Ist eagleforum.org sicher?

Those who express their political or, otherwise, personal OPINIONS here are ABUSING WOT. WOT is _NOT_ a forum for such infantile behavior!!! WOT is specifically for reporting whether a site is SAFE for your computer or carries risk of infestation from malware. There is also opportunity to report Privacy Risks such as tracking cookies and/or Phishing attempts amongst other things like actual cu$tomer experience. ** If you don't know what a tracking cookie is or what Phishing is and you think that antivirus and firewall software is a waste of time or have no knowledge of such software at all, then keep your NON-Technical _OPINIONS_ to YOURSELF!!!!! WOT is for _TECHNICAL_ reporting! ..._NOTHING_ ELSE!!! As far as the safety of this site is concerned, I found that uBlock blocked the site altogether. I disabled it to be able to view the site. At this time, I am a NEW user of uBlock so I can not address what that means, just that it happened. That is why I listed the privacy risks that I did...just to be safe. None of my other armor-ware said a peep. Therefore, I am reasonably sure that this site carries no risk of virus transmission. As far as that goes, TECHNICALLY speaking, I trust this site not to infest my computer with viruses or other malwarez. But, I WILL be using CCleaner to clean my computer up after visiting this site to mitigate any tracking which may take place. Because this site is a political site for adults, it is rather obvious that it is NOT meant for children. This is why I rated it quite low for Child Suitability. *I DID Rate this site. I do trust this site for general safety from viruses and malwarez. I rated this site Unsuitable for Children. I don't know why WOT has all of a sudden stopped registering my Ratings and this is just one reason why my "LUV" for WOT has waned.

The idea that this is not a trustworthy website says more about the leftist political thinking of those who see this as an untrustworthy website, than it does about the quality of this website. Phillis Schlafly is a Christian, a President Calvin Coolidge style constitutional conservative, and, finally, a strong adherent of literacy; something disliked by those whose methods that have made some 55% of adult Americans too illiterate to read and understand the Holy Bible.

This is a GOOD site. Eagle Forum has been in existence since 1973 & they've always provided true information. Those who rate it as a 'bad' site are those who disagree with the facts presented here. Eagle Forum is a great source to get information on the Conservative, Pro-Family side of things. I'm always amazed how those who disagree with Conservative views immediately protest & start name-calling; using terms like 'bigot'; 'homophobic'; 'anti-choice'...liberals have NO tolerance for any views but their own. BUT, those who are Conservative, Traditional thinkers are expected to tolerate "Liberal' views in silence, even though we view them as objectionable. It's time for BOTH sides to realize that tolerance is a two-way street. As free-thinking people both sides must respect the thoughts & beliefs of others...THIS IS WHAT FREEDOM IS!

It's shameful that liberals are using WOT as a political tool. And WOT, shame on you for allowing politics to taint such a good tool for trustworthy web surfing. If this continues, you too will lose all credibility and get tossed on the trash heap due to some political zealots.

Phyllis McAlpin Stewart Schlafly is an American constitutional lawyer, conservative activist, author, and founder of the Eagle Forum -Wiki... Well, to mommys-basement bloggers that qualifies her to be marginalized at least and (predictably) demonized. Sad, but predictable; In the war of ideas; You folks have surrendered. ...Making our case on all things "social" -Thanks, much! Oh! Buy the way don't forget to clean your room and take out the garbage. GROW UP & try winning us over with valid arguments, not childish tantrums God Bless!

I do know why people rate this site unsafe, but a difference in opinion is no reason to do such a thing, the only reason to rate a site poorly is real danger, such as Trojans, viruses, root-kits or the fact that a site would use your data in a wrong way... None of these apply to this site, so this site has to be rated fairly, and thus has to be rated safe... To all who rate this site badly, how would you guys feel if people who disagree with your opinion would rate you or your site's as dangerous, just based on their opinion of your ideas? Do any of you know who said "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? If we, together, as a people do not live up to those words, the day will come that you will be silenced, as censorship never stops, and always expands into all areas and opinions... Remember the inquisition? Nobody was safe, even the greatest saints lived in fear... This is the only outcome if you go down the road of censorship... So please, rate sites not on their ideas, but only on their safety to be surfed without danger...

In the “Help Center” under the heading “Can a site’s reputation be manipulated?” it says: “When someone first hears about the concept behind WOT, their first objection is that someone could easily spam the system with tons of ratings and rate down their competitors or otherwise manipulate reputations, but that's not true. In order to keep ratings more reliable, the system tracks each user's rating behavior before deciding how much it trusts the user. WOT applies sophisticated algorithms to detect and eliminate any manipulation of reputation.” Where is the WOT site administration on this and what are they doing about it?

While I may not agree with many of the site's views, I must concur with others here that users of WOT need to better educate themselves on the various categories of WOT and their purposes. Just because you disagree with a site's views doesn't mean you should rate every category as red. For example, "Trustworthiness" only pertains to whether you can access the site without getting infested with malware. If this is marked red by users for political reasons, the reliability of WOT suffers. "um... is this site dangerous or not? Well those other red sites weren't really bad so I guess I'll click anyway... Oh no!"

The current ratings are not based on whether or not the website is technically safe or trustworthy. The ratings are patently dishonest and are purely political in nature, not a real technical evaluation of the site. There should be some accountability for dishonest ratings that are agenda based and not based upon legitimate security concerns.