Status of the O2/Symantec censorship issue

Updated 2019 04 20, to add links to related articles.

Status of the O2/Symantec censorship issue

There are at least close to 90 pro-male, pro-family, and anti-feminist websites that have I found are classified as hate-sites or that in some other way violate unspecified  standards by O2 (a large multi-national telecommunications service provider) and Symantec (vendor of Norton Antivirus).  A list of affected sites and blogs in contained in the right-hand side-bar of this screen, under the heading Roll of Honour.

A virtually identical list is accessible at the website of The Rights of Man (UK).

Some of the links are to web pages with dynamic content (so-called aggregators), web pages that are denoted by O2 as perhaps not being blocked, due to their dynamic content, but as being potentially still liable to be blocked if their content warrants blocking them.  I sent John Kimble of The Rights of Man a note identifying some URLs that were not identified on their list, containing also an example of a URL for a web page with dynamic content, e. g.:

  • (O2 Category: Hate: default safety: blocked)
  • (O2 Category: Hate: default safety: blocked)
  • (O2 Category: Hate: default safety: blocked)
  • (O2 Defining Policy: default safety: The URL is known to contain dynamic content as part of a Social Networking Service. It may be allowed or blocked based upon real-time analysis of the requested page.; Dynamic Site: default safety: The URL is known to contain dynamic content as part of a Social Networking Service. It may be allowed or blocked based upon real-time analysis of the requested page.)

John responded by stating amongst other things,

FYI all that nonsense about dynamic content for the reddit link is pretty meaningless and almost always means the site is unblocked.

It may not be warranted to disregard O2’s apparently futile manner of censoring web pages with dynamic content so lightly.  With respect to the “nonsense about dynamic content for the reddit link,” there are other sites that have that tag.  Certainly, it can be labelled as nonsense as far as the immediate consequences of the implied threat are concerned.  However, the full implications of that threat are not inconsequential.

O2 imply that they have the right to be judge, jury and executioner when it comes to censoring pro-male and pro-family human-rights websites.  That is a serious threat.  They have thereby announced that when they have a way by which to block such web pages effectively, they will block them if they deem it necessary that they be blocked.

The questions that arise out of that are not inconsequential at all:

  1. Which legislative body gave O2 and Symantec the authority to be judge, jury and executioner in issues of guarding moral and ethical standards for the whole world?
  2. Who and what democratic process established a.) the standards to be applied in the judging, and b.) that O2 and Symantec have the responsibility to do the judging, the determining of the sentences, the handing down of the sentences and their execution?
  3. What process is in place to monitor that O2, Symantec and whosoever else may be involved in abusing their assumed powers as moral guardians do not overstep their assigned authority, if in fact such authority was ever assigned to them?
  4. Where do the deliberations take place in which the verdicts are pronounced, sentencing decisions reached, the severity of sentencing determined, and sentences imposed?
  5. Who decided that the whole process is to be secretive, exceeding even the secrecy of the Star Chamber Court, with not even any provision what-so-ever to announce that an accused party has been put on trial, let alone announce that a sentence was imposed, what it is or for how long it is to be in force?
  6. What process is in place that permits or obligates anyone to determine whether whatever standards are being used in the  deliberate and flagrant violations of the right to free speech and freedom of expression are being applied equitably and universally, and not merely with the end to oppress politically-incorrect minorities?
  7. Where can an accused make his defence heard before a verdict is pronounced and a sentence handed down?
  8. What is the appeal process, and where can it be launched?

There is far more to all of that.  The impression I have of the issue of filtering and blocking by O2 and Symantec of websites as of now is that it is nothing less than the imposing of totalitarian, tyrannical powers on all of the people in the world.  There is not a single agency in the whole world anyone should entrust with having that sort of power.

The issue is not so much that politically-incorrect sources of information are being censored but that the censorship affects far more people who are trying to find alternative, more objective sources of information in an information-war employing the largest program of propaganda and indoctrination ever launched against common-sense moral and ethical standards.

It is particularly galling that any corporate entity should have the power to decide what the default ruling should be that determines whether any individual should be permitted to see any specific sort of information.  That is the principle of the accused being assumed guilty without him ever even having the chance of proving his innocence.

Aside from that, adults neither want nor need multi-national corporations for guardians.  However, if, for example, children need to be protected against any sort of information, then it should be no one other than the children’s parents who make the required decisions.  Corporations have no business gaining even the slightest extent of control over our children’s minds.  Their motives for gaining such control are not likely to be anything other than mercenary.


See also:

(Visited 17 times, 1 visit(s) today)
This entry was posted in Censorship. Bookmark the permalink.