Content Blocking and the Patron as Situated Knower: What Would It Take for an Internet Filter to Work?

Abstract

Librarians often object to Internet filters on the grounds that filters are prone to overblocking and underblocking. This argument implies that a significant problem with contemporary filters is that they are insufficiently fine-grained. In this article, we posit that present-day filters will always be conceptually capable of failure, regardless of how granular their content analysis becomes. This is because, we argue, objections to content are best understood as objections to problematic interactions between content and particular knowers. We import the concept of the situated knower from feminist epistemology to capture the heterogeneous, socially embedded nature of patrons, about whom we cannot make blunt generalizations for filtering purposes. A successful filter would need information about these differently situated patrons, the content they seek, and the interactions between the two. We conclude that a genuinely successful Internet filter would therefore need to be both mind reading and fortune-telling. O ne common objection to Internet filters is that they sometimes block content they should not block and fail to block content that they should block. These phenomena are known as overblocking and underblocking, respectively. The criticism that filters regularly overblock and underblock addresses both particular filtering policies and, more generally, manufacturer settings; it also presupposes that a sufficiently fine-grained filter that blocks by rote in accordance with an existing policy would be a successful filter. But is this the proper goal for an Internet filter? To put it another way: Even if existing Internet filters could be made to perfectly do what they are designed to do, would this constitute successful Internet filtering or merely successful blocking of particular (kinds of) content? In this article, we articulate a conceptual answer to this question in the context of the library. Our answer stands in contrast to more common technical or policy-oriented ones. We argue that in order to genuinely succeed, given librarians' other goals and values, an Internet filter would have to take account of the role that the information sought would play in the

Internet filters in Canadian libraries

“…Before delving into the topic of internet filters, a basic definition of what they are is necessary. Lawrence and Fry (2016) review internet filtering software and explain that its purpose is to: Restrict users' access to web content. There are varied methods for blocking content to meet this end.…”

“…For instance, filtering software might limit access on the basis of keywords or text strings, scanned pixels, third-party site ratings, or some other information source. (p. 404) Filtering software was first developed in the mid-1990s in response to mounting concern and anxiety regarding potentially controversial topics on the internet, and the perceived vulnerability of minors who may gain access to it (Lawrence & Fry, 2016). Additionally, the term 'filters' may be used to describe "algorithmic personalization" (Peterson, Oltmann, & Knox, 2017, p. 4584); this relates to one's social media feed, for example, as the information presented there is curated for each user depending on their activity, beliefs, and interests.…”

“…However, this action blocks all content: 'good' or 'bad,' as the URL doesn't provide information about the content on the sites. While filtering software has become more context-sensitive over time, both underand over-blocking of content can occur (Lawrence & Fry, 2016). Commercial software programs are available to assist with implementing block lists, such as K9 Web Protection (Peterson et al, 2017).…”

“…

Internet filters are a method to block access to web content (Lawrence & Fry, 2016). Instantaneously, the word 'blocks' causes advocates of intellectual freedom to stand at attention.

…”