norton symantec o2 censorship totalitarianism

Open Letter to Symantec/Norton/O2 on Censorship

It has been brought to my attention that my web site, Men Are Good, has been listed as a hate site by internet corporate giants Symantec and O2. This is a preposterous claim.

I have been working with men for many years as a mental health professional. During that time I have specialized in learning, and then teaching other mental health professionals, about the uniqueness of a man’s way of processing emotions. I have written three books on the topic and have appeared on CNN, the CBS Evening News, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and many others. I have presented workshops in the United States, Europe, Canada, and Australia teaching mental health professionals about men’s uniqueness. When NFL Films chose to do a documentary on the America’s National Football League and Grief, they called me in as their expert. The show ran on both ESPN and the NFL Network.

It was through this work in understanding men that I first began learning of the places where men face discrimination and hardship for simply being men. It was crystal clear that men in emotional pain were routinely ignored and expected to figure it out on their own, while women were instantly offered support and understanding by men and women alike. The emotional pain of men was a taboo subject, while a woman’s pain was a call to action for everybody. I started bringing these discrepancies to the attention of the public and found out very quickly that people simply didn’t want to hear about it. Not only was there very little interest, the media was complicit in their stories to be sure to focus on females in need and not males.

As the years went on I started seeing other areas where men faced discrimination and hardship. Places like family courts, domestic violence treatment, false accusations, health care, and many more. Again, it was clear that the public was allergic to these issues when it came to the needs of men, no matter how true they might be. They were supported by a media that stuck to the politically correct theme of women as victims in need of help and men as the problem.

Then along came the internet and suddenly there was a voice for men that came alive. Sites were popping up daily to bring awareness to the discrimination and hardship of men and boys. Now, even without the help of the media the word was getting out, no matter how much people didn’t want to hear about it.

Then along comes Norton/Symantec, and O2, who decide that those sites that are voicing the needs of men aren’t really voicing the needs of men, they are hateful, dangerous even!

We have seen this before. It’s the same turning of the head we have seen from the media for years, now it’s just a little different–and much more lethal. The free speech of humanitarian activists is being silenced by a group that is hidden from view and exercises control over the lives of others from behind a screen. No voting about this, no discussion about this, no notes sent to site owners about this, no rules that map out what can and can’t be done. No. Just a silent and invisible group that imposes their will and judgements upon millions. I will avoid drawing the obvious comparison.

I am asking you to please remove my site from this list immediately. If you choose to not do so I think it is only fair that you let me know what violations I have committed that justify classifying a humanitarian effort as hatefulness.

I would also ask that you do the same for the other men’s sites listed below that you have dubbed hateful. Either take them off the list or explain exactly why they are there.

Tom Golden, LCSW – all 7 domains blocked** * * * * * * * *

Update: The above list Tom used is very slightly out of date because it shifts regularly. John Kimble has been doing yeoman’s work in keeping an up-to-date tally of Symantec and O2’s victims here. –DE

(Title image “Moloch of Totalitarianism” by “GBTA” and taken from Wikimedia Commons & used under Creative Commons license.)

  • Artmigellan

    Thanks for the list of websites to peruse. Never heard of a lot of these sites.

  • Dean Esmay

    For some reason, I particularly blew a gasket over Toy Soldiers.

    Really? Toy Soldiers? REALLY!?!?!?!

    I mean, yes, we here at AVfM have friends on many of those sites, and of course we are one of them but.. Toy Soldiers? Are you fucking kidding me? I mean, the whole matter is vomit-inducing but that site in particular: a site for men and boys recovering from sexual abuse. That’s a hate site. Really. I just…

    I have no words.

    • Edisland

      It just shows how misandrist they are. Toysoldier is one of the fairest critics of feminism that I know of. Most of his articles are about the sexual abuse of men and how society ignores it.

      If one needed a proof of how little society cares about the wellbeing of men, look no further.

    • pjanus

      What a surprise, The Good Men Project is not listed!

      • Theseus

        Get a grip man! Don’t you know that if a men and boys issues site doesn’t have a healthy dose of shaming articles, and ways to fix ourselves in order to be better human beings like the other superior half of the population, it HAS to be a “hate site”?

  • feminismisbullshit

    Simply believing that Men are good to some people is considered “hate speech” in fact any rhetoric that doesn’t mercilessly shame men for the actions of a few outliers is considered “misogyny”.

    • Tom Golden

      Indeed. This is true even in such places as the APA division 51 for the study of men and masculinity. Any people joining that group and voicing ideas that are truly pro-male are seen as hostile and are ejected.

      • Allan

        I was on that list for a while and noticed that too!

        I’d love to hear more from you Tom. You’ve long captured my attention and admiration though I’m amazed to find someone like you in the field of Social Work.

        I’ve advocated a lot for many years for male victims of childhood and adult sexual victimization. I got pretty good at it. Long story short, it’s stunning how highly stigmatizing and shaming myths are promoted and taught by mental health professionals as scientific fact. In spite of studies and obvious truths. I considered a career in social work only to discover here in Minnesota, our school teaches all male victims are sex offenders and should be treated in sex offender programs! It has an ideological climate I imagine compares to the inquisition.

