Not what you were looking for? Ask our experts!
Reply
Contributor
John_Smith
Posts: 51
Registered: ‎03-04-2011

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

If Norton have been victims of a rogue man-hating employee then they are just as much the victims here as all the websites that have been censored and all the men who have been denied support and help.

 

I think the fact Norton appear to be taking this issue very seriosuly refelcts rather well on the comapny thus far.

dickevans
Posts: 12,446
Registered: ‎04-08-2008

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful


John_Smith wrote:

If Norton have been victims of a rogue man-hating employee then they are just as much the victims here as all the websites that have been censored and all the men who have been denied support and help.

 

I think the fact Norton appear to be taking this issue very seriosuly refelcts rather well on the comapny thus far.


John_Smith,
I've been a user of Norton products for over 20 years and I have yet to see them do anything but take very seriously any problem that detracts from the integrity and reliability of their products. I wouldn't be surprised if they even got a few people out of bed to help in addressing this issue. Stay tuned there will be an update.

 

Dick
Win7x64 SP1 current NIS V21
Newbie
Andy-Man
Posts: 1
Registered: ‎02-06-2013

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

I'm not goint to go as far as thanking Norton for their professional response on this (they should not be acting as a morality arbitrator IMHO), however, I do respect their efforts into looking into it and hopefully finding a resolution.

 

I can recognise that this was not intentional on behalf of Norton, however, I would suggest they think again about acting as some kind of  crowd sourced moral/political arbitrator service. Stating that the genuinely held beliefs of a (non-violent) group of people are "hateful" is largely subjective and very different to designating that a website contains malware and/or will harm your computer. For example, I personally find the views expressed by radfems, which go as far as calling for the castration of male children and gendercide to be "hateful". However, I don't expect Norton to step in and to start censoring websites I don't like.

 

Norton, I sympathise with you guys, but you were just asking to get dragged into a debate like this where a small number of dedicated fanatics are willing to submit false reports in order to defame people they oppose.

 

Personally, if it is possible, I would be interested to learn who/how submited the "hate site" reports in the first place?

Contributor
Arsene24
Posts: 22
Registered: ‎01-22-2010

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

I read A Voice for Men regularly. I find this whole thing outrageous and more than a little suspicious.  Radfemhub, none of the redfem sites are blocked.

 

If Symantec now has an anti-men's rights agenda, please be kind enough to let me know so I can discontinue use of your products. As is, my trust has been shaken.

Contributor
John_Smith
Posts: 51
Registered: ‎03-04-2011

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

Avoiceformen certinally is an excellent resource with some very high profile board members now. One example is Erin Pizzey - the founder of the world's first women's shleter and all the largest domestic violence organsiations in the UK.

 

Many of the sitess are concerned with helping vulnerable men, it's quite extrordinary for them to be labelled as hateful.

Newbie
Varius
Posts: 1
Registered: ‎02-07-2013

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

I have Norton Internet Security through a big Internet provider for a few bucks a month. They kind of snuck up on me with it - free for a while, and then advance cancellation policies in very small print. So I just accept it.

 

I can't stand this kind of censorship, and if Norton is really blocking men's advocacy sites (because of some man-hating feminist or whatever other reason), I'm going to go upstream and demand that my provider (1&1) get a different firewall product.

 

I'll wait to see if there is a determination as to who really labeled these sites. If Norton doesn't care, neither do I with regard to nailing them.

Super Phishing Phryer
DaveH
Posts: 5,726
Registered: ‎01-06-2010

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

[ Edited ]

This has nothing to do with Norton Internet Security or Norton Antivirus.

 

This concerns Norton DNS, also known as Norton ConnectSafe

https://dns.norton.com/dnsweb/homePage.do

 

Norton DNS is a free service that is used to "filter" websites.  It is not installed with any other Norton product and it is not forced upon anyone.  It is a free service that the user must install themselves or manually set the system or router to use the Norton DNS servers.

 

Here is a quote from the FAQ's

Which content filtering policies are available for home and personal use?
The following three pre-defined content filtering policies are available for home and personal use:

Policy 1: Security (198.153.192.40 and 198.153.194.40) This policy blocks all sites hosting malware, phishing sites, and scam sites. To use Policy 1, you should configure the DNS settings of your home router or Web-enabled device to use the following Norton ConnectSafe IP addresses: 198.153.192.40 and 198.153.194.40. 

