Are Mega-Corps Discriminating Against Gothic Sites?

[The Newswire]

Today, dark fashion and beauty site Gothic.org posted Trend Micro Hates Goths. It appears that Trend Micro, through its Site Safety product, is unreasonably discriminating against sites which are positive about gothic culture.

Trend Micro's Site Safety is yet...

Read the full article

[Pleth]

Companies have the ability via their ISD department to set the parameters of their web browsing filters. As I agree it is not OK to censor someones free time, I must state that working in IT before, people are dumb dumb dumb. The majority of computer illiterate people have no idea how malware or viruses work. They see a link they like and they click. I cannot really blame an organization for reigning in the surfing walls of its employees. Its very expensive if your servers get compromised. I don't think it is just Goth, rather anything that is not super clean and tested.

For me, the real issue is not so much the censorship but what the corporations are doing with our data. Every single site you visit, your preferences, your logon credentials can be stolen, bought and sold and pretty much your whole life is on display for the highest bidder. Ever get a rash and Googled, "rash on thighs"? Guess what, that stays viral forever. With advancing technology, future employers (the government already does this for their employees) can take your name and DOB off your resume and purchase printouts of all your web activity. Think about it. That is some scary shit, friends.

[Raza]

Aren't safe browsing products blatant conservative cultural filters pretty much by definition?

If they stopped doing everything they ethically speaking shouldn't be doing, they'd be off. Protesting specific transgressions of such an inherently corrupt initiative when they offend us personally seems a little... late.

Better late than never, though.

[Amelia G]

Aren't safe browsing products blatant conservative cultural filters pretty much by definition?

If they stopped doing everything they ethically speaking shouldn't be doing, they'd be off. Protesting specific transgressions of such an inherently corrupt initiative when they offend us personally seems a little... late.

Better late than never, though.

I sort of feel like customizable tools where an individual can select that they never want to see some specific things which upsets them . . . well, that seems not unreasonable, if hard to implement.

But the thing where all sorts of things offend random groups who then get to impose their values on everyone else . . . not into it.

And I don't accept at all that a workplace should be able to block content because it is gothic or homosexual or anything along those lines. I don't believe giving someone a paycheck entitles dictating their values to that extent. It's fine to just not allow any of that in the workplace, but this kind of corporate selection seems very problematic to me.

[Amelia G]

Companies have the ability via their ISD department to set the parameters of their web browsing filters. As I agree it is not OK to censor someones free time, I must state that working in IT before, people are dumb dumb dumb. The majority of computer illiterate people have no idea how malware or viruses work. They see a link they like and they click. I cannot really blame an organization for reigning in the surfing walls of its employees. Its very expensive if your servers get compromised. I don't think it is just Goth, rather anything that is not super clean and tested.

For me, the real issue is not so much the censorship but what the corporations are doing with our data. Every single site you visit, your preferences, your logon credentials can be stolen, bought and sold and pretty much your whole life is on display for the highest bidder. Ever get a rash and Googled, "rash on thighs"? Guess what, that stays viral forever. With advancing technology, future employers (the government already does this for their employees) can take your name and DOB off your resume and purchase printouts of all your web activity. Think about it. That is some scary shit, friends.

I have no objection to anti-malware filters, although I realize that can go the way of institutionalizing political dissidents for being crazy. I do object to filtering culture.

[Raza]

I sort of feel like customizable tools where an individual can select that they never want to see some specific things which upsets them . . . well, that seems not unreasonable, if hard to implement.

But the thing where all sorts of things offend random groups who then get to impose their values on everyone else . . . not into it.

And I don't accept at all that a workplace should be able to block content because it is gothic or homosexual or anything along those lines. I don't believe giving someone a paycheck entitles dictating their values to that extent. It's fine to just not allow any of that in the workplace, but this kind of corporate selection seems very problematic to me.

Agreed. I've never heard of any web content filters that were designed to be self-inflicted, though. It's always one party setting them for another.

[Pleth]

And I do agree with you, Amelia, about filtering. China is a perfect case in point. The goth sub culture, like many others, will always face persecution for it is against what the system deems the norm. When dealing inequality, I suppose one has the right to protest. Some will fight and cry to bring this issue to light but I prefer to wear it as a badge of honor. My lifestyle is censored from mainstream America and that means those that live as I do are ones who are not cut from the cloth of conformity. If this were 20 years ago and I was still in my 20s i would probably be marching or blogging or something to cite my discontent but as I near 40, I revel in the fact that my life is not that of socially acceptable standards. I have truly lived the life of the free and in my journey i have met some of the kindest, accepting and most reliable people i have ever known. I take great pride in living my life as I see fiit. I feel sorry for those who have not.

Cheers.

[Pleth]

Post Script. Excuse the typos, I had a few tonight and Pleth is feeling pretty damn good....:-)

[Rockwulf]

I think companies should be able to filter whatever they want. They're probably not paying whatever John Doe they've hired to be browsing the internet anyway. That guy/gal should be working when at work and then they can go home and do whatever they want with their off the clock time.

[Raza]

Your logic being that because they have a right to screen employee activities to benefit productivity, which they have bought a stake in, it's ok if they use these screens to pass on cultural prejudices that have nothing to do with increasing productivity?

That sounds like an "It's too much effort to object to just the bad bits" type argument.

[One Eyed Cat]

I think if productivity is the stated goal, they would disable web surfing in general. I can only offer anecdotes as to what I've seen blocked. I am not currently under any blocks (that I know of) on any network I use. You simply have to complete your work product. I have seen this and other sites blocked, however. I don't know how they are key wording site blocks, but it did seem very selective.

[Mr Karl]

who the hells got time to surf the web at all at work?.......... Some companies must have deep pockets to be able to keep staff on hand when they don't have enough work to keep them busy

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

Some companies have a vested interest in keeping employees away from certain sites. Companies can be held liable if someone is downloading illegal torrents, viewing material that creates a hostile work environment, or exposes their security to risk. Let's face it, no matter how many times you tell employees not to, someone is going to click on that link they got emailed to "freepornandillegalmoviedownloadsthathasnoviruseso rmalwareandcertainolyisntjustahackingsite.org" and it really is in the companies best interest to prevent that. So I see a need for software like Trend Micro makes and i am willing to even accept that some sites that fall outside of the range will get blocked.

But the arbitrary and invisible way it is implemented is troubling.

[ForrestBlack]

I think some of the difficulty comes in when the companies using the software are different from the people who built the blocking profiles. I think it's totally reasonable to block bad neighborhood sites, malware, and all that junk. I think it's even reasonable to potentially block some very big sites that are known as time wasters, although I can also come of with a counter argument for almost any one that I think of right now. I just can't really see someone looking at spooky sweaters creating a hostile work environment any more than say looking at the New Jersey Devils website. If you get to look at random entertaining things at work, it bugs me if other people's nonsense prejudicial superstitions find their way into our daily existence.

[One Eyed Cat]

I think some of the difficulty comes in when the companies using the software are different from the people who built the blocking profiles. I think it's totally reasonable to block bad neighborhood sites, malware, and all that junk. I think it's even reasonable to potentially block some very big sites that are known as time wasters, although I can also come of with a counter argument for almost any one that I think of right now. I just can't really see someone looking at spooky sweaters creating a hostile work environment any more than say looking at the New Jersey Devils website. If you get to look at random entertaining things at work, it bugs me if other people's nonsense prejudicial superstitions find their way into our daily existence.

Agree. I've done a couple checks since I first saw this thread. It seems very arbitrary (this is anecdote). I'm not sure how they're keying words? It isn't too bad, but I really can't predict when/where I'll be blocked from a given site.

OEC