide or even helping someone. I don't even like euthanasia. I must, however, say that such a site discussing any of these should exist from a freedom perspective, otherwise it'd be too easy to shut things down from any politically correct standpoint. If Netscape/AOL doesn't want it, get a real ISP that gives you net space.
Re:So much for Shakespeare (Score:1)
Who's promoting suicide? (Score:2)
1. You're assuming that giving information about suicide is the same as promotion. This is clearly false. I've read the alt.suicide FAQ - it's actually quite fascinating. It didn't make me want to kill myself. (Listening to right-wing politicians, however, has made me contemplate murder. Maybe we should censor them?)
2. Censorship is bad. It goes against our rights to free speech and free thought. Now there may be situations where the harm from certain kinds of free speech outweighs the harm of censorship, but unless you can show that this is such a case (with solid evidance, not just conjecture) you shouldn't even think about suppressing the material.
Re:Why should you promote suicide? (Score:2)
Interesting, but hardly a scandal (Score:4)
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.
gave up on dmoz (Score:2)
Dammit (Score:1)
hardcode (aka zarquon)
Re:What did you expect? (Score:2)
In recent internal ODP forum posts, editors have raised the question about their own COUNTRY suing them due to strict regimes in the country. ODP is just trying to help their editors and their downstream users in whichever ways it can.
Richy C. [beebware.com]
--
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
Normally, it is VERY fast, and hopefully will be again very shortly.
Richy C. [beebware.com]
--
Re:I think this is a good thing... (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:Why should you promote suicide? (Score:1)
What are you going to do ban "Suicide is Painless"
Or every MASH episode that uses the song. Or what about the DOA song "No more Suicides" are you going ban referenecs to Shakespere, Or Hari-Kari, Or "The Far Pavilions"
I have had several friends who chose that option, I do not agree with Suicide. But that is between themselves & whatever is on the other side of death.
Suicide (and death) is a fact of life, If you do not discus it, and are not aware of it, how the FUCK are you going to deal with it when it is the choice of those around you.
Re:gave up on dmoz (Score:1)
ODP is human-edited, and therefore the site's got to be viewable by humans.
If you send me the URL by 'editor feedback [dmoz.org]' (when the server comes back up), with the details, I'll personally look into the matter and get back to you.
There is no secret, it's just that there may have been something on your site that an editor couldn't see, or your server was down or
Richy C. [beebware.com]
--
Re:gave up on dmoz (Score:1)
hardcode
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:I am a former Meta-Editor (Score:4)
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:
And do it now!)
Re:Nonsense, you can prevent a death (Score:1)
This is the sort of attitude that's too prevalent in western society...*why* is committing suicide always wrong? *Why* is it better to live a life when you're in so much pain you wish you were dead? And I'm not talking about angsty teenage girls making passive attempts by overdosing on weak sedatives...
The fact is none of you can answer those questions, so you avoid them entirely by invalidating those feelings as always temporary and somehow not real. It's a copout and it stinks.
Re:I think this is a good thing... (Score:1)
IIRC - Reverse Engineering in the UK is illegal.
Richy C. [beebware.com]
--
Irony? (Score:1)
DMOZ has other problems too (Score:1)
Distributed Content Directory (Score:1)
Re:Nonsense, you can prevent a death (Score:1)
Re:Why should you promote suicide? (Score:1)
You're missing the point. This is how censorship works. "I think that free speech is good, but you shouldn't say..."
If people are only allowed to say things that the public accepts, then the First Amendment is totally pointless. Non-controversial things don't NEED protection. Yes, I understand that this is a business, and I acknowledge that they can refuse to link to whatever they want. But in the process they're lessening themselves drastically.
And as far as suicide sites go, for what? Can you picture this scenario? "My life sucks. That's it, I'm going to end it all. But, erm, how can I do it? Better load up dmoz. Dum dee doo... damn! There's not a single link on here. Oh, I give up. I guess I'll live after all."
Neither can I.