Policy 2: Security + Pornography (198.153.192.50 and 198.153.194.50) In addition to blocking unsafe sites, this policy also blocks access to sites that contain sexually explicit material. To use Policy 2, you should configure the DNS settings of your home router or Web-enabled device to use the following Norton ConnectSafe IP addresses: 198.153.192.50 and 198.153.194.50. 

Policy 3: Security + Pornography + Non-Family Friendly (198.153.192.60 and 198.153.194.60) This policy is ideal for families with young children. In addition to blocking unsafe sites and pornography sites, this policy also blocks access to sites that feature mature content, abortion, alcohol, crime, cults, drugs, gambling, hate, sexual orientation, suicide, tobacco or violence. To use Policy 3, you should configure the DNS settings of your home router or Web-enabled device to use the following Norton ConnectSafe IP addresses: 198.153.192.60 and 198.153.194.60. 

 

It's that "policy 3: that is the concern here.

If these sites should be "blocked from young children" and if so, under what "group" they should be put in.

(I'm just trying to explain, I'm neutral on the subject and I'm not familiar at all with these sites).

 

But lets keep in mind this is a voluntarily setup, filtering (censoring) service.

You can't complain about "censorship" if you setup your system to use a "filtering" service.

(You can only complain about if the site should be blocked or not in accordance with your self imposed censoring)

 

I believe John_Smith is simply making a case that he feels these sites do not fit the policies for level 3 filtering.

(People using Norton DNS policy 3 should not have them blocked)

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

 

Contributor
John_Smith
Posts: 51
Registered: ‎03-04-2011

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

[ Edited ]

DaveH wrote:

 

But lets keep in mind this is a voluntarily setup, filtering (censoring) service.

You can't complain about "censorship" if you setup your system to use a "filtering" service.

(You can only complain about if the site should be blocked or not in accordance with your self imposed censoring)

 

I believe John_Smith is simply making a case that he feels these sites do not fit the policies for level 3 filtering.

(People using Norton DNS policy 3 should not have them blocked)


 

 

 


 

It is censorship, and in fact propaganda too and people are entitled to complain. Norton shoudl either block both sides of the arguemtn or neither. Currently they are endorsing all forms of feminism and man-hating by banning any criticism of such ideologies.

 

There's also teh issue of defamation too. The sites are not merely blocked for some vague reason. they are quite clearly all wrongly smeared as "hate" sites. The reality of the situaiton is quite the opposite - its''s clear the sites campaing for the msot vulnerable people in society and go out of their way to highlight and campign against real hatred and sexism.

Super Phishing Phryer
DaveH
Posts: 5,726
Registered: ‎01-06-2010

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

Whatever

I'm just trying to explain to some of the people what is happening, I have seen several posts here and on reddit from people thinking it is coming from a Norton Product like NIS or NAV.

I thought I made it perfectly clear that

 

I'm just trying to explain, I'm neutral on the subject and I'm not familiar at all with these sites.

 

Dave

Contributor
ender98
Posts: 15
Registered: ‎02-07-2013

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

I wasn't clear on how these sites were blocked and what mechanism was doing it.

 

How are these sites filtered, are the websites listed specifically in a database, or does it search for meta tags such as "men's rights"?

 

Who would be responsible for creating these policies and what rationale was used to label these websites as "hate sites"?

 

When I first read about this, I didn't think it was true, I thought someone or some entity (such as a restaurant) set a specific personalized policy, but the problem is far bigger - evidently on Symantec.

 

This is a pretty big red flag considering certain political ideologies subjectively assert that men's rights groups are hate groups as a stratagem to censor men's rights groups. These groups are not objective, and are generally fanatical and incredibly biased. This action Symantec takes would be be analgous to labeling Republican GOP sites as "hate sites" due to Republican's views on abortion - a completely relative and ideological stance.

 

So this problem is evidently not an arbitrary error or coincidence, someone of the ideological persuaion previously mentioned intentionally did this, but how? Do they work for Symantec? Is someone high up in the company who holds firmly to ideological beliefs stated previously pulling the strings, and thus this issue will never be resolved?

 

Whatever the case, I hope the issue is resolved; I don't want Islam,Christianity, China, or radical feminism telling me what sites I should or should not browse.