What is Digg?78 Comments
- austin63, on 10/10/2007, -1/+39Because you need to change your terms of service to do that?
- bitterg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+36You can trust AT&T about as far as you can throw them.
- h0zae, on 10/10/2007, -0/+31He hits me cos he loves me :(
- magus_melchior, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22No, but it's a standard damage-control response, i.e., "distract them with the fear of something worse".
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20You're absolutely write.
- gronne, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13That's kind of like the "I'm punishing you because I love you so much" argument. I didn't know my grandma was running AT&T now. I better start sending thank you cards.
- mdfrancois, on 10/10/2007, -5/+18Its not what the PR guys say out loud, its what the lawyers right in your contract.
- Bobski, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13"the ToS is only meant to distance the company from those who support violence or exploit children."
Uh, yeah. I've got a bridge you might be interested in. I'll sell it cheap. - technoredneck, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Dugg for utter hilarity.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10"Well, with your bad knee Ed, you shouldn't throw anybody..."
Save Ferris! - MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10The same AT&T that helped the government conduct illegal wiretapping on it's citizens?
AT&T can do no wrong! - superyounan1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11the road to hell is paved with good intentions
- macattacks10, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10"at&t exploits children and supports violence" will get you disconnected twice!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9And by 'good' do they mean 'good-bye' for "damag[ing] the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries"?
Just curious... - maroon1872, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10i am violent an i exploit children and i LOVE AT&T, i wonder what AT&T would say to that...
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8AT&T knows nothing about goodness.
- Cattrin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8So.. it's about the Children and Terror and Children! Think of the children people!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Uhhh.... what the hell does violence and/or child exploitation have to do with [damaging] "the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries".
How stupid do they think we are?
You can read the policy yourself at http://home.bellsouth.net/csbellsouth/s/s.dll?spag ... or http://edit.client.yahoo.com/cspcommon/static?page ... search for "damage the name or reputation" - Paktu, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8What if I advocate violence against AT&T?
- acceptab1euname, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6They won't care until you have beef with their service.
- InetRoadkill, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6What if the children are terrorists?
- acceptab1euname, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7What's sad is that they're sure enough that people will buy that nonsense to actually use such a lame excuse.
- weebit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6"(c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries."
I don't see the word "violence", or the words "exploit of children" in that sentence. 9.2 of their TOS mentions about children, it said that protecting children is the parent or legal guardians responsibility, but they do have access controls offered through their Service. But they give no guarantees. Access controls provided through the Service are intended as a guide only. There is no mention in the clause about the reporting, etc of people that exploit children online. That in itself is troubling.
I smell a rat.
"AT&T spokesperson tells Ars Technica that the company has no interest in engaging in censorship but stopped short of saying that AT&T could not in fact exercise its ability to do so."
Yup there is a rat. The wording they have gives them a broad means to interpret anything their customers say. So if someone did not in the first place have a good following of readers, and all of the sudden AT&T found out their following grew due to something they posted about AT&T, then they could terminate your service just for that reason alone. - supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Yeah, and Bush promises not to label you a terrorist and ship you to Guantanimo Bay without a lawyer and without being charged.
Fine for now, but who knows 2 years from now what will happen.
***** you AT&T. - natnu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Just like the USA PATRIOT Act will only be used to track down terrorists.
- Hellman109, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Now AT&T are being as Facist as the US government...
"They first came for the child exploiters, then they came for the violent people, then they came for me" ? - InetRoadkill, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6The New AT&T,
Your world delivered to the NSA.
And if you bitch about it, we cut off your access to porn.
//***** AT&T and Verizon too. - ZMann, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6There's a valid point about NET NEUTRALITY to be made from this:
AT&T is currently willing to drop a customer who makes critical and damaging statements - without net neutrality protection why won't they block all of their subscribers' access to critical websites? - MageOfChrisz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"We're going to edit our ______ which will be unfair and unjust but it's to protect against child ____________."
That single blanket statement guarantees the masses are OK with it. - SiNN4R, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Thats illegal. They would be well in their rights to report it to the authorities. Changing their TOS is a very different situation.
- Qeveren, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6"Think of the children!!"
- understudy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I pay twice as much money for internet access for the sole reason of NOT giving business to ATT. I hope others will do the same. If I had to, I'd have dial up rather than give business to ATT.
_ - supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7***** AT&T, they don't have a clue.
I repeat, ***** AT&T.
No, forget that I need to say my trademark.... SUCK YOURSLEF AT&T!!! - SpyDerMann, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Cool, because my old CISCO bridge just got broken :P
- JohnnyXmas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4W T F does supporting violence of exploiting children have to do with criticizing a phone company?!?!?!
Do they have a lot of problems with people raping toddlers, then carving "***** AT&T" in their foreheads? - neotexan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Sure, Hitler also told Neville Chamberlain that his last annexation of territory would be the Sudetenland, as he was drawing plans for Czechoslovakia and Poland.
- WoollyMittens, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Also: "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."
- Subterfug, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"AT&T vows to use Terms of Service for good, not censorship..."
...so that when they censor something, they can claim it was for good and get off the hook. - DarkDragon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3NSAT&T
Your world. Delivered. To the government. - Pritchard, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3They are liars, and I can not think of a better comment. Well, I can, but my internet access would become restricted. Sorry.
- DocHoliday22, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Just wondering, last time people said they had no choice but to go with AT&T, why can't people change? Do you guys not have alternative providers? or have you been locked in?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3at&t they are the good guys just like blackwater right?
- judsond, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This is ridiculous, people can read, AT&T. Just because you say black is white doesn't make it so.
- jessehadden, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Interesting. "You must agree to grant us an unfettered power in any circumstance. However, if you agree to do that, we'll give you a non-binding promise that we'll only use it under circumstances X and Y." Somehow, I feel like I'm being had.
- sj200, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Hey AT&T! Your service SUCKS ASS!!
***** YOU! - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Total BS to invoke the "child shield".
Good riddance AT&T........ - Frostman3D, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2lol, sure... I trust you AT&T.
- R3PUBLIC0n, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If AT&T is a company the American government has chosen to handle communications, shouldn't their policy be subject to the 1st amendment as the government directly is?
- austin63, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3perhaps next time i should lay the sarcasm on a little thicker
- Arith, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@ cdahlkvist
If I could digg you twice, i wood. -
Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is