        Thus my enlightenment that advocating for male victims is a much bigger problem than I ever dreamed of. Compassion for men and boys is increasingly heresy and punished as such.

        • Allan

          I just saw your post at men are good, “The World is Unaware if its Bigotry”….

          “I don’t think we will see much change to this in the near future. Sadly, we are locked into a bigoted and hateful system and almost no one knows it. I wish I didn’t know it.”

          Exactly. Well, at least I don’t feel alone and crazy saying that…

        • Tom Golden

          Hi Allan – I’m old enough where I got my MSW prior to the feminist infiltration. The profession is now an embarrassment. I write to NASW about once every two weeks on issues related to men and boys and they rarely write back. Go figure. The latest one was about a workshop on domestic violence. The ad said they were going to be talking about LGBT, Native Americans and college students. I found one of the presenters emails and asked her if they would be talking about male victims considering the reauthorization of VAWA now overtly claiming it is free from sex discrimination. I heard back from her. Here’s the quote. LOL

          Hello Mr. Golden.

          The focus is on explaining new aspects of domestic violence policies. There will be no discussion on men as victims.

          Have a good day!


          Needless to say I didn’t stop there. ;>) This sort of response is sadly typical.

          An NASW official was cc’d on later responses from her (it was an official NASW workshop) and the NASW rep not only didn’t respond….she literally changed the subject as if we were talking about something else. I wrote her back saying she somehow missed the original question and she hasn’t gotten back to me yet. Par for the course.

      • Allan

        I was on that list for a while and noticed that too.

        I’d love to hear more from you Tom. You’ve long captured my attention and admiration though I’m amazed to find someone like you in the field of Social Work.

        I’ve advocated a lot for many years for male victims of childhood and adult sexual victimization. I got pretty good at it. Long story short, it’s stunning how highly stigmatizing and shaming myths are promoted and taught by mental health professionals as scientific fact. In spite of studies and obvious truths. I considered a career in social work only to discover here in Minnesota, our school teaches all male victims are sex offenders and should be treated in sex offender programs! It has an ideological climate I imagine compares to the inquisition.

        Thus my enlightenment that advocating for male victims is a much bigger problem than I ever dreamed of. Compassion for men and boys is increasingly heresy and punished as such

        • Tom Golden

          That list is a pretty crazy place, eh? They ejected me about a year ago claiming I was hostile and refused to answer questions. Both claims as bogus as a $7 bill. The fact is that I was asking questions to the group that they simply could not handle. They are steeped in feminism and any criticism of feminism is seen as pissing on the holy grail. I wrote about 250 messages to that group. I have wondered about publishing them for all to see and offering a reward if anyone can find a hostile post.

          I remember one of the things that really got them was after they had banned another man who was pro-male. They claimed he talked too much about male victims of domestic violence. No, I am not making that up. They literally claimed that he talked too much about male victims. So what did they do? They banned him but didn’t tell the group! About a month after the banning I asked where he was? They didn’t say much and it took some prodding for me to get it out of them that he had been banned. So I told a story about Stalin on his riverboat on the Volga. It seems that he would interview local politicians on the boat and those who agreed with him went back to their communities and those who didn’t were murdered and thrown in the Volga. I pointed out that it seemed similar in some ways with my friend just disappearing. They didn’t think it was funny and thought it was hostile. Now tell me, was that hostile? Or was it just true.

          • Allan

            It’s nasty politics. Standard tactic of silencing opposition. Hostile is beside the point. It’s avoiding a consideration of certain possibilities with scientific dispassion. With loyalty to evidence. Awareness of confirmation bias and compensatory thinking. What’s true must withstand challenge.

            For me, over time, the responses you describe to your comments have become quite patterned and quite predictable. People here are often quite familiar with the routine. What bothers me is how “social science”, health care, any pretense of the scientific method has been lost to it. Where are we without that? We are here. It’s now.

            An example dear to me:

            I trained as a state certified sexual assault advocate at a RAINN network rape crisis center. An interaction in there helped me get clear about something. We were talking about the effects of sexual assault on victims and it was presented as only women raped by males (boyfriends, fathers, husbands…). After about a half hour, I said that there are a lot of male victims but it’s not generally seen: for example in prisons it’s not seen as a crime but dismissed as a “lovers quarrel”, and I was immediately interrupted (before getting to military, frats, female perpetrators, why it’s not seen, etc)… A (female) therapist working in the prison system here no less flatly said, “That’s not true. That doesn’t happen” She went on to explain they encourage reporting and pressing charges and she talked to men all the time and they don’t report rapes. So it doesn’t happen. A routine response.

            “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

            Actually, the US justice department has numerous large studies reporting a lot of male victims of sexual violence and female perpetrators, lots of evidence, ie

            The DOJ’s 2008 prison survey estimated 88,500 men sexually victimized in the last 12 months and 12% of the 26,550 juveniles. Newsweek’s military rape article states 50,000 men have tested positive for sexual trauma at the VA. That’s just the 4 million men in prison or the military. What about the some 150 million rest? Female perpetrators? 94% of youth in correctional facilities reported being sexually abused by female staff.

