We-Blocker response

C

Coinneach

Staff Alumnus
Last month, We-Blocker found itself being attacked for including weapons in its "forbidden" site list. I wrote to them, asking how they can possibly justify this action. Just got their response 5 minutes ago.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Dear Ms.(sic) Fitzpatrick,

This can be a very valuable resource to those parents who choose to allow their children access to weapons related sites or information, however, not all do. Some feel that their child is not old enough, mature enough or has an unhealthy fascination with this type of information. We are not suggesting that guns or weapons in general, are right or wrong, we are simply offering a tool for parents to be able to choose what their children view in the privacy of their own homes.

It was a very difficult decision for me to include a category for weaponry. I argued against it but my argument was weak from the
standpoint that the parents that are concerned about their children viewing weaponry sites, are ultimately the ones who choose whether to block or not block the weaponry category in their own homes.

It was not our intention to give anyone the impression that we were making a judgement for or against guns. It is not for us to choose. We are simply attempting to identify the sites that are weapons related so
that parents who choose to prevent or limit their children’s ability to view this information for whatever reason, can make that choice for themselves. We have identified a completely separate category for
weapons sites.

Thank you for taking the time to comment.

Respectfully, Pat Mershon
[/quote]

------------------
A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
Vote Libertarian - For A Change.
 
Parents have a right to decide whatever the heck they want their kids to look up or not be able to look up on the internet. If they want to block Barney Online, that's there business, as is if they want to block weapons sites. As long as weaponry is a seperate cattagory, easily unblocked by parents, what's the big deal?
 
Yeah, that was my impression, but in such polite terms.

Seems to me that parents are using 'puters as babysitters, instead of supervising the sproggen themselves. Just like TV, 'nother words. And these twits promoting blocking-software are enabling the parents' irresponsibility by providing them with an out. "The parents don't want their kids looking at gun sites, so we're simply giving them the tools to do so."

Horsesh!t.

EDIT: BTR, the point is that the people at We-Blocker took it upon themselves to determine that Weapons! Are! Bad! and deny access to weapons-related sites by default. How many parents out there have the technical know-how to disable this filter? Based on my experience in the tech support field, I'd say damn few.

If We-Blocker, Net Nanny, and all those other companies really want to do it right, they should simply provide an interface allowing the parents to decide what goes through and what doesn't. No preconceived notions of what's best for other peoples' kids; let the parents make the decision. No preinstalled filters.
------------------
A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
Vote Libertarian - For A Change.

[This message has been edited by Coinneach (edited August 05, 1999).]
 
I'm pretty sure these programs (I haven't seen this one though) DO have an easy to use interface for choosing what's blocked. I mean, you just enter a password, open up your menu and block/unblock different types of material, violence, hate groups, porn or whatever. When you configure the program at install, I'm certain they show you these menu choices and you choose what you want blocked, at least that's the way it is with the lame "Surfwatch". So if the parent wants their kid to be able to look up weapons sites from the get-go, the kid will never be blocked. And if the parent is a gun-banning ninny, he or she has the right to block those sites for their kids.
 
BTR...

We-blocker issued their "aren't we concerned with the children" statement and grouped gun and knife sites in with porno, hate groups, drugs, alcohol and the software comes with the appropriate filters to block these type sites, right out of the package....it doesn't come with a Barney filter, a liberal politics filter, a socialist filter, etc.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Yeah, I understand that it's offensive. But it makes no practical difference. Some people want to block weapons sites, equating them wrongly with these bad things. And they can do that if they want, and the only effective way someone who hates guns can use the program to block them is if it is a filter catagory- they can't practically enter the URL for all weapons sites, to block them individually.

Suppose you want to block your kid for visiting liberal websites. The only effecive way to do that, without watching him every minute, is to have that included as a catagory to be blocked. If we concede that our opponents have a right to block gun websites, they have a right to have it as a filter catagory. Why not instead lobby to have communist, liberal etc sites included as catagories as well, if we are believe that parents really have a right to block anything they want?
 
What gets me is that the parents think the kids will not try to "break the code". These are the same parents that still have 12:00 blinking on their VCR's and get the kids to program it for them. When we got our first PC in 1981, my son figured out how to bypass the login requirements for 1-2-3, the old accounting program, in about 1 day. The instructions on how to break the baby sitter programs will be on the net in a short while and in areas that aren't 'protected' by them.
 
I'm all for parents being able to select which forms of medium their children can be exposed to, that is in fact their parental responsibility to do so. However, I disagree with blanket blocks by third parties, such as these internet services mentioned, because they irresponsibly block legitimate forms of information in the process.

I have not found a gun related site yet (not that i've really searched for one) that would seem "harmful" for a kid who is capable of reading, writing, and computing. So what's this fuss all about?

The question better asked is, do these same blocking service providers simultaneously block anti-gun sites while blocking pro-gun sites? If your kid is limited to finding out about firearms through HCI for example, doesn't that actually do more harm for your kid than his/her exposure to a pro-gun site?
 
That is food for thought. Is HCI blocked, since it is about guns (control/prohibition thereof)? It would definitely show their bias if all gun material, pro and con, wasn't banned. Remember, if the dogooders are left spouting their crapola about the evils of guns, they will only prime the pump of misinformation to those who are interested in firearms, but denied info on proper usage.



We do the same thing with sex ed, and I can't help but see teenage girls going around knocked up each and every damned day. Something wasn't working, and it sounds like the "education" they got was a big part of what didn't work, but that's another topic, and not really one for this board.
 
hci tactic:
* Endangerment of Children:
It is difficult for the Gun groups to counter arguments which call attention to the endangerment of children. Making the opposition look callous creates an image of brutality and indifference to the audience. Keep this point in the fore front of any public argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top