NOW OFFICIAL - O2 AND SYMANTEC BELIEVE HELPING MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEX ABUSE IS HATEFUL

By now most people are aware of the issue of men's rights website being wrongly blocked by Symantec and various mobile phone companies due to them somehow being flagged as "hate sites". I've done further investigations and can exclusively reveal the official response from these companies on this matter. There tends to be a bit of confusion about this issue and so firstly I'll attempt to explain what's going on and tackle some misconceptions.

Which sites are blocked?
I initially identified 48 sites blocked by Symantec/O2 and flagged as "hate sites". The list then grew to 58 as even more were identified. It's fair to say that a majority of key sites critical of feminism and supportive of men's rights are blocked. You can see the full list here.

What exactly does this mean for the sites concerned?
The "hate site" classification means a number of users are denied any access, particularly people accessing the internet in some restaurants, workplaces and via mobile phone networks such as Telefonica/O2. In total Symantec claims 250 million users of the filter worldwide, so it could easily mean a 10% reduction in traffic for mens' rights sites.

How long has this being going on?
It is uncertain as to exactly how long this has been an issue. I became aware of the problem in May 2012 though it appears to have been going on in some cases for at least two years. It must have been happening for a considerable length of time as some of the blocked sites no longer exist.

Hold on, I thought avoiceformen.com had been unblocked and Symantec had backed down?
Sadly this is not the case and such a suggestion is based on a false report in the media. Avoiceformen.com was never unblocked at any stage.

I find this all a bit hard to believe, how can I check a site's classification for myself?
There are currently two ways to check whether or not a site has been branded as a "hate site". Users have previously checked a site's status by enabling Norton's DNS service, but a much easier method is O2's url checker.


Other mens' rights activists and even member of the media have had difficulty getting any sort of meaningful response from Symantec so I've taken a different approach and been in touch with O2/Telefonica management. I asked them to classify the blocked websites more appropriately and to stop censoring such content.  Eventually I was put in contact with O2's head of complaints, Antony Gibson, and he confirmed that O2 use the same filter service from Symantec, called Rulespace, thus explaining why the two block lists of the two companies are identical.

Mr Gibson liaised with Symantec and informed me they had reviewed the list and decided to reclassify just 2 out of the 47 sites I presented them with. This therefore means the "hate" classification/block officially stands for the bulk of this content (including avoiceformen.com) and is no accident. Mr Gibson explained that O2/Symantec regarded the sites to be at the "low end" of the spectrum in terms of hate and further explained that they were blocked and classed as "hate sites" due to reasons such as showing "aggression" and/or use of the term "anti-feminism"!

Mr Gibson did express some concern about people seeing men's rights sites listed as hate sites and smeared in this way, but O2's solution to our concerns is that they will disable their url checker so no one can see the reason why a site has been blocked. In other words O2 is fairly happy for the issue of human rights for men to be classed as hateful, their only concern is people finding out that they're taking this stance. So, now we have no just a case of censorship and defamation, but a cover up too!

To compound matters yet further, many of these sites classified as hateful really are incredibly innocuous and deal with very important issues, many don't even use the term "anti-feminist" either nor contain "aggression". Such a term is so vague and ambiguous as to be completely meaningless, and proves absolutely how the filter is arbitrary and a nonsense and completely open to abuse. More importantly, if O2/Symantec have an issue with the term "anti-feminist", then they are quite blatantly taking an extreme political stance in favour of an ideology. Afterall, there's barely any more "aggressive" way of supporting feminist doctrine than to censor and defame anyone who dares critique or correct it.

I think this issue really sums up how important the men's' movement is today, not to mention the scale of the challenge facing us. We see countless feminist activists all over the media campaigning against free speech and equality and seeking privileges for women such as subsidised  insurance premiums. Feminists make endless sexist comments telling men not to rape and even the host of the world's leading feminist radio programme openly laughs at male victims of domestic abuse. Whilst all this has been going on, and despite spending countless hours on the matter,  I've failed with a simple request for companies to stop denying help to male victims of rape and domestic violence. In fact I can't even get these sick companies to remove their "hate site" smear from their classification of these vitally important resources. Perhaps I haven't yet been "aggressive" enough?

Here's a selection of sites O2/Symantec's insist on keeping in their "hate site" category:

http://dvmen.org  - A site in Colorado helping male victims of domestic violence.
http://toysoldier.wordpress.com - A blog highlighting the plight of male victims of rape and abuse.
http://www.ncfm.org  -Website of the longest running men's human rights organisation in the US (founded in 1977).
http://www.fathersforlife.org  - A site seeking for fathers to have a greater role in their children's lives.
http://www.debunker.com/patriarchy.html  - A webpage scientifically debunking the most common feminist myths.
http://disenfranchisedfather.blogspot.co.uk - blog by a fahter who doesnt' get to see his son.