            You will never end sexual violence (or violence generally too) by creating an invisible underclass of victims (men) who are systematically ignored and actively denied, and by punishing only some perpetrators of sexual violence in a system where rape and sexual abuse is widespread and viewed as just punishment.

            Rather this is our politics. And it’s a nasty business. As you describe with Stalin, I guess it’s always been so.

   US Dept of Justice survey, Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008-09
   US Dept of Justice Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09

  • John Kimble

    I’ve been investigating this issue for a year now and am responsible for producing the list of sites above. I’m maintaining a list of sites here:

    Sites that have been unblocked are shown in green and I’ve formatted it so that sits that are no longer with us are not clickable.

    New entries I’ve discovered recently that I’ll be adding today are and

    • Dean Esmay

      We really appreciate it John. In fact I’ll add an update to the article so people can find the current running list.

    • Tom Golden

      Yes, thank you John for the list and all of your good work on this. Glad that Dean has linked your site in. John had contacted me and let me know that my site was on the list and also offered a list of email addresses from O2. Maybe we should put those addresses up to let others contact them?

  • http://AVFM David Sutton

    This is beyond disturbing. If anything screams “hate,” it is this. Does anyone know the names of the controlling officers? It has to be feminists.

  • napocapo69 (@napocapo69)

    First of all 2 questions; are those sites tagged as hate site, or adult site?
    O2 in which country is censoring?

  • The Real Peterman

    Thank you for your good work, Mr. Golden.

    • Tom Golden

      Thanks. It’s good to be among those who understand the misandry that has become the default.

  • napocapo69 (@napocapo69)

    Techncal tips, as a temporary workaround.
    If those site are banned at DNS level, at least for some of them we could provide the IP address instead of the web address.

    • Carlos

      I’m not positive that it’s just a vanilla DNS filter or if it would also block IP’s or do reverse DNS lookups on IP addresses to avoid such a workaround w/o explicitly blacklisting IPs.

      It’s never been really established, at least in my mind, how extensive this “hate filter” is actually deployed, but setting up a Men’s Right Proxy Server that bypasses it would be technically pretty easy and cheap too and most browsers now support auto-proxy scripts that can selectively use the proxy server based on a Javascript parsing of the URL.

      • napocapo69 (@napocapo69)

        I think Norton does only DNS blacklisting, even because I do not see how they can technically do something else since the service leverage on DNS settings in the PC.
        For O2 I can’t say.

      • Never Blue Again

        What about Ultrasurf ?? That is pretty automatic for IE and Chrome. Only in firefox it requires some LocalHost IP and Port Address Change. And that is pretty simple.

    • Dean Esmay

      Just using IP addresses won’t work on a lot of sites because once you start specifying file locations that often breaks unless the site’s designed to work that way (and a lot aren’t). And any attempt to set up a special proxy server pretty much will lose more than 90% of the audience since the majority of people will not be able to figure out to set up to use it. (I’m very technical, I know how to do it, but good luck getting 90% of the population to figure out how to use one, especially on a phone that might not even allow it.

      • Carlos

        No doubt, forcing people to configure proxies will eliminate 90% of the audience.

        I don’t think it would need to be that hard though. I could write a simple (open source) .vbs that could configure most PC’s automatically, but even that much is more than 90% of people will do.

        Censorship is a losing proposition though. Another option, popular behind the Great Firewall of China, is Tor. You can download builds of Firefox that package Tor + FF and and a Tor “anonymous profile” all in one.

      • napocapo69 (@napocapo69)

        As I said, it is a workaround, with limitations.
        Any better option is welcome.

        • Carlos

          IP’s would work even if the site weren’t designed to allow it if they were mapped to hostnames locally in /etc/hosts or its equivalent.

          I do it all the time when I need to debug web applications on servers I can’t resolve via DNS but which, for various reasons, require that incoming http requests have the correct hostname. How static those IP’s are in practice is another question entirely.

    • strix

      (Dean and Carlos have already said much of this, but I’ll put in my 2p):

      As far as I know, the Symantec filter is DNS-based, and it would be sufficient to provide instructions on how to override the DNS server provided by the user’s DHCP server.

      Server domain names don’t appear anywhere in IP headers themselves, but they do in HTTP request headers (ie, in TCP payload) to support virtual hosting. Without the Host: header, the web server won’t know which of the web sites hosted on a particular IP address is being accessed. A traffic filter must therefore either examine destination IP address (which can catch unrelated web sites) or do deep packet inspection (which is computationally expensive and not easy to do in the network core.)

      There are two problems with accessing a web site via IP address: if the browser doesn’t know the domain name, it can’t put it in the HTTP header and the server won’t know which virtual host is being addressed. Even when virtual hosting isn’t the problem, between the web server itself and the content management software, in most cases the canonical host name is inserted into the generated HTML, so while the first page might succeed, subsequent page accesses will fail.