Re: (Score:1)
Assisted suicide is not murder (Score:1)
----------
Re:Moral relativism is dangerous ground (Score:1)
This smacks of religion, and is not an answer by any stretch of the imagination. Your personal opinions and beliefs are NOT a valid argument, much as it would make things incredibly easy for you if they were. Try again.
I don't advocate or promote suicide. I wouldn't even consider happily sending a suicidal family member of friend to their self-inflicted grave. Don't read so much between my lines. I was attacking the attitude that people's feelings don't count if they're telling them to do something considered wrong. Inflammatory and ridiculous comments involving me pushing people off tower blocks do nothing except make you look foolish.
Re:I am a former Meta-Editor (Score:1)
But, more importantly, what is illegal about a link? It is the site providing the illegal content that is at fault, not the linker.
Put it this way: if you ask me: 'Where can I get some warez copies of Windows?', and I say 'from the guy in the school car park', I haven't done anything illegal. Nor indeed have you by talking to that guy (reading the web page). It is only by buying ilegal software that an offense is committed.
Re:Why should you promote suicide? (Score:2)
The article and previous posts said nothing about removing tall buildings, bridges, razors, pills, carbon monoxide in cars, etc. to prevent people from killing themselves. Also, it is within our rights in most countries to describe methods for doing such a thing. In the U.S. we have things thing called the Bill of Rights, and within that, there is the First Amendment that basically tells us we can say whatever we want (the only limitations I am aware of are in dealing with public safety, e.g. not screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, and libel.)
Also, what makes you so sure of yourself that suicide is bad? Yes, it is against Judeo-Christian values, as well as a lot of other religions and cultures. However, there are sometimes valid reasons to kill yourself. What about someone who is dying of a painful brain tumor? What if someone simply doesn't want to live, has no hope, and doesn't want any help? It is not your right to tell someone how to live, and it should not be up to you to infringe on their right to die. If you are worried about "protecting" people, find someone who wants your help rather than those who simply want left alone.
Also, according to you, a lot of people that commit suicide are only temporarily in that depression and really want help. Going with that, wouldn't it be a lot easier for a kid to read a discussion group that has other people that feel like they do on it? Maybe their intent is to end their life, but when they find out they are not alone things seem better...or...if it is a website only about methods of killing yourself, the child's parents will look through the history in the web browser or sees the page on the monitor (a responsible parent that doesn't rely on worthless censorware) will know that something is wrong in their kid's life and try to find a way to help.
In any case, I don't think this stuff should be censored, and I think you may agree with me about that, I think the suicide thing should be viewed from another perspective.
Reverse Engineering is not illegal (Score:1)
The law disagrees with you [jenkins-ip.com]
Re:Ummm... (Score:1)
All I had was someones AOL setup. Finding the files took around 10 times as long as usual, and then actually downloading them was even more horrible, not telling me where it had downloaded these files.
Probably the most painful experience I've ever had with a modem, and that includes pulling files down with kermit over a 2400 baud link (ouch!).
Re:I think this is a good thing... (Score:1)
So foreigners are subjected to California law ? I think it sucks.
What would be needed is a distributed directory, so the warez part could be maintained outside of america. Corporation would give access to a map on the directory that would avoid the litigious parts, which will still be accessible by other means.
Cheers,
--fred
Re:So much for Shakespeare (Score:2)
It's textual instead of visual and so (I'll bet) would most certainly escape the "censorious" claws of the corporate hawks.
It's also a telling example -- and this is veering way, way off topic -- about how specific forms of "content" (in this case "visual" content as opposed to "textual" content) have been privileged above other forms of content.
True, in America this might be considered "child porn" -- but the canonized status of "Shakespeare" (and all that falls under category "Shakespeare") would probably pass a "censorware" test, whereas the noncanonized category of "Anonymous Photograph of Child Porn in a dark room with splotched colors" would certainly *fail* said censorware test. Even though in theory the photograph could *visually* represent the same "event" that the text is textually representing.