For those who are curious, apparently the only two non-"hateful" men's sites out of the 47 are:
Hisside.com and dadi.org and both are now unblocked.

Update:

O2 have been in touch and would like me to point out that O2 customers who are over 18 can remove the restriction and view any web site they want to by going through their age verificaiton process which can be found here. Customers without a credit card can visit an O2 store with photo ID such as a passport or driving licence.

by John Kimble

The following may or may not be the email addresses of the O2 board members:

[email protected], Pilar.Ló[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Kate [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], René[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Comments

[Barryb]

Good work John k.

I know Three also block some groups and sites under the same filter as porn and "extremism".

[John Kimble]

Yes, I will be compiling a list of Men's human rights sites blocked as pornography, although obviously that's not so much of a priority as those wrongly classed as hateful.

[Groan]

Well done for this work.

[barryb]

The ones you have listed previously via THREE network, THREE certainly seem to be better than they was a while back now.

http://toysoldier.wordpress.com Blocked
http://www.angryharry.com Blocked
http://egghead.adamsspace.com/ account now suspended?

[Paul]

I have complained about misandry sites on Facebook and have been told that they dont violate their standards. Perhaps if more men complained Have a look at this vile page FFS they have a picture of a women shrpshooter killing men!
https://www.facebook.com/misandryunited

[Dave]

Good work John. These days, I'm noticing more and more misandry as each day goes by. There isn't a day go by where the BBC don't have an article or news story concerning women's rights. It's actually getting worse and I totally despair at the fact that more men simply don't complain. I think, as Paul just said, if more men complained then things would HAVE to change. But for some reason men just allow this all to happen. Perhaps it's because men aren't programmed to support each other like women are. Perhaps it's because men aren't quite as emotional, I don't know. But one thing's for sure, men aren't making progress anywhere near as quickly as they should be. I'm starting to think that men are part of the problem here and that attention needs to be directed towards the edification of boys and men so they get a grip and understand the issues. My bet is that most men either don't know or don't care. Not a good start.

I've just listened to MB's radio interview and once again, a fantastic job from Mike. I just hope and pray that as Mike gains support and confidence that he will manage to get across a more diverse array of discrimination evidence against men and have the courage to reel off long lists of men's rights issues. The feminist he was talking with (can't even remember her name) was fighting Mike with complete and utter nonsense. I think most people could see that. But I think if Mike was prepared to throw in a few low blows without worrying, he'd probably garner even more attention (which is what we need) and credibility. In other words, if I were in Mike's place on that interview I would have persistently asked why feminists only want quotas in the comfy areas of business. I would also have highlighted the fact that there is nothing stopping girls from studying physics or, for that matter, driving lorries. They simply choose not to.

I think Mike is brilliant but I think it's time to get tough. It's time that we had answers to all of these issues and it would be nice to hit these feminists with indisputable facts on air that will make them wince. How about starting with Germaine Greer's disgusting book that shows naked boys and is on the shelf for public viewing! And then insist on some answers when everyone tries to deflect the situation or try to excuse it using some amount of pathetic logic! Or start up a conversation talking about female privilege i.e. ladies first, titanic, media censorship, violence, child custody, prison sentences etc. And, again, when they change the direction of the discourse, get them back on track to answer the question and explain themselves. Or talk about violence against men in music videos and ask why this is permitted in people's living room before the watershed whilst the opposite gets banned. Or talk about why the advertising standards allows averts to portray men as idiots.

I firmly believe that stuff like this will grab the attention of the listener and give them something to identify with. It'll irritate the hell out of feminists and it's all indisputable.

[Edward Charles]

The Unspoken Abuse by Edward Charles
A Story of Domestic Violence: When A Wife Becomes a Feared Companion

Stories regarding domestic violence have held a home on bookstore shelves for many decades. These tales often involve a woman who is abused and dominated by the very man who should care about her the most. Typically, these books end up being a moving tale of female survival. However, there is another sinister side to these types of stories and those involve the man being the victim while the woman is the controlling and abusive partner.

Such is the case in the riveting autobiographical book, The Unspoken Abuse, by author Edward Charles. This book provides an insightful and powerful view into the hellish life of one abuse survivor. Edward speaks candidly about the events of his life during this traumatic phase and leaves no stone unturned in revealing the truth behind his experiences. While once thought of as taboo, the author is forthright in his approach to this topic. His sincere hope is that others will learn from his own experiences and draw inspiration from his story.

