What was blocking the sites?

[KAREN SCHNEIDER]

Folks, I have received a large  number of supporting messages
from all you other "social issues" out there, one message
suggesting I'm about to be sued, and  two phone calls from filter
vendors; as well as several messages asking me if I thought
OCLC was blocking gay sites (no!), one  accusing me of saying
that Bess, definitively, blocked the OCLC records I was viewing
(no, go back and reread the message), and one asking me if the
Library of Congress was blocking sites (no, not them either).  Last
but not least, I received one message saying I should not have
been looking for "gay books" on company time (it was 5:25 p.m.;
raise your hand if you get to work before 8 a.m and work through
lunch).  (Gee, and all that happened LAST Thursday was I got
my picture in Information Week...)

One of the problems of proprietary site lists is that you really
have no way of knowing what is being blocked--or what is doing
the blocking.  In my post, I hedged on what product was
blocking, for two reasons.  First,  I am really not sure; I had
uninstalled two products, but win3.1 over Novell ain't the
smoothest OS.    Second, the focus of my post was the
consequences of handing off all responsibility to a company--not
the product itself, but the action by our 
"we-have-met-the-enemy-and-they-is-us" librarians.  This was not
a "four legs good, two legs bad" approach.  Not all companies are
inherently  bad; I don't have an anti-vendor mindset (although
looking at the Cybersitter site, which brags that it blocks
homosexual *and* "intolerant" sites in the same breath, is more
than a little scary).  And I think a lot of you (especially the "social
issues") caught that my emphasis was very much on us, not them. 
Librarians in Hawaii recently fought for hte right to select
material.  Why would we give up the right to select online
resources?  There's something else going on here, again, related
to *us*, not *them.*  They can only sell something we are willing
to buy.  

I had what I hope was a very good discussion with some vendors
this morning, and one thing I *will* say is that on request,  the
Bess folks will let you use your own site list.  That was NOT an
option offered by the salesperson I spoke with two days ago, nor
did anyone at Bess attempt to say they market this product... it was
more on the line of "hmmmmm, if you reallllly want that, we can do
it," sort of on the line of someone ordering a garlic-pickle cake at
the baker's.   Hey, if we don't talk about what we need, or explain
what we need, or work with vendors to find a middle ground
between our needs and their capabilities...  The Bess folks were
also willing to discuss meeting with librarians on this issue and
even participating in forums, perhaps at ALA; we talked about a
lot of things.  But what was going on here was dialog--I hope,
anyway.  I'm not the software-filter poster girl, nor am I about to
run out and buy Bess, but they were there and I was here and we
talked.  I can understand that they spend a lot of time and money
on the part of the product I find scariest and most dubious, and I
don't *necessarily* believe (or disbelieve) that all companies are
not acting in what they believe are our best interests... from a
business perspective, anyway.  I think we have some important 
ground to claim and hold on this issue, and it's up to us to do the
hard work of assessing our products, explaining our needs, and
back and forth ad infinitum. (If I had a first item on my  wishlist, it
would be to find a way for companies to make their site lists
available and editable  without compromising their profit margin,
which is how, I am guessing,  they perceive it.)  

Speaking of company time, I'll return to this topic at greater
length when I'm not using the same to discuss this... this is  a valid
professional issue, but I simply gotta lotta catching up to do.

K. Schneider/opinions still her own