This is not to defend child porn -- not by a long shot -- but just to emphasize (in my mind, if no one else's) the ability for one media to be so drastically different and privileged than another form of media even though -- in theory -- each bit of media could be *representing* the same thing.
Kinda make you wonder who sat up one day, wiped the sleep from his (or her) eyes, and made the rules: textual stuff okay, visual stuff bad.
I've always thought it's the fault of those fucking American puritans. They pretty much ruined it for the rest of us. Work hard, do good, go to church, and live in spartan surroundings.
Wankers.
Re:Why should you promote suicide? (Score:2)
Thank you for your universalist viewpoint.
In some cultures, suicide is (or has been) a respectable way to go. Are your parochial views binding on such cultures?
Free speech is not an easy issue (Score:3)
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.
Re:Interesting, but hardly a scandal (Score:1)
Cheers,
--fred
In the examples are the exceptions... (Score:3)
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"...
Re:So much for Shakespeare (Score:1)
Come on!
Sabotage, then a Distributed Content Directory (Score:2)
I have to admit that I was one of the first volunteer editors when the DMZ project started. I edited the "Anarchism" categories until I decided that my time was better spent fleshing out my popular anarchism website. I spent several hours using DMOZ's excellent web-based software to add hundreds of links.
The first thing category editors should do is to start deleting the content they have added to the site. It's your intellectual work, so you can do whatever you want with it. If I still had access to the directories I was responsible for several years ago, I'd be in their right now deleting all of my work. It's pretty arrogant for a corporation to claim that it owns the work I did for what was once a volunteer-run project. Corporate arrogance is no surprise--thank god people are finally starting to fight back.
A few mollies through the windows of Steve Case's mansion might put him on notice. Ultimately, we'd be better of organizing AOL workers into a union and kicking Case and management out of there.
In the meantime, the idea of a collectively-run, decentralized disributed content directory is one worth pursuing. Several years ago, some fellow digtial anarchists and myself started the Freesearch project, which we envisioned as a distributed search engine which would have included a directory modelled on DMOZ. Our impetus for considering a distributed search engine project was worrisome news that the major search engines might start weighting searches towards paying clients. The search engines are one of the few things that ensure democracy on the Internet.
Needless to say, our project stagnated, mainly because we were working on other projects.
Then Napster and Freesearch came along and I had to laugh, because once again I had been involved in a project that was thinking ahead, but didnt' come to fruition. I'm glad that Napster developed critical mass and Freesearch is moving ahead.
If anybody is serious about creating a open source, public domain, distributed content directory, they should get together with the librarians who are working on similar projects. They can bring to the project their knowledge about metadata and DOIs (digital object identifiers). It's a real shame that librarians didn't develop Yahoo! in the first place, but know isn't the time to discuss what might have been. There is a group of librarians working on open source library software. They call themselves "oss4lib," but I don't have their URL handy.
DMOZ is dead. Let's create something that is truly free of corporate control.
Here's a great example... (Score:3)
Re:I am a former Meta-Editor (Score:2)
The guidelines were only changed 5 days ago - but, admittedly, some action regarding the Warez section was taken. It was taken because several editors were complaining about it being listed, it is linking to illegal content and Netscape's legal department informed ODP that they couldn't be sure what position ODP is in.
Therefore ODP took the only sensible cause of action under the circumstances - pull the content out of the directory (actually, I believe it's been temporarly moved to a 'hidden' area) while discussions in the internal editor forums decide what should be done.
Richy C. [beebware.com]
--
Re:Moral relativism is dangerous ground (Score:1)
Great argument. Sadly you have no proof, being motivated only by religious texts which are open to many and varied interpretations. Doesn't free will enter into it somewhere?
There is no real argument against suicide. You can tell people life isn't all bad, that it's a beautiful world, etc, but you cannot use logic in these situations: people seldom follow logic at the best of times, and in the grips of despair and/or mental illness, scarcely ever.
Also there are many cases in our society where suicide or near-suicide are held to be virtuous. What about the soldier who throws himself on top of a grenade, or the martyr who goes to his/her death rather than utter a meaningless repudiation of his/her faith? Other religions, notably Islam, have even stronger notions of virtuous death, leading to suicide bombers and jihads.