One telling review of this book indicates, “I literally started and finished this book in one day. What this man has had to ensure is heartbreaking. It brings to light a very real issue! Women and children are not the only ones to suffer at the hands of an abuser. Very poignant and moving.”

Edward Charles had high hopes that he had found the love of his life when he met Angie. She was going through a bad divorce at the time that they met and Edward was more than happy to lend her his full love and support. Once they moved in together with Angie’s son, it seems like nothing but calm and love awaited them. This vision was shaken one night when Angie put out a cigarette on Edward’s wrist and embarked on a bizarre and brutal course of abuse towards him. He was not only physically mistreated, but mentally abused as well. With a daughter later in the picture, he struggled harder than ever to make peace with his wife and put an end to her violent tendencies. Reaching out to the authorities seemed almost hopeless, as they had a very difficult time grasping the concept of the wife as abuser and the husband as victim. Once he had finally escaped the grasp of Angie, Edward realized that while the abuse of him had come to an end she was now going to use their daughter as a weapon.

The author crafts a raw and real picture for the reader. While at times the abuse is difficult to read about, the perseverance and grit of Edward is inspirational. This book unmasks some of the darkest secrets in society, while at the same time providing hope for others in a similar situation. Another review of this book reveals, “I think we all know women like this, but men are ashamed. It is sad that the children suffer so much.”

[Barryb]

I lodged a complaint for "Hate speech" on the facebook misandry page Paul.

I think it is bloody ridiculous Muslims get their pages taken down, men do but women can have a page like that ?

Facebook shoudl be heavily fined for allowing such pages after complaints have been filed. It is clearly severe hate speech against a gender. A breach of the law.

[Groan]

Dave from the point of view from psychology there are some very deep seated male traits. The first is an assumption of agency: men are socialised to assume they have to sort their own lives and find solutions for themselves and their dependents. In which case not being "helpless" men don't seek help. This is coupled with a later socialisation to see their value through what they do, particularly for others. Thus being human doings generally men are good at working, sorting and protecting and apply too little value to themselves. Hence it is frequently female partners relatives who first seek help on their behalf, in health, abuse and so on. So I personally think that an appeal to fairness will resonate with men but not anything that appears to attack those they are so deeply socialised to protect. This is why the cry of misogyny is so effective in shutting down MRA. Relentless facts and alerting men to misandry as a driver for an unfair treatment of them seems to me to be the best tack. It's a hard road for men such as Mike B as they have to be calm or risk their opponent getting emotional sympathy if he even appears to be "rough". Not fair at all but that's is where generally the male psychology is.
Barley thank thank you for your story. Even in fiction the Coronation street story has increased referrals locally and influenced dservices.

[Barryb]

Dave, it is because of chivalry and traditionalism men do nothing so often. They are programmed from birth to "take it like a man" and to "man up" . They are programmed to ridicule their peers if they don't.

Not this one.

[Groan]

Sorry the reference to barley should read Edward. No idea why that happened.

[Markus, Australia]

Maybe the blocked sites, could be mirrored to multiple urls. Even if the first url is on the black list, subsequent urls are not, and FTSU.

[Barryb]

Groan, MRA must gently and slowly turn these traits in their fellow men around so they become socially unacceptable and mocked in their own right.

I'm not good at dealing with mangina's and white knights I usually prefer to dump them where I find them. I don't need something so mentally weak in my life, but that's me I guess:-)

[John Kimble]

Markus- The Swiss ant feminist site on the list has no less than 7 differnet domains. Every single one is blocked as a "hate site".

[Bob]

I was VERY pleased to hear Mike Buchanan on the radio a couple of days ago and so good that MRA issues are actually getting discussed. I hope the new party can grab the headlines and build more momentum. This was the first time that I have heard in-passing a men's rights issue broadcast.

One thing that bothers me though, Mike said that 'Whenever women join a company the company's performance goes down', even if statistically this is true, he/we need to make sure that it is clear that this is not because of something intrinsic in women and may be because of other factors, but I think this whole area should be avoided altogether. I mean its akin to saying that whenever black people join a company performance goes down, it really is pretty offensive. It may be because women work part-time more often and this has inherent inefficiencies, or..there are probably many reasons.

The feminist (and she used the word at least 3 times) on the radio who was confronting him said that women were most affected by benefit cuts and of course this is true..I mean since women are the recipients of most benefits in the first place it stands to reason that they will be most affected by cuts. Were men and women give the same levels of value in the family and hence the benefits system they would be equally hit by cuts.

