Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 00:05:29 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: lynna@postoffice.yorku.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: webgrrls-toronto@webgrrls.com
From: Lynna Landstreet <lynna@yorku.ca>
Subject: TWG: Re: Net Censorship (sorry, another long one!)
Sender: owner-webgrrls-toronto@webgrrls.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Lynna Landstreet <lynna@yorku.ca>
Status:   

Brandi Jasmine <nitefall@idirect.com> writes:

>>In the first place, the people who buy these
>> programs have NO say ovr what is being blocked - the lists of blocked sites
>
>Not in the case of Emmisary, a browser with a built-in customizable blocking
>feature and it is my understanding that you can enter your own lists in
>some of
>these programs.

I haven't heard of the program you mention, but it sounds better than the
others With the big three, CyberSitter, CyberPatrol and NetNanny, you can
add sites to the blocked list, but not delete them - because you can't
access the list of blocked sites in the first place. And CyberSitter, at
least, will sue you into the ground if you even try - or if you publicize
what they're blocking based on your own trial-and-error attempts at
accessing sites. Someone else mentioned the the Peacefire situation already
- if you're not familiar with it, visit http://www.peacefire.org/ for
details, or my own mirror of their anti-CyberSitter page, accessible via my
URL below...

Latest word, BTW, is that Solid Oak Software backed down from suing them
when they discovered they were going to get free legal defence from the EFF.

>Regardless, you have the right to NOT use them.

But not the right to criticize them publically? Because that's what seems
to be the problem here. I am not going out there and physically preventing
anyone from using CyberSitter if they want to - just expressing an opinion.

>It's no different from a librarian deciding which books to buy or not to
>buy - a choice they make EVERY DAY without any uproar.

Well, I think that if the libraries suddenly decided, with no public
consultation whatsoever, that they would no longer stock anything dealing
with feminism or gay rights, you'd hear some protests of that too.

The key points here are:

1. These programs block one hell of a lot of material that can in no way be
   considered obscene, but simply contravenes the companies' politics, and

2. That buyers or potential buyers of these programs are not given accurate
   information about what is being blocked.

And right now, anyone who attempts to publicize either of these facts is
likely to be at best accused of anti-censorship fanaticism, or at worst,
hit with a SLAPP suit by a company like Solid Oak, who apparently are
sufficiently unconvinced of that their products are performing a valuable
service that they feel the need to silence anyone who attempts to tell the
public what they actually do.

>Right now the Usenet feeds are so huge that it may be financially impossible
>for some sites to continue a full feed.

That isn't the issue here. I never said that every ISP is under any
obligation to carry every newsgroup, or anything of the sort. What I was
questioning was:

1. The ethics of filtering software companies censoring valuable social and
   political information and hiding this fact from the public, and

2. The wisdom, in general, of allowing a small handful of software companies
   to determine, again on the basis of no public consultation (or a small
   amount of non-binding public "advice" in the case of CyberPatrol), what
   kinds of information young people should and shouldn't have access to.

Brandi, I know that you've probably had numerous similar debates to this
one with other people, but I'm not them, and I don't necessarily share
every single view that everyone else who's critical of filtering software
does.

I *do* have a problem with an ISP dropping a bunch of newsgroups secretly
and refusing to tell paying customers what was dropped and what wasn't, as
the media reported was the case with iStar a while back. But if an ISP
wants to simply state up front "We're not going to carry the following
newsgroups because of potential legal problems", or because not as many of
their members seem to want them, or even simply because the management
thinks they'e stupid, tacky or offensive, that's fine. I have no problem
with that whatsoever. It was the dishonesty element that bothered me with
the iStar situation.

>And you have the right to purchase and offer your children unfiltered
>access if you want to.  No-one's stopping you.

But people who object to that *do* have the right to criticize my views if
they want, and I likewise have the right to criticize theirs. There's a
peculiar tendency  in today's society to confuse *criticism* with
*coercion*. I am not a government official. I do not run an ISP. I do not
run a library. I do not in any way have any power to enforce my views on
anyone else. But for some reason, if I speak of those views publically,
people react as if I somehow did. This isn't just confined to this
argument. If you say that you disagree with a newspaper columnist's views,
there's always someone jumping in and saying "But they have a right to say
that!" Of course they do! But I also have a right to disagree.

If I criticize the currently available filtering software, or even the
concept of filtering software in general, it does not necessarily follow
that I am demanding that they be made illegal or that people should be shot
for using them. I am not *stopping* anyone from making up their own mind on
this matter. I am merely stating my own opinion. Period.

>Cybersitter claims it has the ability to look at how the phrase is used "in
>context" (http://www.solidoak.com/cysitter.htm).

Yep. And their list includes combinations like
[gay,queer,bisexual][male,men,boy,group,rights,community,activities...] and
[gay,queer,homosexual,lesbian,bisexual][society,culture].

>Cyberpatrol offers users the ability to choose what categories they wish to
>block.