      A proxy is not likely to work either. Quite apart from Dean’s point (that readers can’t or won’t make the effort), all Symantec have to do is add the proxy’s name to the blacklist and/or the providers (like O2) filter the proxy’s IP address(es).

      Also, running an open proxy is a noble, but difficult thing to do. It’ll get exploited by spammers and crackers in short order (meaning you’ll be paying for non MHRM traffic) and then the proxy’s IP will wind up in the various anti-abuse DNS blacklists. Good luck finding a hosting company that will permit their IPs from getting contaminated like that. Moreover, there are potential legal liabilities that arise from proxying unknown traffic.

      Best bets are Tor for an anonymising proxy, and manual DNS settings override to circumvent Symantec’s nonsense.

      • Carlos

        Great analysis! It didn’t even occur to me to just change the DNS server in the users network config to be something/anything other than the one provided by the ISP/DHCP (OpenDNS servers would be an excellent option.).

        I never meant to suggest it would be a wide open proxy though. That would be a disaster that everyone would blacklist (myself included.) Rather that it would, through an AutoProxy script, only route requests to black-listed sites through the proxy and the proxy would only work with those same sites.

  • Feminist_Nullificationist

    Great article, thanks Tom for “Standing Your Ground.” And to Symantec/Norton/O2, nah, nah, naa, nah, you missed me. :-)
    The words out. There are just to many men and men’s issues to ever be silent again – no matter how many bullies want to rule “the playing field” with their biases and disingenuousness.

    • Tom Golden

      You are welcome. I hope you are correct that there are too many men and men’s issues to ever be silent again. I just don’t see it yet and hope and pray for millions upon millions to speak out against the hate that is the default.

  • GQuan

    It shouldn’t surprise anyone. It’s clear that the criterion used in this context to judge that something is a “hate site” is simply that it supports a viewpoint dedicated to a male perspective. We must remember: this is a zero-sum game to them. Feminism is good and right, anything that opposes feminism is hateful and inherently wrong. Feminism is the voice of the victim class, the woman; any male voice threatening feminist narrative is part of the ruling class and shores up or buttresses inequality. Any site focusing on male issues or male victimization is of course by definition in opposition to feminism, by means of spreading a contrary message and undermining the feminist narrative. That’s the case whether it actively attacks feminism, like this site, or is a passive “non-combatant” like Toy Soldiers. It’s total war to these people. More than just a desire to marginalize the anti-feminist, anti-traditionalist voices, I honestly believe many of these people truly do consider that list a list of hate sites. If you buy into the feminist narrative – I mean truly buy into it – then anything and everything male and non-feminist equals “desire to oppress/degrade women”.

  • shmiggen

    I take it these sites are blocked at public computers ie libraries and colleges.

    At least we sleep easy knowing that those computers are not used a tenth as much as people’s own pc’s and laptops.

    • John Kimble

      O2 are a mobile telecoms company, therefore people using their laptop on the go or their cell phone to access the internet are having the sites blocked.

      We’re talking 12 million people in the UK alone, and the people behind the filter claim 250 million users.

  • GQuan

    The sites listed are so diverse that surely anyone who takes a look at more than a couple will see that the only unifying feature is in their field of interest, not in their tone, specific content or degree of “activism”. In other words, their “crime” should be obvious, and it’s got nothing to do with any quality individual to the site. On that list I see sites that range from those I can’t believe would offend anyone through to a few that I’m personally uncomfortable with (and avoid), and I can see why they put people off. (It should go without saying, of course, that “putting people off” is not “spreading hate”, no more than the colleague at work who you think’s a jerk is somehow a criminal or needs to be fired. But of course, to many feminists, if it makes them uncomfortable it’s unacceptable and must go.

    It’s also telling that while I consider feminism to be, at its core, hateful (for reasons explained so well by GirlWritesWhat in her contributions to the “is feminism hate?” online debate), I’ve never once said feminist sites and channels should be silenced, blocked or labelled as unacceptable. If you can only maintain your ideological and philosophical influence by gagging the opposition, you need to take a good look at how those ideologies and philosophies work.

  • GQuan

    This in reply to David Sutton: …Or those courting feminist approval. A lot of powerful people who support and defend feminism – most of them men – are in it for power and know who they need to court to get it. We should remember that – it might not be feminists. It might be people who would throw feminists to the wolves in an instant if they were no longer useful. Feminists are powerful, but that’s in large part due to a love-hate symbiosis with the powerful men they claim to oppose…

  • feminismisbullshit

    False rape society…..seriously?

    Even giving links to news articles about false accusers somehow constitutes “hate”

  • Richard Ford

    One strange aspect to all of this is a free app that Norton produce that scans posted links on my Facebook feed. I posted both AVFM and men are good and was told the links were OK

    • Dean Esmay

      That’s only looking for certain types of malicious software, it’s not trying to screen what you see for purposes of protecting you from ideas others don’t like.

  • Peter Wright (Tawil)

    @Tom: “The free speech of humanitarian activists is being silenced by a group that is hidden from view and exercises control over the lives of others from behind a screen.”

