[Still Thinking]

I think the thing that has us all riled is that the software's default policy on gun sites is different from its policy on anti-freedom sites. If they read the minds of their customers sufficiently to determine that gun sites might be objectionable, shouldn't they also have been able to deduce that with regard to sites that propose a reduction in the amount of liberty we are "allowed"? By making one choice the default on one side of an argument and the opposite choice the default on the other side of the argument, it seems they are either intentionally taking a position, or revealing their unconscious prejudices.

[fiscally_right]

Because, no offense intended, if you search for "guns" or "gun rights" you're more likely to find sites promoting violence than if you search for "gun control" or "waiting periods" or "trigger locks" or "bullet fingerprinting."

[Question_Assumptions]

I think the thing that has us all riled is that the software's default policy on gun sites is different from its policy on anti-freedom sites.

"Anti-freedom" is a touchy thing to identify with automatic filters. Suppose, for example, an NRA site quotes an anti-gun site with some key words in it. That site may be blocked to. Picking up words like "gun", "rifle", etc. is easy. Picking up sites that advocate surrendering sovereignty to the United Nations, for example, or violating second amendment rights are much harder to identify. Of course demand plays a role, too. If you can create a demand for a category that blocks left-wing propaganda, Symantec or some other company will eventually fill that demand.

By making one choice the default on one side of an argument and the opposite choice the default on the other side of the argument, it seems they are either intentionally taking a position, or revealing their unconscious prejudices.

For better or worse (worse, I think), the media has convinced people that children can't handle weapons or infomation about them. Soccer moms buy these filters and don't want little Nichole and Jason looking at guns. If you don't like that, Symantec is a symptom of the problem, not the cause.

[norton]

agreed, and I still don't know how to go into the thing to see what my 'parents' are or are not filtering out of my young (not) life.

That is, if I had norton anti-virus; any similar rants about mcafee?