On the blocking of sites, we need to watch out that comments are not taken by the feminist skewed policies as actual content and opinion of the site and hence lead to a site's blocking. It would be easy for fake posters to use derogatory slang terms and insults and then even report the site themselves as hateful. There is no doubt that there are trolls who have a hidden agenda who could use this tactic, if they haven't already.

Sorry if this post is a bit off-topic, I usually try to stay on-topic as much as possible.

[Barryb]

" One thing that bothers me though, Mike said that 'Whenever women join a company the company's performance goes down', even if statistically this is true, he/we need to make sure that it is clear that this is not because of something intrinsic in women and may be because of other factors, but I think this whole area should be avoided altogether. I mean its akin to saying that whenever black people join a company performance goes down, it really is pretty offensive"

Nothing like being a coward/mangina/white knight and denying the truth is there? It's that kind of thinking that has got us in all this mess. That thinking serves you if you want to be an weasley scumbag career politician filling their own boots, it does nothing if you want to effect real change.

You even admit yourself it is true or that statistics can back it, well I say if it is the truth and you can prove it...SAY IT !

Just my tuppence

[Groan]

I think Mike was clear he thought this reflected the much smaller pool of women execs. Rightly Mike avoids the nature nurture debates as these ebb and flow and aren't material to the issue of equity. Even if it were that females had a natural advantage in education it is not good enough to ignore boys educational under performance for instance. Mikes point is women choose not to do the behaviours to climb the corporate ladder and to put in quotas is to discriminate against men in favour of the few females who to want to climb that ladder.

[Bob]

Hi Groan, I heard the dabate on the radio and there was no clear follow up regarding the stat that women tend to reduce the peformance of a company. Perhaps he clarified it later, the braodcast was piecemeal so perhaps it was dealt with later. But at the time it sounded bad. I'm not saying that the statistic is not correct but there are some statistics that
aren't easy to get across in a 'tabliod' format such as many radio shows.

I have great respect for Mike but with modern mass media requiring soundbite to get the message across you need to use your best weapons effectively, the statement Mike made requires explanation and there is smply not time to explain and hense he is likely to be misunderstood, save these in depth debates for more apt formats. Its a skill all politicians must master and an MRA at the p9litical level has to play by these rules to, not just survive, but advance. I hope you understand Groan that I am not against nor disagreeing with Mike.

[barryb]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2294640/Peter-Hitchens-We-fuss-mothers--tell-dump-children-baby-farms-work.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

Interesting article by Hitchens today.

[Groan]

Bob. I hope our musings are helpful to Mike and JFM&B, I think we both are saying keep it simple. Barry though PH is not at all my cup of tea his piece is a good précis. I will hunt down the research from Sweden. The one thing he missed is the fact that the males in the same class he mentions also have done reasonable well too, now in two income high flying family units. No the "isms" fall heaviest on the majority who are disproportionately effected by family breakdown, falling wages and prospects, educational failure and social distress. And of course it is the C classes who are most socially conservative aspiring to traditional family life but increasingly not able to meet this aspiration.

[Bob]

Groan, I'm afraid I don't think Barry has a grasp of the issue at all really. Though who knows what agendas are playing in a post.

I'm not just saying keep it simple, it has to be planned, especially when statements like "When you hire women the performace of a company goes down", are left in the air. The audience infers that he is saying women are intrinsically inferior to men when it comes to business. It may be statistically true that business suffers when women are taken on in numbers, but there may be numberous reasons for this that have nothing to do with the women themselves, but unless these reasons are stated people will assume the worst and one is in danger of being misunderstood.

In a tabloid radio format he will never get the chance to go in-depth and should save these more complex points of possible for a better opportunity, or actually try to explain them, but leaving things unanswered is the not the best thing to do.

He still did very well though and made many good points, but that statement hung in the air and will alienate women who support mens rights (and there are many) and also guys like myself who do not think that women are intrinsically inferior in business.

I think Groan, we are more or less on the same page though.

[Barryb]

Bob, you can address me directly, don't be so much like that which the rest of us fight against, don't speak of me in the third person to another, if you got an issue with what I say, damn well address me with it.

I have a firm grasp of things Bob but I also am sick and tired of the same bloody bullshit.

This country has had enough of the same old tactics on all sides, the same political games by the same manipulative scumbags.

Time to say it like it is. Time for a third way of doing things. Don;t play the game on their fucking dime or their bent rules, media or otherwise.

MAKE YOUR OWN !