Not to mention the central place of suicide in literature: Romeo And Juliet, Tristan And Isolde, The Sorrows Of Young Werther, much of the Romantic tradition. I suppose you would like to ban any presentation of suicide as a glamorous or romantic thing to do.
Of course, we should stop people committing suicide whereever possible, but don't tell me suicide is wrong based on the convictions of a religion based on someone who voluntarily died on a cross.
There are also legitimate reasons for information on suicide to be available, e.g. to help us spot people likely to commit suicide and remove items they could use.
Re:Illegal Content on ODP (Score:2)
What is needed if we are to have a truly human-built web directory, with categorization and true open-ness is a decentralized set of servers with a standard format (or at least a consistent underlying XML)-- either a script on the server which builds query-specific results, or serves a static file with ALL of that particular server's listings, such that a client or web page can be built to query those servers at the discretion of the user. The capability to provide smaller listings as a static file also makes it possible to store some listings on "free" servers and/or opens up the possibility for those users who have static web service as part of their ISP package, but do not have access to or skill in producing CGI pages.
By keeping each server or listing file topical (and perhaps organized using some existing external system like Dewey Decimal--which works just as well for web directories as for library materials, plus the decimal categorization allows the files to be very specific or very broad based on how many decimal places the catalog number is specified to), the client can keep a record of servers which have certain topics and query only those servers. This keeps query time down, allows for redundant category listings (i.e. if I don't like your information about drugs or Scientology I am free to make my own, and others are free to decide that one set of links is superior by excluding the other set from their server listing-- or to decide that they want to use both), it decentralizes control over content, it puts power in the hands of users (parents can make sure that offensive categories or servers are not available), but also allows anyone to provide content if they choose, it also decentralizes computing (which means that no one is dependent on some corporation to maintain the large server that does all the work).
I realize this proposal does not take into account the ability to do a comprehensive keyword search easily or quickly. Although it would certainly be possible to do quick keyword searches within categories, and it would be possible, but slow, to do broader keyword searches-- it just wouldn't be robust like google or altavista, but then it would be more likely to return useful results, too. Certainly this has some of the same sorts of problems that you have with Gnutella or Napster (possible bottlenecks, how to find directory servers and get them into your client, deliberately or accidentally malformed listings, etc etc). However, I think that with a little effort most of these problems can be overcome in ways that the existing services can't or don't work on preventing. The biggest problem is where to get and how to propagate a list of the listing servers. Just some thoughts... and I seem to recall reading about a project or two that are already working on this.
Re:I am a former Meta-Editor (Score:1)
This site is so cool. Everyone can be happy.
It's probably prevented a few suicides in its time.
Re:Not religion, ethics (Score:1)
Only that I'm in the same low group as people that would push another person off a building. What's the difference, you troll?
it's the guns, I'm afraid (Score:1)
And the number of "attempted suicides" who are walking around today leading happy lives, who would very much have regretted not being able to lead those lives, is as good ajustification as you need for making suicide as difficult as possible. Yes, even if that does mean giving up the utterly (provably) fictitious "protection" of a privately owned handgun.
Illegal, or just tortious? (Score:4)
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.
Re:Easy tiger (Score:1)
And of the part about our lives not being ours to take? Please explain. I'm really failing to see how that isn't a religious/faith viewpoint. I suspect you're lying about not meaning it in a religious context.
I said that wasn't aimed at you in particular.
Not, it was aimed at "people like me", which effectively the same thing, since you're saying I would do something just as bad. Are you now taking that back?
Re:In the examples are the exceptions... (Score:2)
Re:Distributed Content Directory (Score:1)
Having an human editor component would be pretty useful actually, the main problem I could think of with it b4 was that people would spam it.
Possibly having a non-edited & || edited summary/keywords (because some sites wouldn't get edited I guess, just too many out there, but it would still be useful to have somethingas they would still be able to be found by drilling down through the heirarchy). Also if it was tied to DNS then it should be fairly complete (except IP & dyndns etc), not just the 30% 'known web'.
