Symantec Replies RE: Pro Gun Censorship

BattleFlag

[BattleFlag]

None taken, and you can use it too if you'd like.

[fiscally_right]

Um, no I'm pretty much straight-on. That's a rediculous analogy because with this software the parent can set whatever options they want before the child even gets on the computer. I don't really see a comparison at all.

[longtermmemmory]

no gun sites would probably block handguncontrol inc too.

[Question_Assumptions]

I disagree completely. What about discrimination against those of us who still believe in the constitution??

TURN OFF THE FEATURE. If you go over to the Dummy Underground, I'm sure you'll find people who complain about some of the other sites that Symantec blocks in categories that you consider desirable to block. If you want a filter that complies only with conservative sensibilties, then license or market one and sell it. If there is a market for it, people will buy it. But Symantec has a generic filter. That means that it will include things that you like and things that you don't. While you may eat, sleep, and drink Second Amendment issues, I doubt that most Americans who use the filter will even notice those sites are blocked. I cannot imagine most children are just dying to visit the NRA's web site or even have the first clue about the Constitution, nevermind the Second Amendment.

Why aren't sites run by "living constitution" anti-righters that might offend me, blocked?

If you can make a case that the content is harmful to children without sounding like a candidate for the tinfoil hat club, why don't you sent Symantec a nice letter and ask for a category? Of course I also doubt that most children are dying to read up on the latest progressive Constitutional theories, either.

Just who do you think this product is targetted at and just what do you think most parents expect to do?

[Bubba_Leroy]

I wouldn't have a problem if the would also include a categories to filter out websites that promote gun control and other leftist ideology.

[fiscally_right]

Because, no offense intended, if you search for "guns" or "gun rights" you're more likely to find sites promoting violence than if you search for "gun control" or "waiting periods" or "trigger locks" or "bullet fingerprinting."

[Question_Assumptions]

Why doesn't Norton provide a product that blocks out pro-abortion web sites? There's an agenda here.

Can you visit, say, Planned Parenthood or NARAL with the sex filters turned on?

[Puppage]

It was a weak analogy, I grant you that. However, just because a parent CAN control it after the fact does that make their anti gun bias any less palatable? Why allow for one view (i.e. the Brady Ctr) and not the other? I think, if something upsets you, you have a right to call them on it, and NOT give them a "pass" by saying the parents will fix it. That is unacceptable to me.

[longtermmemmory]

perhaps nobody has asked for it to be included.

Norton would probably block all sites related to "abortion" yea and nay.

[fiscally_right]

Because I think everyone's missing the point of this software entirely. The point of this software isn't to block any political ideology that a parent doesn't want their kid exposed to. They don't market "Leftist-Blocker!" to conservatives or "Right-wing fanatic Blocker!" to liberals. The point is to keep kids from accessing sites that might be DANGEROUS. You might oppose liberal sites, but they aren't going to cause Columbine 2 [i can feel the flames already.]

In case you kept reading beyond the last sentence, I'm pro-gun-rights and I certainly don't think that all sites in favor of responsible gun ownership promote violence.. But I'm sure that this filter blocks alot of sites that do promote violence.

[Question_Assumptions]

I think the thing that has us all riled is that the software's default policy on gun sites is different from its policy on anti-freedom sites.

"Anti-freedom" is a touchy thing to identify with automatic filters. Suppose, for example, an NRA site quotes an anti-gun site with some key words in it. That site may be blocked to. Picking up words like "gun", "rifle", etc. is easy. Picking up sites that advocate surrendering sovereignty to the United Nations, for example, or violating second amendment rights are much harder to identify. Of course demand plays a role, too. If you can create a demand for a category that blocks left-wing propaganda, Symantec or some other company will eventually fill that demand.

By making one choice the default on one side of an argument and the opposite choice the default on the other side of the argument, it seems they are either intentionally taking a position, or revealing their unconscious prejudices.

For better or worse (worse, I think), the media has convinced people that children can't handle weapons or infomation about them. Soccer moms buy these filters and don't want little Nichole and Jason looking at guns. If you don't like that, Symantec is a symptom of the problem, not the cause.

[longtermmemmory]

Does the program block GLSEN? Aids from sexual experimentation can kill just a redily as a bullet.

[Egon]

Before everyone starts flaming me, I'm pro-gun.

That said, it seems to me you're looking for a fight where none exists. There is no way that Symantec can do what you're asking them to do. They're giving parents the ability to shut down access to sites in two ways: a one-click approach for commonly held negative sites (of which pro-2nd Ammendment sites, unfortunately, would fall under), but they also offer the second option which is more difficult to use but still available. Parents can customize the sites that their kids are blocked from.

I don't see this as an issue. Your argument stating that the responder is first discussing weapons, then calling them "firearms" is just bantying semantics (no pun intended), in my opinion. I've mixed the two terms myself on occasion.

I think if we attack everything that we can possibly spin to be against something we believe in, we quite possibly do harm to the cause we're trying to support.

Bring it on-- I'm wearing my suit!

[Puppage]

but they aren't going to cause Columbine 2

And, a GUN SITE IS? The NRA.ORG site is?Yeah, like spoons made Rosie fat.

In case you kept reading beyond the last sentence

Ah, there ya go....start in with the bashing. How very fashionable of you. I think I will spend my time debating issues with someone who (in my opinion) is not a gun owner, and can't seem to form a rebuttal without defamation.

Have a good evening

[fiscally_right]

Well see there's a difference.. I can look up on the internet to buy a Desert Eagle .45, and use that to kill people. I can't buy AIDS. The question is whether you think your child is stable, responsible, or whatever enough to be trustworthy. Again, I'm not saying pro-gun sites promote violence, i'm saying that this filter probably blocks lots of 'violent' sites and inadvertantly batches some pro-gun sites in with the violent ones. That doesn't mean there's an agenda afoot over at Norton.

[bicycle thug]

Symantec is a company local to me in nearby Springfield, Oregon. They are loathed as well by many in Eugene for forty large trees being cut next to their old site in downtown Eugene to build a parking garage largely for them.

If they were as radically leftie as you frame them, they do a poor job of it by pushing through their building plans that precipitated the 1997 Eugene Tree Riot and by getting disgusted with the Politically Correct People's Republic of Eugene and moving to blue collar, conservative and logging oriented Springfield next door.

Just wanted to give you some thoughts that immediately come to mind when I read this thread.

One more observation; seeing how cutting edge, spacious and beautiful their new digs are, I would say business is very robust for them right now and it would take a major effort to hurt their bottom line with a boycott.

[MEGoody]

If you want your kids to go to weapons sites, just don't choose that filter option. It's not a big deal. Sheesh.

[fiscally_right]

How is that defamation or bashing? I figured I'd say that to get people's attention since it happens quite often. People stop reading at one sentence that particularly provokes them and then reply without reading the rest. Anyway I am not a gun owner, but I will be in the future when I have my own home to protect (I'm a student, living in an apartment).

[Gorjus]

Why doesn't Norton provide a product that blocks out pro-abortion web sites? There's an agenda here.

That's really the issue. One can make the case that some sites should be blockable, and that others are probably not worth the complication of tailored controls. They key is: Where do you draw the line?

Based on Dr. Lott's findings, anti-gun laws get people killed and raped and robbed. How is it responsible for them to create blockers to sites that can save lives, while not providing blockers to sites that advocate policies that (net effect) get people killed?

Answer: Because it's not really about parental rights or risks as an absolute, theoretical consideration. It's about supporting a socialist/statist agenda on which things are risks, and in what order of concern.