One of the common questions I get asked is "which filter should I use?"

However, a better question really is "Should I use a filter?"

It's a surprising question, I know. Filtering is frequently given as "the" solution to avoiding inappropriate content, or at least a major part of the solution. However, there is a good deal of evidence that typical PC based filtering simply does not work!

Much of the evidence comes from civil libertarians, who have issues with the whole idea of censorship in any shape size or form. That bias makes me cautious about accepting their claims at face value. However, there is other evidence that clearly supports this claim.

A study done in July of 1999 (http://www.copacommission.org/papers/filter_effect.pdf) by the COPA Commision found that the best filter evaluated missed over 30% of objectionable sites. And, the worst one managed to block less than 20% of the sites it should have. That is not much good, is it?

Of course, it's almost 8 years later, and there have been some improvements. But, considering what the starting point was, even "new and improved" doesn't mean very effective. More recent reviews support this ides. This site (http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/?ttreng=1&ttrkey=internet+filter) doesn't give a single one of the filters they review - and sell - an "excellent" rating in filtering effectiveness. These guys have every reason to rate at least one of the products as highly as possible, but don't. That says something to me.

Consumer Reports, in a report titled Filtering software: Better, but still fallible, Comes to a similar conclusion. They have nothing to sell, and no "anti censorship" agenda. What they show is sobering.  "But our evaluation of 11 products, including the filters built into online services AOL and MSN, found that the software isn’t very effective at blocking sites promoting hatred, illegal drugs, or violence."  and "Filters keep most, but not all, porn out"  don't make for a very cheerful assessment of the genre.

That's just the beginning of the problem.  There is a good deal that that is totally inappropriate that most PC based filters don't even start dealing with.  Whether it's anorexia "support" sites (actually encouraging anorexia!) or paganism, or anything in between, much of the content can be really dangerous.  Another type of content that filters simply cannot do well with, is content that is about an acceptable subject, but is either inaccurate or presented in a way that is antithetical to Torah.  For instance, there are many sites that are full of leitzanus about torah and yiddishkeit.  It's very hard to filter those things with a regular filter. 

What about the Jewish ISP based filters?  Well, in theory, they should do better, because their starting point is closer to that of the frum family.   And, because they are ISP based, it's much harder to get around.  But, make no mistake.  They are constrained by many of the same difficulties and limitations of the other internet filters.  In short, far from perfect.

The bottom line? Filtering can be a waste of time and energy.  Worse, it gives a false sense security. If you are going to use a filter, it must be part of a larger strategy. There are some steps to Better Filtering , but remember it really is "bidieved". You really should try for The Ultimate Filter. But, that's not always possible, so if you can't do that, look into Monitoring Software as well.   Also, I've listed some Filtering Options with their advantages and disadvantages.