    I’d love to write a full article about this practice of silencing men’s issues. There are women (and men) in bureaucratic government/NGO positions around the world who use their positions to shut down awareness of men’s issues, and to neutralise male agency. The practice is now ubiquitous.

    I call these people threshold guardians. I note Dr. F has a more colourful term: ‘Boom-gate bitches’.

    The MO of these people is the use of what’s called “administrative discretion” which refers to the wriggle-room in the protocols of any process or organisation. They use that administrative discretion to destroy all free speech about men’s issues.

    • Dean Esmay

      They’re starting to fail, and we can expect them to get more desperate–and potentially more violent–over time. But they’re dinosaurs and just hoping to make it to the retirement check, many of them, if they aren’t already on the alimony racket, and are leaving these poor hapless miserable 3rd wavers in their wake. I feel some real pity for some of those 3rd wavers.

      Some of them.

      (By the way, I officially object to the “1st wave/2nd wave” thing as I think the 1st wave was made up as convenient fiction by the self-declared 2nd wavers. But whatever, the terminology is fixed so I use it.)

    • Tom Golden

      Yes. They have built a wall of bureaucracy that functions like an extreme filter that not only censors men’s issues it discourages male applicants, male opinions, basically male friendly anything. Great book by Zepezauer called “The Feminist Crusades” that goes into great detail of exactly how they built it. The author, an 80 year old male asks at one point in the book how feminism grew so quickly. He responds to his own question with the simple phrase “They Lied.” LOL The book shows each “crusade” and the lies that were told, who told them, who funded them, the organizations that were built to blare their misandry. It is very enlightening but also very depressing. The last chapter on their funding totals over the years is an eye opener. I did a little review on the book that can be seen here:

      • Peter Wright (Tawil)

        Enjoyed your review Tom, and the book sounds interesting… might have a chew on it.

        @Tom: “The one missing component that was present in the movie but not in this book was, um, “twoo wuv.” Sacrifice was expected but there was no return of love in response, no appreciation, only harsh judgement, complaints, blame, and an endless pit of requests for more than they had received.”

        This comment immediately reminded of the troubadours of the Middle ages (and all men since!). It was standard fare in troubadour poetry and romantic epics for the woman to NOT reward the man for his sacrificial and servile behaviour. The French would say of such women that she was sauvage and that a better woman might grant her merci to such a man. However the sauvage women were everywhere.

        In those stories the knight or male lover is almost always in an abject state due to the harshness of the lady. One might say it was the rules of the game. On the point of courtly love C.S. Lewis says it well:

        “Every one has heard of courtly love, and everyone knows it appeared quite suddenly at the end of the eleventh century at Languedoc. The sentiment, of course, is love, but love of a highly specialized sort, whose characteristics may be enumerated as Humility, Courtesy, Adultery and the Religion of Love. The lover is always abject. Obedience to his lady’s lightest wish, however whimsical, and silent acquiescence in her rebukes, however unjust, are the only virtues he dares to claim. There is a service of love closely modelled on the service which a feudal vassal owes to his lord. The lover is the lady’s ‘man’. He addresses her as midons, which etymologically represents not ‘my lady’ but ‘my lord’. The whole attitude has been rightly described as ‘a feudalisation of love’. This solemn amatory ritual is felt to be part and parcel of the courtly life.”

        • Tom Golden

          Thanks for a very interesting post Peter. We could all do well to learn about the reality of these old customs rather than the feminist spin of everything being the oppression of women. The quote from Lewis is a keeper.

          Just to be clear my goals for men and boys are that they have choice and get compassion. At this point we have neither.

  • Zorro

    I used to run Norton 360 firewall and antivirus. My subscription expired and I bought McAfree Total Protection.

    Norton asked that I complete a “Why are you leaving us? survey.

    That was two weeks ago. I’m frankly surprised the FBI hasn’t paid me a courtesy visit. I was somewhat untethered in my remarks. And like Dean Esmay, I was shocked beyond words at Toy Soldiers being on their hate list. That’s like listing Fischer-Price as a hate group, or Captain Kangaroo as a hate-monger.

    WTF is happening to this country?!

    • Nightwing1029

      Also, AVG has no block on these sites.
      I know, because I clicked through them all.
      I have never really liked Norton. Too invasive of the computer system.
      Almost a virus, itself, in my opinion.

      • Turbo

        Yep, I don’t know why anyone would use it. I am amazed it is still around.

        • Turbo

          Norton I mean, I don’t know why anyone would use Norton.

        • strix

          I think their main market is corporate networks. Rightly or wrongly, they have a reputation for technical excellence which, along with their centralised (Active Directory) management facilities, they exploit to peddle their dross to middle-sized to enormous companies who fear for their precious data.

          Hrm. Now, where have I seen that fear-based narrative play out before…?

          • Turbo

            I remember back before windows when we were running ms-dos on our machines and using programs like X-tree for file management. Back then you would always have a disc with Norton utilities so that you could retrieve accidentally deleted files, as well as other handy functions. They certainly had a good reputation back then.

