General discussion
Blocking of Political Sites
lun 24 déc 2007 01:15:21 UTC — jbgoochThe developers of WOT have a good concept for protecting web surfers against unsafe sites, but it seems some users may use this idea to discourage others from visiting sites containing material they feel is politically incorrect or perhaps supports opinions contradictory to their own. I recently visited the site below and was initially blocked by WOT because it has a "Dangerous" rating.
http://charlestonvoice.netfirms.com/ASA.htm
There is nothing dangerous about this site, unless you support the neo-fascist attempts to remove all voices of conservative political discourse from the net.
If WOT becomes a censorship tool, it will be promptly removed from my computer. I want to be protected against phishing, trojans and viruses.
I do not need, or want to be "protected" from free speech!
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
Censorship?
lun 24 déc 2007 08:46:00 UTC — SamiThe website in question has bad ratings for vendor reliability and privacy, because the netfirms.com domain has bad ratings in these components, and subdomains initially inherit the parent domain's reputation until the system has enough ratings for them:
http://www.mywot.com/blog/2007/3/29
So why are the ratings bad? It looks like there have been several phishing sites hosted under the netfirms.com domain during the past couple of months. These kinds of problems can affect a domain's reputation rather quickly. When several websites share a parent domain, it affects all of them.
Anyway, how does a warning constitute a breach of free speech? It's not like WOT forcibly keeps you from visiting the website. You can simply give your own rating for the site and never see the warning again. In fact, if you disagree with the rating, you should rate the site.