*Snort*. Perhaps the sorts who think that libraries (if not everywhere else) should be required to use site blocking software on their Internet connections don’t mind that among the sites blocked by one major brand is the White House (because it “contains hate speech”).
37 view(s)
I went to cyber-patrol’s site and they have a test for certain sites. whitehouse.gov was NOT on their blacklist but whitehouse.com was (for obvious reasons).
Try this to find out yourself:
http://www.cyberpatrol.com/test_a_site/Default.aspx
Interesting. A quick check of URLs I visit with any regularity found that only The Onion is on their CyberLIST. Of course, my company’s gateway blocks it, too (though it doesn’t block espn.com, which probably chews up more bandwidth companywide).
Possibilities:
1. The report was mistaken, and the block site was actually whitehouse.com (though I believe that’s an adult site, not a hate site).
2. The test page you have only compares a site to the CyberLISTs. It doesn’t do the content review that the product also says it does ad hoc. It’s possible the actual product would block whitehouse.gov, especially if there were a significant amount of war information there.
3. The test was bogus.
4. Subsequent to the (original) broadcast, whitehouse.gov has been whitelisted.
Thanks for the link.
Nevertheless, regardless of whether it is true or not, “hate speech” is such a nebulous term I don’t see how you could effectively fiilter it.
Agreed.
According to CyberPatrol’s site, the definition of Hate Speech they user for blacklisting is:
– Advocating or inciting degradation or attack of specified populations or institutions based on associations such as religion, race, nationality, gender, age, disability, or sexual orientation
– Promoting a political or social agenda that is supremacist in nature and exclusionary of others based on their race, religion, nationality, gender, age, disability, or sexual orientation
– Holocaust revisionist/denial sites
– Coercion or recruitment for membership in a gang* or cult**
– Militancy, extremist
NOTE: We do not include news, historical, or press incidents that may include the above criteria (except in graphic examples).
**A gang is defined as: a group whose primary activities are the commission of felonious criminal acts, which has a common name or identifying sign or symbol, and whose members individually or collectively engage in criminal activity in the name of the group.
**A cult is defined as: a group whose followers have been deceptively and manipulatively recruited and retained through undue influence
All of which sounds good, but, yes, there’s a lot of wiggle room in those definitions.
OK, let’s block the Catholic church’s sites because “outside of the Church there is no salvation” — sounds supremacist and exclusionary and only males can be priests — exclusionary based on gender. I am not a Catholic and I am sure some Catholics would believe I am hopelessly lost. But, to say that that is hate speech? Hardly. The cult definition is too slippery also.
I am sure if as a parent I use the product, I would just turn this filter off. But, if this is used at an institution (school or library), I would not want to have someone else make this determination for me. People’s values just differ too much.
Agreed.