          • strix


            omg, I remember XTree… Yes, Norton Utils were fantastic. McAffee had the ‘market’ in antivirus, though, not least because it was free for personal users. Lots of other fantastic DOS-based tools and bits and pieces.

            Did you ever use DESQview or OS/2? Ah, nostalgia…

            If you ever have a hankering for Xtree, check out ZTreeWin.

          • Turbo

            @ strix

            Yep, bit of walking down memory lane here.

            No I have never used DESQview or OS/2. Wasn’t OS/2 going to be the new whizz bang operating system that would blow ms-dos out of the water but never really gained much traction?

            Yes, I did Iove xtree, I thought it was the most fantastic piece of file management software at the time.

            Ah yes, memories.

            You know, I still cannot force myself to call them “folders”. To me they are still “directories”. People look at me stupid when I use that word.

            Thanks so much for that link to Ztreewin, I will definitely download and have a look when I have time. Working just now, but my mind keeps floating back.


          • Turbo

            Help, spambot capture.

          • Turbo

            @ strix

            Yep, this is a stroll down memory lane.

            No, I never did use you ever use DESQview or OS/2?
            Wasn’t OS/2 the operating system that was going to kill off ms-dos but didn’t end up gaining much traction?

            Yes I loved Xtree, I thought it was the most fantastic piece of file management software at the time.

            Thank you so much for that link to ZtreeWin. I had a quick look and I will definitely download it, if for no other reason than nostalgia.

            You know, I still cannot get used to using the word “Folders”. To me they are still “Directories”, but when I use that term most people look at me strangely.


          • strix

            No I have never used DESQview or OS/2. Wasn’t OS/2 going to be the new whizz bang operating system that would blow ms-dos out of the water but never really gained much traction?

            I used them both, although I didn’t really have enough memory (only 2 MB, can you believe it?) to really make proper use of DESQview.

            DESQview was the first half decent multitasking kernel for DOS. Much more stable than Windows, and much faster and light-weight.

            When I got a better machine, I switched to OS/2 2.0. OS/2 was a decent, coherent, well-designed operating system, more like NT, where DOS+WIN was rather a toy. Its I/O subsystems were much better, it had a decent filesystem (HPFS, not dissimilar to NTFS, with which it also had common heritage) and more. It was a much more industrial-class OS, intended for applications where reliability mattered more than price or compatibility.

            OS/2 was originally a joint effort between IBM and M$ and therefore there was a lot of shared code and rights between OS/2, DOS and windows, so it could run both windows and native OS/2 applications. When Windows 3.1 really took off, M$ rewrote Windows (what would become NT) to be a proper OS and, because it was a rewrite, flipped IBM the bird and they went their separate ways.

            I would guess that’s why OS/2 never really took off. It was technically a better OS, but betamax vs. VHS etc.

            Since then, I’ve variously used NT4, then Linux, then Windows XP/Vista/7 as my needs have changed. Thank gods for cygwin, I would go mad without it. bash be good…

            Yes, I did Iove xtree, I thought it was the most fantastic piece of file management software at the time.

            I generally preferred the CLI, but Xtree was extremely useful for certain tasks.

            You know, I still cannot get used to using the word “Folders”. To me they are still “Directories”, but when I use that term most people look at me strangely.

            For some reason, I tend to call them folders when looking at a GUI, but directory at the CLI.

            Help, spambot capture.


          • Turbo

            @ strix

            The spambot capture was just a note to the mods because I thought my last comment got caught by the spam filter, it wasn’t directed to you, but no matter I typed it again.

            Thanks for that brief history on the OS’s, enjoyed it, you filled in some things that I had forgotten, and some I didn’t know.

            “I didn’t really have enough memory (only 2 MB, can you believe it?)”

            I sure do, my first PC had 1Mb, and only because I purchased an extra 360K so that my drafting package would run better.

      • Near Earth Object

        “Almost a virus, itself, in my opinion.”

        Almost 3 months to the day, ago, AVfM put out a Norton story. At that time, I told a story about how Norton acted like a virus on my computer.
        Recall the Norton story AVfM published almost 3 months ago.
        In and around that time, I installed IE9 because IE8 was not supporting an increasing number of things I wanted to do and look at on the computer. I didn’t like IE9, so I did a system restore back to IE8. After doing this, I noticed that my Norton was gone. I reinstalled Norton from disc. Norton took to my computer like a freaking virus.
        I went through this twice, before I finally restored my computer to its factory settings.
        Norton’s tentacles reach very deep into a system.

        The ‘N’ in Norton now stands for Never again.

  • ChrixtheGreat

    hmm. I have never even heard of most of these sites. Well, there in my favorites list now. I got some good reading coming up I think.

  • Shmiggen Mghow

    Thank you for all the good work you do, Mr. Golden and your YT videos are superb. I’m particularly fond of the one on how men deal with pain.

  • Shmiggen Mghow

    Off topic, but here is some good news on a site linked to from Cafe:

  • Bb Malley

    This is incredible. As I manage computers at my university, can you suggest some good filter, one that does not act as censorship? Clearly these products are not compatible with an institution that defends free speech. Thank you.