Ho hum.
Re:Belief != religion (Score:1)
Morality is indeed relative to cultural values. For example, suicide is neither condemned nor promoted by Buddhism. Instead what is important is frame of mind at the moment of death. Suicide committed in fear, anger or grief is frowned upon, but only because they aspire to a state of calm, level-headedness, and peace. Several suicides are glorified in their texts, due to the subjects reasons and the state of mind in which is was committed.
Mirror of new and Old Guidelines (Score:3)
Since the DMOZ server has been flakey today.
Re:So much for Shakespeare (Score:1)
FOAD.
Well, you're obviously smart enough to tell the difference between English literature and kiddie porn -- you gave this outrageous example. Don't you think anyone else is capable as well?
Anyone? Yes. Everyone? No. Do a web search on "Romeo Juliet banned books"; I recommend Google. The guidelines here say "child pornography", with absolutely no information on what qualifies as such. Note also that "Romeo and Juliet" contains a double suicide, thus falling even further in violation of these guidelines.
But if I even question that the guidelines might be too vague, and I get dimwits like you libelling me.
I leave you with the following
web site [mcmaster.ca] to read. You can skip to the 1990s.
Re:Illegal Content on ODP (Score:4)
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.
Re:Maybe you need to reconsider your beliefs (Score:1)
Seeing as you're now talking bollocks and aren't even willing to take responsibility for claims you made only a few minutes ago, I think it's time I left you to your delusions.
Re:Distributed Content Directory (Score:1)
It ain't about kiddie porn folks. (Score:1)
Can you people not see how precious the freedoms we enjoy are?
Re:Editor's viewpoint (Score:1)
I agree with beebware that this will be resolved internally. The Open Directory Project prides itself on being a complete directory - I'm confident that useful listings (such as those about suicide, etc.) won't be lost when illegal sites are removed.
Remember, it's "sites with unlawful content" we're looking at here - unlawful content. As far as I know (and I am not a lawyer), it's perfectly legal to talk about suicide - actually committing suicide is illegal, but you can talk about it all you like. Sites containing child pornography are illegal because the pornography itself is what's illegal. (Of course, this is the way I see it - it's up to the lawyers to decide what actually happens. And I'll keep editing after they do.)
And an important note on the subject of this article: Dmoz is not "aka AOL" at all. It is owned by AOL/Time-Warner, but it's a separate project. Remember that ICQ has also been owned by AOL since June 8, 1998 [icq.com], and even Mozilla - related to Netscape - belongs to AOL. Just because a project is owned by AOL doesn't mean it's "aka AOL" - you got that part all wrong.
Self-censorship (Score:2)
The power of editorial control or (as in this case) the power of gatekeeper to somebody else's content is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Now watch AOL/TimeWarner being bought by Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp - there you'll feel the full flavor of corporate diversity tagged to the lowest common denominator!
I don't buy all this bull about AOL/TimeWarner "protecting their corporate ass." If they cannot afford a little lawsuit over some links (hey - even 2600.com can!), then why don't they just shut down their (yuck! shudder!) "investigative journalism programs" and stop crapping into the brains of the gullible public!
Re:it's the guns, I'm afraid (Score:1)
Is AOL making Law? (Score:4)
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...
general dmoz stuff (Score:3)
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.
Re:gave up on dmoz (Score:1)
--
Robin Green
ODP editor "greenrd"
Peer to Peer web searches? (Score:1)
Sound interesting?
Crime and punishment (Score:2)
So what should the punishment be? Death?
Only for successful reincidents.
__
Re:Why should you promote suicide? (Score:2)
That may be true, but it's the same of any crime against the state and legal order.
You have to understand the historical significance of laws against suicide: you cannot kill yourself, because you are your king's subject, and you are not allowed to kill any of the king's subjects. We live in a world where individuals are given (and correctly given) greater autonomy to determine the destiny of their own bodies, but are you sure we want to take that last step and give them the right to destroy their bodies?
