What is Digg?65 Comments
- IrishJoe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+59If this were a one-time event (deleting political statements from a webcast) it might be excusable as a mistake, but AT&T has admitted that on at least two previous occasions they deleted political statements made by performers from webcasts. This means that it is a corporate policy to censor political free speech not an Innocent mistake. Which is why the shareholders are so concerned. Add to that the fact that AT&T is blocking net neutrality saying that they would never censor political speech and therefore net neutrality is not needed, makes us all very suspicious.
- theNazz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+36I would think that setting up blue rooms to un-Constitutionally eavesdrop on US Citizens would alarm people more than concert censorship, but maybe I'm just nit picking?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+39AT&T’s chairman Randall Stephenson is a big supporter of President Bush.
- Cyberen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24If you were a heartless rich *****, you'd support Bush too.
- AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21As much as this looks like more annoying "Bush sucks" comment spam, take a look at the source for this story:
-----
"In any case, during Lollapalooza, Pearl Jam singer Eddie Vedder altered the lyrics of a Pink Floyd song “Another Brick in the Wall” (now that’s my demo) to say, “George Bush! Leave This World Alone.” This was evidently too much for the delicate sensitivities of the gatekeepers of AT&T’s Blue Room, and so they blocked it out. Also cut out was a line that said, “George Bush! Find yourself another home.”"
"Some people checked out the campaign contributions of AT&T’s chairman Randall Stephenson and found he was a big supporter of President Bush...."
--------
So we have a company whose chairman is a financial supporter of the Bush campaign censoring anti-Bush lyrics. Coincidence? Possibly. But highly suspect nonetheless. - 10001110101, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17Skip the blogspam, here's the entire article: http://www.marcgunther.com/?p=246
- jragon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17Exactly. They've been caught red-handed doing something they kept claiming they'd never do.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Its a sad fact, but the 3 times they have admitted doing this is probably covering at least 10 times as many occasions where they weren't caught red handed.
- mulling, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12I'm divesting all my AT&T stock because of the pearl jam *****...oh, and the fact that they're LETTING THE GOVERNMENT SPY ON ME.
- lazyfisherman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11AT and T's reputation is already tarnished, they're too big, approaching a monopoly, many people don't trust them ever since it was revealed that they were in bed with the NSA and Randalls' protective love of Bush doesn't make it any better. I don't know what the shareholders are worried about.
- elknino, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9this issue extends much further than just the political scene you ignorant *****
- refujee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9*cough* ROOM 614A *cough*
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Please keep your retarded comments out of digg.
- bruinexmo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Oh, please. They only thing they worry about is this news affecting their net worth. They don't give a ***** about free speech, otherwise they wouldn't have invested in AT&T in the first place.
- greenm1981, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6What are you talking about? This is news. There should be more of it. Exposing the destruction of our civil liberties is the primary job of the once great "fourth estate."
- elipabst, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7I'll use 2 tin cans connected by a string before I become an AT&T customer. Shame too, because I might actually have considered buying an iPhone if I didn't have to sign my soul away to those bastards at AT&T.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6NetNeutrality IS needed.
Just look what the ISPs in the UK are doing to the BBC because they oversold their capacity to make a quick buck! - ButterBuddha, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Alarmed??? We're too fat and rich to care.....
- mulling, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Instead of complaining about it, everyone should just short their stock. Corporations care about only one thing: share price.
- Shorties, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Don't give me that Ron Paul *****, if the government doesn't make it illegal to filter traffic, we will have corporate censored internet, and we will be more corporate then ever before.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The gov changed the ruling that the telcoms had to be broke up, so now they are becoming ma bell again. This is why the telcos/gov work together. Gov says " you can make all the money you want, as long as we can spy on the people that use your service" Telco says " sure thing! done deal"
- fittysix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3There's a 'black hole' priority in all the QOS implementations I've seen..
What if AT&T decides to 'prioritize' certain political websites with 'black hole'? what if they decide that youtube is competing with their Television service, or Vonage is competing with their phone service, and decide to set the priority to nearly nothing to degrade that service?
Net Neutrality is not censorship, but is easily abused to become a tool for censorship. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Dugg for the funny implication that AT&T has a "reputation" to protect, and that its shareholders are "worried" about it going south.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Why, hello there sheepie
- wendelgee2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Whether in a paper, on tv, or on the internet, the news is mostly politics. Dumbass.
- yodaj007, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That was my pet monkey, Dingolingo.
- streetscream, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2my thoughts exactly... wtf is he talking about?
- profertel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Trillium is interested in ethical profitability.
- MindTrigger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Let's not forget that AT&T is in bed with the NSA giving the police state a hand with domestic spying. As much as I want to trade my Blackjack up for a second-gen iPhone when they come out, I won't be doing so if I'm stuck with AT&T.
- krebcycle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm willing to test that theory.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Huh?
- knomevol, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1right! how about the shareholders be alarmed at the despotic, unconstitutional spying of domestic communications?
- drtyfrnk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dugg for Pearl Jam in the title
- ImOscar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm no investment guru, but does shorting a stock have any effect on it's share price?
Maybe everyone who was upset about this could just sell their shares, at which point someone in the market would pick up these discounted shares for a profit if there was enough concern to drop the share price.
What people really need to do is terminate service with them. - ThatsUnpossible, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think you mean sell their stock, which would cause the share price to go down, if there were more sellers than buyers for an extended period of time.
- yodaj007, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3What laws and regulations are in place that caused AT&T to censor political speech, exactly?
- mishaco, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1except in cases of monopoly .
- insanebrain, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2[Post removed]
- Protonz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm a little late back to a thread I'm sure nobody will ever read again. Oh well.
If you want proof that I am correct, look at the history of radio. At one time everyone had their own radio station, from churches to small businesses. Much like the internet. Then the government found it necessary to regulate the 'public airways', now we have the corporate controlled radio companies dominating. And if a little guy wants to setup his own transmitter without expensive government approval... well he will be put in jail.
Libertarians are not pro-corporation either. Corporations limit liability, this is not a good way to prevent harm from being done. - funkdoctor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Can Pearl Jam do no wrong? One of the most fan friendly bands today. Pearl Jam FTW!
- OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It is the fattening up before the slaughter.
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think the concert censorship is actually a bigger problem.
- mmmcookies, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Best comment of the day.
- delvach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wow, that's a lucid, level-headed response! You clearly understand this issue better than the rest of us. Your ideas fascinate me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Reputation is a factor in profitability. If people don't trust AT&T, they'll take their business elsewhere, whether it's concert promoter or consumers.
- lonniebiz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2AT&T has unethical business practices; they are notorious for quoting you a low price and then sending a bill for a higher price.
- grungegbunny, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You said it exactly.
- ThatsUnpossible, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1How is it fan-friendly to mix your personal politics with your music?
Eddie V is free to do this of course, and I admire his willingness to stick his neck out (same as my two other favorite live artists: DMB and U2 do in other ways), but the only reason you feel this is fan-friendly is because you agree with his political views. - wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Really? Who could have guessed that AT&T does the same thing that the other telco, cable, internet, and numerous other monthly service companies do?
There are three Cable Cos, two TelCos, and numerous dialup providers in this area. Not one of them quotes a price that includes the hidden fees they add when they send the bill for any service they offer. Welcome to the real world. - fezzen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Problem being that they represented the broadcast as a live stream of an event and then modified it without telling anyone. Regardless of your corporate-teat-sucking beliefs, that's wrong, and most definately IS censorship.
-
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is