Dear DMOZ/ Open Directory Project:
I notice that your search engine has categorized
The Jewish Tribal
Review as
"hate,"
and "antisemitism." Since you are part of the
Google.com search apparatus, whenever the
Jewish Tribal Review
location information comes up at this search engine, these defamatory
terms -- like toxic burrs -- define the site. Reviewing your explanation
of the DMOZ system, I find you
state
the following:
"You Can Make a Difference Like any community,
you get what you give. The Open Directory provides the opportunity for
everyone to contribute. Signing up is easy: choose a topic you know something
about and join. Editing categories is a snap. We have a comprehensive
set of tools for adding, deleting, and updating links in seconds. For
just a few minutes of your time you can help make the Web a better place,
and be recognized as an expert on your chosen topic. Join the Open Directory
Project Find a category that you would like to maintain. Follow the Become
an Editor link at the top of the category page. Note that some categories
do not have a Become an Editor link; you should find a more specific category
which interests you, and apply there."
In other words, the people who become "editors" at your organization
are merely "volunteers." You offer that any clown off the street
can suddenly become "recognized as an expert on your chosen topic."
There is apparantly no screening process of them. There is apparantly
no background check. There are apparently really no qualifications whatsoever,
except the willingness to do some work for free and assert a personal
opinion. Nor is there any presumption that those who play Dictator have
any sense of objectivity whatsoever in freezing web sites into iron-clad
categories. Obviously, those with an activist political agenda would be
the first in line to "categorize" (or, more correctly, pathologize)
sites that are a political threat to them. The more activist an individual
is, the more likely she or she would rush to offer their opinion about
websites.
Of course, those who would most wish to screen Jewish identity and history,
and the swirl of troubling issues surrounding racist Israel, from critical
inquiry would be quick to seize the authority to stigmatize web sites
as "hate" and "antisemitic." Hence, your self-proclaimed
"open" system isn't that at all; it's really a scam, veiled
in secretive shadows, and easy prey for the Judeo-centric Thought Police.
No names are associated with your category selection process. Nor, of
course, are any criteria posted whatsoever for "hate/antisemitism"
inclusion (What's "hate?" What's "antisemitism?" How
does one exactly qualify for such smears?)
In other words, the obvious reason the Jewish Tribal Review has been formally
rendered "hate" and "antisemitic" at your organization
is simply because it reflects someone's own political agenda about the
subject at hand. More than likely, this person is Jewish. Maybe Israeli.
Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon could have even been the "expert"
in the field of his "chosen topic": Jewish and Israeli issues.The
obvious criteria to become Resident Potentate in any given category at
your organization is that he/she is the
first
to seize the reins.
In the Jewish Tribal Review's case such a "volunteer" has deemed
our web site to be "hate" and "antisemitic." I'd like
to know who this anonymous person is. Is he/she Jewish? Is he/she Israeli?
What are his/her qualifications to make such a decision? How about a reasoned
public debate with him/her? Why is your decision-making process made in
secrecy? What is the exact criteria for placing web sites in in such defamatory
categories? What, exactly, is "hate?" What is "antisemitism?"
When, exactly, does legitimate criticism morph into either of these two
terms? There is no public intellectual and moral exchange about DMOZ decision-making?
Why not?
I note nothing at your site about an appeal process for those unjustly
accused of the slander of "hate" and "antisemitism."
In other words, it is simply by dictatorial authority that you (self-proclaimed
as "open") condemn that which your biased decision-makers ("volunteering"
ideologues) simply don't like.
In the spirit of your "open" organization, I hereby "volunteer"
to legislate your "HATE>LIAR/FRAUD category (if you don't have
one, why not start one?), and the first entry will, of course, be your
organization. How would this be any different than the "open"
process in which our web site has, in quite a parallel manner, been pathologized,
and libeled, by a noble "volunteer?" Yes, I will have a strong
opinion about your system as I categorize it. But, of course, so did your
biased "volunteer" who despises the Jewish Tribal Review and
dismisses its scholarly work with libel. I think it only fair that you
be subjected to your own "open" process.
It seems that your categorization system is quite like starting a rumor.
One person decides that our web site is "hate" and "antisemitism"
and voila! Innocent readers will invariably presume a competent analysis
and ethical foundation in your categorization process, and assume your
libels to be
facts. Yes, your system
of categories could be accurately called an "open" conduit.
But for maestros of
propaganda.