Sure, you start dying as soon as you're born, so you're just postponing the inevitable by not committing suicide now. But at the same time, by committing suicide now, you're just showing your own impatience with that same natural biological and, again, inevitable process.
Hiding guides on efficient ways to do it doesn't stop jack shit.
Most suicides fail the first time (or second, or third). Each failure is another opportunity to get the person into counseling and convince her or him that it's in her or his best interest (and society's best interest) for her or him not to commit suicide.
sigh. Why can't it be sincere? (Score:3)
"As a Slashdot discussion grows more controversial, the probability of an allegation of 'troll' approaches one." (Anne Marie's First Law of Slashdot)
Re:So much for Shakespeare (Score:2)
By that, I think you could Throw Shakespeare in Jail for Romeo and Juliete -- but you'd have to dig his bones up, first. Personally, I think that it'd just be easier to shut down the Stratford Festival.
If we took the time to do some research, I think we could get The Bible banned on the similar grounds.
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø!
Don't give up (Score:3)
There are some things you can do to get listed in the ODP.
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.
Re:Free speech is not an easy issue (Score:3)
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. 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!
Re:it's the guns, I'm afraid (Score:2)
I have a lot I would like to say to refuse you, but I would save that for email [mailto] or an article that actually has something to do with the gun control subject.
Re:Free speech is not an easy issue (Score:2)
So if something 'scares children' it should be illegal? Call off Halloween.
How
America is headed to becoming one of the most oppressive states in the world... no DeCSS linking, no fair-use rights, no nudity/swearing on public TV (WTF is that?), no suicide forums, no warez forums, public nudity is almost uniformly illegal, no drug forums, consumption of social/soft drugs is illegal, prostitution is illegal, broad censorship in public libraries/schools (via censorware), no bottom-less exotic dancers (in some states), no swearing in front of children (in some states), Napsters legal troubles (they are only providing information - and are not violating any copyrights), no sodomy (in some states), no oral-sex (in some states), violent videogames are outlawed (in some city (cities?)... land of the free is laughable...
Re:Illegal Content on ODP (Score:3)
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.
--
Re:Illegal Content on ODP (Score:2)
Thanx for this post. I thought for quite a while before posting, a got my gf to read it and edit it, and still felt I had to put a shitload of disclaimers in it, before I was brave enough to post it non-anonymously.
Whilst I agree with most of your points, the point I will concede to anti-kiddie-porn censors is that to *some* degree, having available depictions of child porn scenes (with adults or anime or whatever) legitimizes in some ways that this is acceptable entertainment, or that the idea of having watching sex with children is entertaining/erotic etc. I am still unsure just exactly how I feel about this, or where you draw the line, but it is difficult.
Re:Illegal Content on ODP (Score:2)
Salon did a feature on this [salon.com].
Re:sigh. Why can't it be sincere? (Score:2)
Good form for persuasive writing demands that the writer explicitly NOT use modifiers such as, "in my opinion". It is better to assume the reader is intelligent enough to separate fact from opinion.
This notion that we are all weak-minded dummies easily duped by the latest advertising or rhetorical technique is harmful. If we continue to act as though we are all intellectually weak, eventually it will become true.
Furthermore, your attack is hypocritical. Had he said, "Censorship is always a bad idea," I doubt you would have considered it a troll. Such a statement, however, is at least as broad and all-encompassing as, "censorship is not this great evil."
Nevertheless, you insist that one point of view be prefaced with "IMHO" or "may". In effect, you are demanding the poster use weasel-words and weaken his argument in order to escape your self-imposed judgement of "Troll".
If you believe the opening sentence of this post makes it automatically "Flamebait", then you have already succumbed to the notion that the unenlightened masses are incapable of critical thought. I shall amend the sentence to not offend your delicate sensibilities:
Then, in my humble opinion, you are an idiot.
There. Is that better?
Actually.. (Score:2)
I just didn't want to be seen as overly politically correct.