[BattleFlag]

"There is no way that Symantec can do what you're asking them to do."

Of course there is, it would be a very simple matter to start each installation with a clean slate in which the company has made no decisions for anyone about anything.

I am sure Symantec could afford to have a little extra code written so that using a "wizard" based setup categories, individual sites, keywords or whatever other criteria works could be selected to be screened. This would truly leave the entire process in the hands of the user.

But whether you view it as a big deal or not Symantec has made choices for its users they evidently do not trust the users to make for themselves.

Its seems the "default" state would be a clean slate.

[Egon]

I am sure Symantec could afford to have a little extra code written so that using a "wizard" based setup categories, individual sites, keywords or whatever other criteria works could be selected to be screened. This would truly leave the entire process in the hands of the user. But whether you view it as a big deal or not Symantec has made choices for its users they evidently do not trust the users to make for themselves.

Having worked in software development for several years, it has become apparent to me that the majority of users are not like you and me. I agree, I prefer a blank slate to a wizard. However, Joe-user wants the "obvious" defaults to be set so he can one-click it. Assuming that Symantec has to keep up with the market demand for this "dumb" default installation, imagine the lawsuits if another Columbine can be blamed on Johnny not being automagically blocked from a "pro-violence" (read: pro-2nd Amendment) site.

I'm sorry, but if I were Symantec, I'd do exactly what they've done (my constitutional views not withstanding), and explain it to you exactly as they did.