    • strix

      Good man! Provided your DHCP servers don’t offer the IPs for the Symantec DNS servers, you’re good.

      You no doubt have your own DNS servers anyway; as long as they use the official list of DNS root hints, and don’t forward requests via a 3rd party, you’re safe.

  • Kosh

    If anyone’s interested, I got a reply from the Liberal Party of BC. I’ve posted a doc file (I couldn’t get the PDF saver to maintain the links) to The file includes the original question that I sent to them on the night of the debate as well as a response from Antoinette Dewit regarding the Liberal Party’s view that the behaviour is “unacceptable” and how they acknowledge that men can be victims too, with a lot of links for services available to victims of domestic violence… almost all slanted towards women, of course. I can’t help but wonder if she read the links before she sent them to me. So far, no other party has responded.

    • strix

      Print-to-pdf will usually not preserve hyperlinks, but some packages (including OpenOffice and, I believe, Word 2007) have other mechanisms to export to PDF.

      An alternative is to save the files as HTML (particularly as you’re hosting on a web server), or if you don’t like that, try wkpdf (although that link is not working for me right now) to convert HTML to PDF. If you have access to Acrobat Pro, you can generate PDFs from HTML while preserving hyperlinks.

      May I suggest that you don’t put RAR archives on a web server? Few people even have UnRAR and won’t bother to install it (especially as it’s not, as such, free software). If you must compress it, use ZIP, which is pretty much universal now. Don’t bother to compress PDF, JPG or PNG files, or files whose size is mostly accounted for by already-compressed formats. In any case, compressed files are a nuisance and not in keeping with web content because the reader is forced to download the archive to their machine and extract its contents.

  • Richard Ford

    Gary’s Shoes a fascinating MGTOW/finance blog is covering the companies many financial problems.

    I use the free version of AVG myself and would recommend it to anyone.

    • Kimski

      “I use the free version of AVG myself and would recommend it to anyone.”

      Same here, and never had any problems like the ones mentioned in the article.
      The update popping up scares the living daylights out of me every time, but compared to being subjugated to unwanted censoring, I’m pretty sure I can live with that.

  • Legal Layperson

    To the lawyers out here, would an inappropriate classification as ‘hate’ site count as libel/defamation in some jurisdictions? If yes, would it make sense to sue Norton/Symatec?

    • strix

      I’m not a lawyer but, in my understanding, you have to demonstrate specific and quantifiable damages arising from specific and false statements to specific individuals or legal entities in order to sue for libel.

      In my estimation, what Symantec are doing wouldn’t meet even that admittedly very low bar (at least, very low here in the UK). At no point do they say “the owners of specific site X hate women and want to hurt them”. As far as I know, they never list the sites they block, and blocking a particular site isn’t quite the same as accusing the owners of hate crime. They could argue that they blocked a site merely because its commentators sometimes say misogynist things (not even that they are misogynists).

      It would be a very tough, up-hill battle, and such legal funds would probably better be reserved for more pressing fights.

      • plasmacutter

        Popping up a big orange sign that says “we blocked this webpage because it’s a hate site” does not count as libel?

  • Prince_Tybalt

    CAFE’s “” pops up on my McAffee, not sure if the security programs you mention also lists them..

  • Toysoldier

    I remain awed by Symantec blocking my site. I sent an email to them weeks ago, and this was the reply:

    Your blog is available for any O2 mobile phone user to view. We respect our customers’ freedom to choose what material they access, but equally we want to protect our younger customers. Due to the nature of your blog’s content we don’t think it’s appropriate for people under the age of 18. So a parental control restriction was added to protect younger readers. […]

    There are many reasons why a web site’s content may not be suitable for people under the age of 18. We, along with many other companies, use a third party company called Rulespace to review all web sites and assign them to a category. I understand why you’re not happy that your web site has been assigned the category of ‘hate’. We’ve asked Rulespace to review the site and they have concluded the category is correct and won’t be changed.

    The ‘hate’ category is a very broad category that covers a range of topics. Any web site that is shown to be displaying aggression to any person or group of people will be assigned to this category.

    Your site talks about sexual violence. And whilst you’re campaigning against this rather than advocating for it, the category would remain the same. This is to prevent people under the age of 18 from viewing any content related to ‘hate’.

    I hope this answers your questions.

    When I informed the man that many other sites, particularly feminist sites, that feature similar content were not labeled “hate” sites ( Yes Means Yes, Safer Campus, and Manboobz are ruled “pornography”, “health”, and “blogging” respectively), he told me that there was nothing that could be done because the powers that be would not change it.

    So far, I have not heard of anyone having a problem reading my blog. However, I fail to see what about my blog makes it “hateful”. Of course, I do have a way of pissing people off. Perhaps that is what bothered them.

