Objections

It is no wonder, then, that web site authors are very concerned about the impact that Third Voice has on their ability to control the content and appearance of their own sites.  Some web authors have joined together in a grass-roots effort to ban Third Voice in its current form.  These critics feel that Third Voice is graffiti -- vitrual vandalism -- and that authors and artists who post content on the Internet should be able to protect themselves against such an alteration of their work through technical and/or legal means.  The most vocal opposition comes from Say No To Third Voice, a 650-member organization dedicated to "the restoration of the webmasters' rights to control the integrity of their websites," and a number of individual Third Voice critics have also launched their own protest sites to register their opposition to the software.

These opponents are exploring both technical and legal means of protecting web sites against Third Voice commentary.  Programmers have developed and are selling computer programs that make it impossible for users with Third Voice to view a protected page.  The Simply No Third Voice program, for example, blocks all users who have Third Voice installed on their browsers, either by redirecting Third Voice users to another site or requiring them to accept a clickwrap license that only permits them to view the webpage after they agree not to annontate.  However, there is some question as to whether such software is effective against Third Voice; the current software explicitly refuses to offer a warranty that it will work, and many critics claim that there is no technical way around Third Voice.  Thus, many critics of Third Voice believe that a legal attack may be a better option.