Here's what your critics proclaim from the othe side of the political
fence (of course we completely disagree with their assessment of where
your prejudice lies, but what's important is that they too recognize
the INTRINSIC BIAS in your categorization system):
Bias
at DMOZ,
Jewish Internet Association, October 21, 2002
"Recently, the webmaster of one of our associated websites brought
to our attention apparent bias in the DMOZ Open Directory Project owned
and operated by Netscape, a subsidiary of AOL Time Warner, Inc. In certain
categories of DMOZ, this bias is evident as a systematic minimization
of information critical of Arabs, Muslims and Islam while maximizing
antisemitic or anti-Israel material. Since DMOZ is widely used as a
source of directory information on the Internet -- including use by
market-share leaders such as Google and AOL -- this deeply embedded
bias cannot be tolerated or taken lightly. Note: Those of you who are
editors and writers for publications should consider a story on this
subject. DMOZ is very widely used on the Internet and this discovery
of significant bias is NEWS. Upon investigation we have determined that
not only is the allegation of bias correct, but the situation at DMOZ
is quite severe. Specifically, the nature of the Open Directory contents
regarding terrorism, extremism, peace initiatives, and hate groups reflects
a carefully screened minimization of Muslim/Islamic/Arab culpability.
At the same time the selection process has greatly overstated Jewish/Israeli
extremism and reflects the propaganda and outright lies of Palestinian
Arab sympathizers and antisemites."
Then, on the reverse side of the political fence, here's another view
of the bias intrinsic to the DMOZ - Google - Open Directory Project
categorizations.
Perhaps you would be on far safer political ground to stick to categorizing
mushrooms, South American insects, and Christmas recipes?
****************
Yet more double standards from the "Open" Directory Project.
Jewish power complains, and down comes the category "Jewish hate
groups":
Netscape
Heeds Jews' Gripes Over Web Directory,
[Jewish] Forward, November 22, 2002
"Internet giant Netscape has acknowledged anti-Israel bias in its
massive Web cataloguing service and has taken several steps to correct
the situation, including dismissing the volunteer editor Netscape says
was responsible. Responding to a complaint by the Jewish Internet Association,
an Internet watchdog group, Netscape's Robert Keating said the company
would also eliminate a category that linked users to Jewish extremist
groups such as Kahane Chai and would add a separate list of pro-Israel
organizations under their own category ... The service, known as the
Open Directory Project, is an effort to create a comprehensive catalog
of the Internet, with millions of Web sites placed into categories and
subcategories. Hosted and administered by Netscape, the directory is
now featured by various search engines, including the popular Google.
Tens of thousands of volunteer editors choose the Web sites, Web site
descriptions and categories that will be placed in the directory, but
Netscape 'sets the editorial policies and direction' of the project,
according to the directory's own Web site. Netscape has said that the
volunteers are chosen by unpaid senior editors, who are approved by
Keating, the editor in chief of the project. Chriss said his organization
discovered problems in the directory last month, and sent a letter with
specific allegations of bias and distortions to Steve Case, chairman
of Netscape's parent company, AOL Time Warner. [Chuck Chriss,
president of the California-based Jewish Internet Agency] complained
that the directory contained a link to 'Jewish Hate Groups,' including
Kach and Kahane Chai, but did not contain a corresponding category for
Islamic extremists, nor any sites describing antisemitism among Muslims
... Shortly afterwards, Chriss received a letter from Keating saying
Netscape agreed that there was bias in the directory and that it had
decided to dismiss the volunteer editor who they said was responsible.
In addition, the company eliminated the 'Jewish Hate Group' section,
added a separate list of pro-Israel organizations under their own category
and included the Jewish Internet Association's own pro-Israel 'Palestine
Facts' Web site. Chriss told the Forward last week that he did not blame
Netscape for the initial bias, saying they had a small staff supervising
tens of thousands of volunteer editors ... Derick Mains, a Netscape
spokesman ... suggested that pro-Israel activists volunteer to be editors
on the directory and correct some of the perceived bias."
March 26, 2003:
The Jewish Tribal Review is listed as the fifth
ranked "anti-Semitic" web site by alexa.com (which
uses the above DMOZ categories, behind:
1. David Irving
2. John "Birdman" Bryant
3. Radio Islam
4. La Voz de Aztlan
Irving is famous for suing the Jewish Lobby in Great Britain.
Bryant is a critical maverick, Radio Islam is a Muslim
source, and La Voz de Aztlan is a Latino web site. Rather diverse.
No stereotypical Nazis and Ku Klux Klan groups that make it easy for
everyone to draw their lines of morality in caricature form. These sites
don't really have that much in common -- except criticism -- from very
different world views -- of the Jewish Lobby.
