Lancaster Online: web usage among Amish & Mennonites

[Verity]

I would concur with what both Mike and Rambler shared, with the exception of Mike's thought that the ministry's vote carried to continue use of filtered internet. Some who were in leadership at that time say differently. Many of the ministry saw the faults of the program and knew it was not sustainable.

Two stories got out and gained momentum- one was that primarily one district voted against the internet. This was later proven to be false, as many concerned individuals and ministry began discussing what they actually voted. The other was that disgruntled internet users voted no as a "so there" before they left. According to the testimony of those who later left, this was not the case. As is the case with most rumors, there is an iota of truth in each one. One district was indeed more strongly and unitedly opposed than some of the others, but did not have a unanimous negative vote. And I can imagine that some disgruntled individuals did indeed vote no out of spite.

This is personal observation, others would have their own perspective. Access to the "pilot program" as it was termed was highly political. If you got in, the agreement was that there would be regular meetings with your local IT person, often a deacon who was assigned to each area. Together you would go over usage and issues and make necessary adjustments. In reality, last I heard, these meetings were occurring every several years at best, and adjustments were based on whether or not someone else tattled on you. That sounds coarse, but was the way things worked. Various businesses were permitted varied levels of internet access based on "need", and there was indeed a lot of jealousy and hard feelings. I personally did not use the program, only related closely to a number who did. From what I hear from those using the program, it is not getting any better.

The justification that "too much was invested in the pilot program to just let it go" is very sad. The leadership could have stated that upfront. I wonder if they thought about how much was invested in building trust and confidence among their people? That trust was deeply shaken by the course taken. The secrecy and power play surrounding the entire situation is very troubling.

[Verity]

To those who use Compass, do you have experience with other filters as well? Just curious.

[Soloist]

To those who use Compass, do you have experience with other filters as well? Just curious.

I’ve used a few, emypeople and compass though basically work the same.

I would say Compass has a better end user experience then Emypeople did.

[eccentric_rambler]

Two stories got out and gained momentum- one was that primarily one district voted against the internet. This was later proven to be false, as many concerned individuals and ministry began discussing what they actually voted. The other was that disgruntled internet users voted no as a "so there" before they left. According to the testimony of those who later left, this was not the case. As is the case with most rumors, there is an iota of truth in each one. One district was indeed more strongly and unitedly opposed than some of the others, but did not have a unanimous negative vote. And I can imagine that some disgruntled individuals did indeed vote no out of spite.

I am aware of at least one person who worked for an employer whose business relied on the pilot program, yet voted against the change. The reasons given boiled down to respecting the consciences of others and not using liberty to cause others to stumble.

This is personal observation, others would have their own perspective. Access to the "pilot program" as it was termed was highly political. If you got in, the agreement was that there would be regular meetings with your local IT person, often a deacon who was assigned to each area. Together you would go over usage and issues and make necessary adjustments. In reality, last I heard, these meetings were occurring every several years at best, and adjustments were based on whether or not someone else tattled on you. That sounds coarse, but was the way things worked. Various businesses were permitted varied levels of internet access based on "need", and there was indeed a lot of jealousy and hard feelings. I personally did not use the program, only related closely to a number who did. From what I hear from those using the program, it is not getting any better.

Definitely concur.

[cooper]

I’ve used a few, emypeople and compass though basically work the same.

I would say Compass has a better end user experience then Emypeople did.

A few years ago, Emypeople changed their filtered internet option to Compass' product with Emypeople branding.

[RZehr]

1950’s: Social Security exempt
1970’s: No government handouts
1990’s: More Mennonites start businesses instead of working for others. S.S. exemptions make Mennonite owned businesses 15% more profitable and competitive than their competitors
2010’s: Mennonite businesses need internet to retain their competitiveness
2030’s: ?

[Soloist]

I’ve used a few, emypeople and compass though basically work the same.

I would say Compass has a better end user experience then Emypeople did.

A few years ago, Emypeople changed their filtered internet option to Compass' product with Emypeople branding.

From what I understood from one of the original developers, they both are using the same core system.

[mike]

It's a bit sneaky, then, for a for-profit business to be called a "foundation". And it's even sneakier if a group of bishops push something through that stimulates demand for the goods and services of a business they invested in and founded...

My own denomination tries to run a filtering etc. service, but it is established as a formal nonprofit. And it is not mandatory for church members to use it. They can use any filtering product on the market they want. I personally just use Apple's built in one.

My speculation about why it is a business is that businesses are allowed more independence than nonprofits in ultra-conservative circles. If you have a nonprofit it is expected to be under firm church control. Businesses are granted much more leeway. The founders of Compass Foundation are from Wash-Franklin, Eastern, and Weaverland so it could not be coopted by one church group. There is occasionally tension between Compass Foundation and leadership of their various constituencies.

Compass has a good product and their rates are very reasonable for the relatively niche market they have. I would be surprised if it is a lucrative business although with time it could be. Constant changes in technology require a lot of research and development spending. They also need to do manual reviewing of websites. There are a lot of people who are not required to use Compass who do which I think speaks to quality of their product.

Right, I'm one of them. Our church has a list of recommended web filters, and you can choose what you like. Compass filtering is server-based, so there's no app to install or maintain on your devices. If you have a lot of devices, $7 a month adds up, so we only use it on our phones. There are plenty of good options for PCs, not so much for phones.

[mike]

To those who use Compass, do you have experience with other filters as well? Just curious.

On desktop, I use Covenant Eyes. In my opinion it works much better than Compass, and it has a reasonably priced family plan. The Covenant Eyes mobile app isn't great, and it's accountability only, no filtering. Other mobile filters are a pain to work with and often are easy to circumvent. I use a combination of Compass and Apple Screen Time for our kids.

[cooper]

To those who use Compass, do you have experience with other filters as well? Just curious.

I've used AFO, Covenant Eyes, and Compass. I prefer Compass for an enterprise environment. It does take some tech savvy to customize it, but it offers the ability to have unique filter policies for devices. For example, you can have devices that entry level employees use only allow email/whitelisted websites to prevent unnecessary browsing and a looser policies for management employees that need more access.