Yes, but you aren't allowed to know what sites they've assigned to each of
those categories, and they also block abbreviated versions of URLs, so, for
example, when it blocks the "CyberOS" gay video site by banning
http://www.webcom.com/~cyb, kids are barred from attending the first "Cyber
High School" at ~cyberhi, along with 16 other accounts that start with
"cyb." That's a pretty high ratio of accidental blocks to deliberate ones.

I do think, BTW, that of the three mentioned, CyberPatrol seems to be the
most flexible, and the most open to public input (though that's not saying
too much...). In fact, they are currently debating adding a Pagan or Wiccan
representative to the advisory committee that makes recommendations for the
"CyperNOT" list. However, as long as the committee doesn't get to actually
see the list, their power is pretty limited. They've had an advisor on
their from GLAAD (Gay/Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) for a long time,
but they still block things like the soc.support.youth.gay-lesbian-bi
newsgroup.

>All of these programs lists are decided mainly by committee, by reporting
>from
>customers, not by arbitrary lists - go to
>http://web.idirect.com/~risc/kids.html and visit each of the sites.  You will
>find they each have a link to report or remove sites.

But when neither the users making those reports or even the committees
themselves get to *see* the final list, it's virtually impossible to assess
how much real input they have.

>There is no information of the life or sanity saving variety that cannot be
>found in dozens of offline places I can think of.

Maybe in downtown Toronto, but tell me where a teenager in a small rural
community in northern Ontario is going to find something like a gay
bookstore or the 519 Church St. Centre? Toronto isn't the whole world. Like
I said in the message that started this whole thing off, the suicide rate
for lesbian and gay youth is very high, and the majority of that is kids
isolated in small towns an rural areas. They can't just hop on the subway
and go to an LGYT meeting! There is *nothing* for them in their home
communities.

There *is* a gay youth phoneline with an 800 number, but it's constantly
under threat of closure due to lack of money, because our charming
government has cut its funding - right now it's surviving solely on
donations, and needs to raise $60,000 by May 1 to survive (If anyone wants
to donate, BTW, you can call 962-2232 or go to
http://www.icomm.ca/lgbline). Resources for lesbian and gay youth are
constantly under attack.

And kids in small towns aren't likely to know it exists anyway. But the Net
*is* making inroads into a lot of small areas - Hell, even New Liskeard,
population 5200, where my mother and stepfather live, has an ISP now! This
expansion of Net access carries with it the chance to throw a lifeline out
to a lot of scared, lonely, isolated kids who have no other access to any
information about their sexuality other than "you're a perverted freak
who's going to burn in hell."

>If the information truly IS that critical, and a parent has crossed the
>line in denying that information, then to paraphrase, that family has 
>problems that no *website* is going to solve.

No kidding. I don't recall making any claims that if a 15-year-old kid
who's coming out gay in Moosonee gets access to a gay youth support web
site it's going to somehow change his family's views. Far from it - if the
family finds out he accessed it, he's likely to be beaten to a pulp. But
knowing he's not alone just might give give that kid the strength to stick
it out until he's old enough to leave home, instead of committing suicide
or getting hooked on sniffing gasoline.

>> more vulnerable. It seems to me as if a lot of people don't care if kids
>> are denied access to information they might really need, just as long as
>> nobody interferes with *their* right to look at naughty pictures. Adults'
>> pleasure seems to take a higher priority than kids' safety.
>
>Some might characterize your position that way.

How so? People who are just concerned about their own right to look at
dirty pictures have no reason to worry about filtering software. It's not
affecting them. If I wasn't concerned about kids' rights and well-being, I
wouldn't give a flying forklift about CyberSitter. It's not like my mother
is about to make the six-hour trek down here to install it on *my*
computer!

>I just think your position is counter-productive to your stated goals.

Brandi, I do understand where you're coming from. The whole issue is
incredibly complex and frustrating, and there are no easy answers in sight.
I can understand the reason why a lot of people support programs like this
in the hopes of staving off draconian legislation like the CDA.

But for me, there's too high a price to be paid for that security. I
*can't* just kiss off the kids who are going to be hurt by this - or look
the other way while sleazy companies peddle a neoconservative political
agenda under the guise of "protection". Maybe I'm too much of an idealist.
But someone has to be.

>And the motivations and values of these companies are all too clear.
>They want to make a buck exploiting peoples fears.  There is no
>mystery to that.

Well, on that we can agree!

Lynna

__________________________________________________________________________
Every thing that                                          Lynna Landstreet
lives is Holy.                                       Environmental Studies
                                                           York University
     - William Blake                              Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                                  http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2709


-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-webgrrls-toronto@webgrrls.com-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-
URL: <http://www.webgrrls.com/toronto/>     ADMIN: <toronto@webgrrls.com>
To UNSUBSCRIBE:  send email to: <majordomo@cgim.com>
with the message: unsubscribe webgrrls-toronto yourname@youremailaddress
WEBGRRLS' FORUMS: <http://interact.canoe.ca/cgi-bin/WebGrrls>
Members: Send a message to <toronto@webgrrls.com> for the password.
-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-