    • Barney Wills

      ive noticed many times that when software is used where human judgement is needed(as rulespace seems to be doing) that software shoves a site into a category it doesnt belong; for example, i used to have a simple forum on a free webhost, its only rule was “No child pornography”; said forum was repeatedly shut down. when emailed about this, the webhost said that their bot marked it for deletion simply because of the presence of the word “child pornography” in the rules page

    • Rob

      Perhaps go after rulespace – since they are likely not to be subjected to scrunity and practice personal bias.

      these kind of self rule watch groups don’t like to have any spotlight on them( especially their funding) or like to explain their justification.

      symantec is old hat anyway and all they have done is farmed out the blame and liability to another organisation.

      found this about rulespace

      “In October 2010, Symantec acquired RuleSpace,”

      so its not a third party company since symantec own it.l
      sounds like a legal plausable deniability

    • Ted Harrold

      If anything, your blog and the people contributing it have made me shed tears I didn’t even realize I had been holding in my life. I am grateful to have the chance to tell you impact your work has had on me. Thank you.

    • Sandon

      Yet they can keep all the hate sites that Feminists spew, like all men should die or all men are chopped penis’ etc. What a bunch of liars and hypocrites, let’s sue them and any other that tries to stop our speech, while ignorantly denying others make the same type of vulgar comments.

    • Sandon

      sexual violence, well that would mean all sites would mostly be banned. Including feminists that talk about rape victims continuously. Animals that mate, that is violence, they must be blocked also. Shit we better stop all the sex education in school, since all sex is apparently violent towards women. Any of those cause that say violence against women we say no, will have to be stopped from airing on TV in front of billions of children.

    • Jack Strawb

      You reject feminism, therefore you’re a hate site. It’s probably that simple. Wrong, but simple.

  • Barney Wills

    Holy shit, how is symantec even still active? It peddles malware that disguises itself as an antivirus for fucks sake!

    • Sandon

      It is funny you say that because when my XP computer already pre loaded with it, i had nothing but problems with these pedaling, meddling scam artists and now i don’t have it and use the free AVG, plus Malwarebytes anti-malware, i get less of these intrusions by far. I always believed that these viruses were purposely produced so lying scam artist virus companies could make millions of dollars in profit, just like all other scams, such as TV companies fitting parts that make those tv’s blow up after a certain time or mowers that don’t last as long as they used to.

      • Jack Strawb

        Ah, “planned obsolescence.”

  • Attila

    I think a good way to protect yourself socially and even professionally is to come across as an adherent of a VERY conservative religion (Orthodox Judaism/Christian, pre-Vat2 Catholic or Muslim) and to claim discrimination on religious/cultural grounds whenever the occasion presents itself. Use it to deflect “hate speech” accusations and to even claim harassment on religious grounds when convenient.

  • fathers4fairness
  • Ted Harrold

    And now we know why we NEVER use their products: none of these sites are (thankfully) blocked for me as I refuse to use any of these terrible products; terrible for my computer And my rights.

  • nanciesweb

    I’m surprised that Symantec is still around. I don’t know of anyone who uses it.

    Where are they getting their funds?

    • Sandon

      Feminists LOL!

      • nanciesweb


        Well, *someone* is paying them.

        Norton is an inferior product compared to the free ones (AVG, avast, clamwin, etc) and if you have it pre-installed, God forbid that you want to remove it, because it’s worse than the viruses that they claim to protect you from.

        • Sandon

          Not sure if you understood me? I was answering your question, who pays. And yes i use AVG now and did have Norton installed as a generic computer. It was as you say a pain to remove and try to just use something else. It always conflicted, even with add remove programs. I ended up getting rid of it with help from internet searches; and i also use Malware Bytes anti malware for real bad infections.

          Apparently it sticks in your registry…..

          • nanciesweb

            I understood, I just took the opportunity to rant a little. Bad day. 😀

          • Sandon

            Hahaha! We all have bad days, i seem to have them everyday LOL!

  • Bryan Scandrett

    Oh, please give these rejects a bullhorn. I swear to you, Norton/Symantec, and O2 are stocked with hard core MRA’s. How could they give the MHRM a bigger boost than this? WTF could they do that would result in more new people visiting this entire list of sites other than bogus banning them.
    This kind of publicity has max bang for the buck and I’m damn sure I’ll be linking back here to Tom from sundry #gamergate articles. These faceless people are trying to sew up the internet just as they have done the rest of the world.

  • Sandon

    Why is there no feminist sites on that list? They talk about sexual violence continuously. Why are there no site showing animal mating, since they are violent acts? LIARS LIARS LIARS

  • Sandon

    Let’s boycott everyone NOW!

  • Reason

    Wow! Clearly men’s rights groups need to find the magic buttons feminists are pressing.

  • Jack Strawb

    I’m assuming this means with Norton as your anti-virus, you cannot visit Tom’s site and for the other sites listed you have to enter the name of the site somewhere to work around the block, but a little more information would be helpful.

    In any case, such censorship is obscene but not unexpected. It should not surprise us to see other anti-virus programs block these sites in the near future.

  • Eric Marsh

    A banner ad I just noticed on AVfM(!):

    “Buy Symantec EV SSL.Protect your site against phishing. Get started today.”